Well basically I'm in the market for a bike. I'm eyeing up the Trek 2.1, but then I began to think... slow down there killer. Think this through.

I don't race. I don't plan on racing. But I like speed as a recreational rider. I like to ride to/from the local gas station to grab a soda now and then and I like to also ride 90 miles in one day on an otherwise uneventful Saturday. I want a blend of comfort, yet I want to be positioned relatively slack so I'm not taking the full brunt of the wind to my chest.

Reading through other threads got me a little curious, because some people were suggesting that certain brands have more race geometry whereas other brands have more comfort-driven geometry. And I'm not talking about specific race models within a company, but I got the vibe that certain companies as a WHOLE tend to have geometry suited to a certain direction.

Point being is this. I want to buy my bike local, and the Trek 2.1 is the top competitor @ my price range of 1k to 1.2k. Based on what I described above, with of course a successful fit, would that be my best bet for what I'm looking for? Or do you guys think there's other brands from KHS, Jamis, GT, or Giant that would be more up my alley? (these are all local authorized dealers)

Giant Defy 2 would be the more relaxed geometry. I would suggest, if your dealer carries it, riding the Synapse. The rear triangle is much more compliant than the Trek 2.1 or 2.3 (same frame). Defy would be next. Trek last in back end comfort. The Alpha frame is nice, it just does not absorb road shock/vibration as well as the others.

Trek does the 2.1 in the H2 fit. Overall they offer three fits, but not all are available on every bike.

Can't speak to the KHS, Jamis...

So overall you're suggesting that if I want end user comfort that the Trek would be a bad idea? Would the Giant be a better choice because of the higher head tube and different angles of the head/seat tube? I'm trying to compare some and when I rode the Trek 2.1 I thought it felt great. I know it all comes down to "what feels good to you" and yadda yadda. But like I said above, other threads were suggesting certain companies based on what the user wanted. I still may go for the Trek simply because it felt good to me, but I was expecting you to say that the Trek was a bit better for end user comfort. Either that or I just got lucky.

I'll have to roam around and try out that Giant. I know there's a bike shop that deals them, I just forget which one... Ahh, <3 Google.

Most of the major manufacturers nowadays will have road bikes that are more race-oriented and slightly more comfortable. In most cases, the differences are rather slight. E.g. the shorter head tube only really matters if you are looking for a super-aggressive position.

I don't know the Trek lineup well, but I'm fairly certain if you tell your favorite LBS that you're looking for the equivalent of a Specialized Roubaix or a Giant Defy, and they should be able to show you the Trek equivalent.

Well I think my mind is made up. I checked out a Trek 2.1 today and felt really good on it. And while there's been a lot of other bikes I tried that felt "good" and very do-able, the 2.1 really stood out to me. I guess not having enough money to buy a bike just yet resulted in me getting anxious/bored and decided to try more and more. To add to the mix, the helpful bike tech there began to explain to me something new to the 2011 Trek lineup, regarding head tube length options - H1 H2 H3 - 2 being your normal/more common range, 1 lowered for a racing stance, and 3 a bit higher for a more comfortable position. The H3 felt right at home with me, with the H2 still feeling "good" but I think with what I'm aiming for the H3 would be pretty solid. I believe with the particular bike I looked at, the HT length from H2 to H3 differed by 20mm.

I have to wonder though - Trek's site says nothing about the H1-2-3 options for the 2.1, only for the 4/5/6 series Madone. What gives? I hope this is something they apply to all of their frames. These additional options are pretty awesome if you ask me. Any idea if this is a permanent thing they plan to integrate to their full road lineup?

Secondly, are there any other brands that do this same thing? I have heard something before of Specialized (I believe) having a pro vs performance fit. Is this something Specialized (or any other brand) still does?

I think what Bacciagalupe said pretty much sums it up. Bike riding is a dynamic thing. The more you ride, the better you will get. By better I mean aerobic capacity and leg strength, as well as core muscles to hold up your torso.

That's why Bacciagalupe says "race oriented and slightly more comfortable". Beginner riders don't know this. Some riders end up spending money on a bike way too relaxed.

I understand what you are saying. Coming from a new bike with a slightly lower riding position and not feeling as though it was my prime riding position I feel as though going with the higher headtube is where my sweet spot will be. It certainly felt that way when I test rode it at least.

I'm just trying to understand if other manufacturers have as many customizable fit options beyond the stem/seat/frame as Trek does. I can go in and say hey I want a Trek 2.1. Okay, great. But if I don't like the feel of the standard Trek 2.1 with H2 and I want to be a bit more upright, oh hello there Trek 2.1 H3 (longer headtube). Do other manufacturer's have customizable fits like this? I always assumed that race bikes = expensive and lower riding stance and lower end bikes tend to be the more comfort driven bikes with a slightly more upright position. I think it's VERY intelligent to have something like different headtube length options on the same exact bikes to give the rider more option. Couple that option with stem lengths, frame sizing, crank arm lengths, and you have no reason to be riding a bike that's not fit to you perfectly.


