New here, trying to understand Trek's Aluminum frames
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
New here, trying to understand Trek's Aluminum frames
Hi all,
I recently put a 2011 1.5 on lay away. I contacted Trek via email to see what frame it was using and they verified that the 2011's are still using the Alpha White frames. This is my first road bike and wanted a good bike to get into riding and didn't want to spend over a thousand dollars. I know that for a few hundred more, I could have bought a 2.1 or 2.3.
My question is this - Are the Alpha White frames a lesser quality frame than the Alpha Black? I know they are both made from 6000 series aluminum, so must similar to some extent. However, the FX series for example use the Alpha Black frames on their lower and even middle and upper end models for half the price of my 1.5.
I'm confused as to the quality of the Alpha White frames against their other (alpha black and alpha red) frames.
I recently put a 2011 1.5 on lay away. I contacted Trek via email to see what frame it was using and they verified that the 2011's are still using the Alpha White frames. This is my first road bike and wanted a good bike to get into riding and didn't want to spend over a thousand dollars. I know that for a few hundred more, I could have bought a 2.1 or 2.3.
My question is this - Are the Alpha White frames a lesser quality frame than the Alpha Black? I know they are both made from 6000 series aluminum, so must similar to some extent. However, the FX series for example use the Alpha Black frames on their lower and even middle and upper end models for half the price of my 1.5.
I'm confused as to the quality of the Alpha White frames against their other (alpha black and alpha red) frames.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In 2009, it seemed that the main differences were shaping of the tubes (2.1 and 2.3 were less tubular, more hydroformed maybe), the black frames had nicer cosmetic welds, and back then the black frames had carbon seat stays.
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yeah, Trek says the black were utilized for "hydroforming." I did extensive research for a few months before settling on a brand and a model. I just want to be sure I'm getting a quality bike with a quality frame.
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Have been doing more research these past few days and I'm considering having my LBS order a 2.1 for me, it's only 3 or 400 $ extra.
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The extra 3 or 400$ would get me the 105 groupset on the 2.1, which is what I've been told all along to get. I think I'd rather have better components to start.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I was in similar shoes but on a smaller budget. I was more torn between 1.1 and a 1.2 but ended going with a Fisher Rail at a discounted price (since the Fisher line is going away and melding directly into Trek), which is about in between a 1.1 and 1.2 as far as specs go. I sat on and wanted a 1.5, then saw the 2.1 and felt the same. I left the store, came back the next day more level headed realizing this was my first real road bike and decided on the Fisher. In 3+ years I'll likely upgrade to something better but thats assuming I'm still very much into the hobby then as I am now.
Ultimately always spending more is going to seem better, but it comes down to needs. If getting the 105s is important (trust me I wish it was for me), then spend the extra few hundred and be completely satisfied with your bike, no buyers remorse. If you're thinking about already regretting a 1.5, my advice is just to get the 2.1 and grin walking out of the LBS. If being practical is more akin, get the 1.5 and perhaps part upgrade 105s over the coming years (even though it may cost more in the long run).
Ultimately always spending more is going to seem better, but it comes down to needs. If getting the 105s is important (trust me I wish it was for me), then spend the extra few hundred and be completely satisfied with your bike, no buyers remorse. If you're thinking about already regretting a 1.5, my advice is just to get the 2.1 and grin walking out of the LBS. If being practical is more akin, get the 1.5 and perhaps part upgrade 105s over the coming years (even though it may cost more in the long run).
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I was in similar shoes but on a smaller budget. I was more torn between 1.1 and a 1.2 but ended going with a Fisher Rail at a discounted price (since the Fisher line is going away and melding directly into Trek), which is about in between a 1.1 and 1.2 as far as specs go. I sat on and wanted a 1.5, then saw the 2.1 and felt the same. I left the store, came back the next day more level headed realizing this was my first real road bike and decided on the Fisher. In 3+ years I'll likely upgrade to something better but thats assuming I'm still very much into the hobby then as I am now.
Ultimately always spending more is going to seem better, but it comes down to needs. If getting the 105s is important (trust me I wish it was for me), then spend the extra few hundred and be completely satisfied with your bike, no buyers remorse. If you're thinking about already regretting a 1.5, my advice is just to get the 2.1 and grin walking out of the LBS. If being practical is more akin, get the 1.5 and perhaps part upgrade 105s over the coming years (even though it may cost more in the long run).
Ultimately always spending more is going to seem better, but it comes down to needs. If getting the 105s is important (trust me I wish it was for me), then spend the extra few hundred and be completely satisfied with your bike, no buyers remorse. If you're thinking about already regretting a 1.5, my advice is just to get the 2.1 and grin walking out of the LBS. If being practical is more akin, get the 1.5 and perhaps part upgrade 105s over the coming years (even though it may cost more in the long run).
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Not to knock Trek, but if you're looking for value, i'd suspect there are better deals out there. There's nothing special or magical about almost any entry level bike, they mostly all use similar aluminum frames, and similar components. There's nothing wrong with the Trek, but why not ride both bikes (in the 2010 models). If you can't tell a different i'm sure it would be fine.
#12
Older than dirt
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,342
Bikes: Too darn many.. latest count is 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Trek has three frame levels:
White
Black
Red
White is heavier tube and a different alloy than Black both are 6000 series, but different tubing. White is a much cheaper and heavier frame and reserved for their low end.
FX uses the White frame now at the 7.1 level. ie: bottom of the line. Used to be at the 7.2 level.
Best bang for the buck in the Trek line is actually the 2.1
White
Black
Red
White is heavier tube and a different alloy than Black both are 6000 series, but different tubing. White is a much cheaper and heavier frame and reserved for their low end.
FX uses the White frame now at the 7.1 level. ie: bottom of the line. Used to be at the 7.2 level.
Best bang for the buck in the Trek line is actually the 2.1
Last edited by CCrew; 07-26-10 at 10:37 AM.
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not to knock Trek, but if you're looking for value, i'd suspect there are better deals out there. There's nothing special or magical about almost any entry level bike, they mostly all use similar aluminum frames, and similar components. There's nothing wrong with the Trek, but why not ride both bikes (in the 2010 models). If you can't tell a different i'm sure it would be fine.