Basically... I'm just curious if I can go to Giant/Fuji/Felt/Cannondale/whoever and have the same range of options with bikes and headtube lengths as I have currently with Trek. I guess I'm just trying to feel out what kind of other options are out there despite the fact my mind is pretty well set.

You may not know this now, but bike fitting is also a dynamic thing. It changes when you change. So a bike that "fits perfectly" may not fit the bill later on. My uneducated guess is that once you start fooling with the geometry of the frame itself, there's got to be something lost (or gained) as far as performance. A new rider will go to the bike shop, get on a bike and ride around their lot a few times, and have instant reactions. The Trek 2.1 is aluminum? Maybe that's why they can offer all sorts of geometry configurations. Try that in carbon, and see how much that will cost the manufacturer for each mold size setup.

Trek offers a mixture* the H1/2/3 configurations on 3 different bike series from what I've seen.

2.1 - Aluminum
5 Series - Carbon
6 Series - Carbon

Just sayin'.

* = Meaning not each one above is available in 1/2/3. The 2.1 is available in H2 and H3, but not H1 since most people who would be into a lower stance would want a racing bike - likewise the Madone 6 series is available in H1 and H2, but not H3 since who would spend that kind of money on a bike geared for racing when the H3 is more comfort driven?

Garfield,
What is a "bike that is to relaxed"?

The OP says he doesn't race and has no plans to.

Nor does he give us any idea on what he is ridding or what size he is.

Maybe he should buy the bike that feels best to him.

If not racing, what difference dose race geo make, besides comfort?

For what it's worth, I rode the 2.1 and found it pretty harsh. Then I rode Cannondale and what a difference. I hear Giant is good too. I've been wavering between a synapse and a caad9. You should be able to find a synapse with 105 for about $1200 (what my lbs is selling it for I think) and it is a fairly comfortable ride. Nearly as good as the trek madone 3.1 (carbon) and quite a bit less. I would ride lots of bikes before jumping on anything. That's what I'm doing. Although the synapse is probably more comfort oriented I can't tell that much difference between it and the caad as far as comfort (new to road biking) but the caad is lighter and feels more quick and lively. It's a fun bike to ride. I'm probably going for the caad and the 9s are on sale as they are last year's model.

Oh, and the different geometry options aren't exclusive to trek. They just came up with a naming system that seems to make it more clear. Based on what I've ridden I'd say the h3 is similar to the synapse or the secteur from specialized (which is also a nice ride). The h2 is similar to the caad. I didn't ride anything like an h1 as that is not what I'm looking for at all.

To each his own, I guess. I rode quite a few bikes and once I got on the 2.1 and took a few laps I began to think my search is over. I was very happy with how it rode. It felt like my GT I'm selling, but just more "fits like a glove" feeling. I don't have access to any Cannondale dealers from what I'm aware of. Giant and Specialized, yes - but the Giant dealer is a decent road trip away and the Specialized, while nice, I just started to lean more to the Trek side. Just my opinion on what I experienced, though. Lots of solid bikes but it is what it is.

Oh, definitely. I know the H* system is just exclusive to Trek. I was just trying to understand how other manufacturer's compare if they offer something like it. It seems like Specialized has a helluva wide variety of bikes, all of which seems to be evenly balanced... so if you go in looking for a certain bike in the 1,000 dollar range you might have 5 options. Likewise if you want to look in the 6,000 dollar range you also might have 5 options. I was liking that about Specialized's lineup. At the same token, having a smaller lineup from Trek BUT the H1/2/3 options (depending on the model) makes what they have on the floor more flexible, so it still feels like there's a lot more there. But I hear ya on the H1 - it's cool to see that option there, but the H2/3 (moreso the H3) is definitely more of what I'm after.

I have been looking for a similar bike recently. Primarily for cross-training to supplement my running. I have ridden the Trek 2.1 and Specialized Secteur. The Secteur does have a higher head tube which puts the handle bars up higher hence the more comfortable, upright fit. As noted in the last post, the new 2011 Trek 2.1 does come with 3 'fits' -- the H1 (aggressive), H2 (normal) and H3 (relaxed). So the H3 may be a good option. I just spoke to my Trek dealer about this and I think he made a good point. He said that if you are fairly flexible, the H2 fit may actually be more comfortable for long rides. The more upright you sit on long rides, the more wind resistance you have and the more body weight you are putting on your spine, vs. spreading it out when you are in a more tucked position. Given I am new to road cycling, I think i may 'grow into' the H2 fit over time. Hope this helps. I am new to all this, so please take this feedback as such. Finding a LBS you trust seems to be an important element in choosing the right bike. Good luck!

I wouldn't limit myself to just one brand, and keep in mind most manufacturers make bikes with more relaxed geometries. I don't race but I like to ride fast so the benefits of a bike with aggressive geometry work for me, and I use the same bike to commute to work since I like to get training in during that time. You could go either way since you'd be able to set up an aggressive geometry bike to a more relaxed fit if you don't want to be in a more aero position; conversely you can make a relaxed geometry more aggressive if you want to as well. The one thing to keep in mind is that a relaxed bike will have a longer wheelbase which will give you more stable steering while aggressive geometry bikes have shorter wheelbases that give sharper handling. Take both types out for a spin and see which one feels best for you.