beginnerbiker1

I think a LBS around me has a 2010 Trek 1.5 Triple for $850 and the new '11 2.1 is $300 more...(before tax )

I was thinking about the 1.5 vs the 2.1 and Tiagra vs. 105 but I'm not exactly sure if it would be worth it to splurge on the 105 bike. I'm probably going to try some other brands too but the '10 1.5 for $850 and 2.1 for $1150 seem like the best deals so far for those components. Not really sure if I need a triple either... a $300 difference is pretty big for me at least because I need pedals, shoes etc.

I don't plan on racing in the near future, more for recreational riding. I see myself doing some fun weekend 20-30 mile rides.

beginnerbiker1

Anyone?

dpeters11

Personally, I prefer the 105. I also believe the 2.1 has a better frame, and I like the fact that it is Speedtrap compatible, but I'm a sucker for gadgets.

tagaproject6

Do you have big hills in your area?

billykmd

I'd get the 2.1. Most likely you'll get the bug and want to upgrade, so at least you have 105 to work with.

beginnerbiker1

Not too many crazy hills, I'm not sure if I should go with a triple or compact double. I'm not much of a hill climber.

billykmd

I'd go with compact, especially since you don't have that many hills.

bianchi10

Id stay with 105's. like billy said, you will probably get a bug to upgrade eventually so save yourself the headache/money later and just get it now. Also agree that the 2.1 would be a great choice. dont get a triple.

beginnerbiker1

Does shifting feel different if you have a double or triple? Or is it just really the range of gears you have?

I guess the Tiagra isn't a great choice then. Because it has less speeds, does each shift just feel like a bigger jump than on a 105?

Anyone know if I should go H2 or H3 fit for trek? I do have some lower back problems so I would think H3 would be better? But I heard the H2 isn't too aggressive anyways.

billykmd

I have a H2 geometry. If you have lower back problems, I would stick with H3. H2 isn't that aggressive though. I'm pretty flexible (can put my legs behind my head), so take that with a grain of salt.
Triple gives you more "options" for gears, especially if you are going up a hill. Don't think there is a real big jump with shifting though...

kstephens

If I could come up with the extra money - I would go with the 2.1. The 1.5 was at the top of my budget (when I figured in the cost of pedals, shoes, helmet......). Overall I am pleased with the tiagra group. My LBS has told me that when tuned it shifts just as good as the 105 group, however, it needs tuning up a little more often. I rode both, and couldn't tell a huge difference. I rode one a used bike with ultegra - and I could tell a difference how smooth and crisp it shifted from the 105 group. Unfortunately it did not fit, and I didn't have enough money for a new bike with that group.

I don't think you will be too disappointed with either, but in the long run, you may be more pleased with the 2.1. I would go with a double instead of a triple on whichever one you get.

beginnerbiker1

OK so definitely compact double and Tiagra I guess is OK but that is a good point that it would be a lot of trouble upgrading later if I got an itch to do it.

I want to try and get this done before the Trek Summer Sale ends...
I guess I'll have to think about my budget.. I'd say $200 for shoes, pedals, minipump, tool kit, extra tube. So if I went with the 2010 1.5 it would be $1100 and if I went with the 2011 2.1 it would be $1420 after tax.

dpeters11

If I had a choice between the 1.5 and stuff or the 2.1, I'd go with the 2.1. Obviously you need pedals, but I'd get a cheap set to start with. Shoes aren't absolutely necessary. A tube is cheap, the pump, maybe a three way. You generally get 10% off accessories or so if they aren't included in their sale. But basically, all the stuff is easier to change later than major components.

reshp1

Take advantage of buying from a LBS and test both and see if the difference is worth the extra cash. One nice part about triple is (at least for me) I spend 95% of the time in the middle ring and only shift the rear DR, but unlike a std double I can bail-out to the granny gear if it gets really steep. My cruising speed 18-22 mph I think would put me back and forth between the front rings on a compact to find a comfortable cadence.

beginnerbiker1

Ok so it depends how fast I usually go on roads whether I should get a compact double or triple? I'm a little confused

reshp1

Sort of. Just commenting that for me, I hardly ever go fast enough to switch to the big ring in the front and the hills are hardly ever steep enough around here to switch to the granny ring. It's nice being able to leave the front derailluer alone and just switch the rear (which is faster/smoother shifting) almost all of the time. I don't think I could do that with a compact, i.e. the 34f/11r gear combo wouldn't be enough for faster cruising speeds. Probably not a big deal but kinda nice.

SoulPuppy

Is there a disadvantage to a triple?

tagaproject6

Weight and the mockery doled out by your peers using a double

cyclezen

there's that...
but mockery is trumped by a little legbreakin hammerin in the Big Meat
but weight, I don;t think it's much more than 40-50g total - not worth mentioning
and iff'n you can hammer while in the middle ring ... and hear the lamenting behind you...

again. not knowing where you are, if in FLA then triple seems overkill.
Anywhere where there's some steep pitches or actual climbing, triple is like std with that bailout ring.
I don;t mind havin that ring hangin there, it fer sure doesn't slow you down.

But 105 is 10 spd
tiagra is 9 spd
honestly, 10 spd trumps 9 spd all day... and if you go 2 ring/compact then you get to have another gear...
if you can afford the diff to 10 spd/105 - I would not hesitate...

tagaproject6

There is also the perceived difficulty of tuning the FD and preventing chain rub. Not really an issue for me.

beginnerbiker1

Well went to an LBS today and explained all my needs and budget to the guy. He said the 1.5 or bike with Tiagra group would be a great start especially because it leaves me money to get clipless pedals, shoes and other stuff and that I should just sell and upgrade bikes when I got more serious and familiar enough to even notice the difference between the Tiagra and 105. He also told me to go with a compact double. Unfortunately the 2010 1.5 is a triple but I guess I would be ok with that... Anyways didn't have time to try out the bikes but will early next week and see how they feel.

Shuagster

Just to throw the idea out there, can't you wait a month or two for the 2012 models to come out and try and get a discount on a 2011. Hey, or even get a 2012 if you save up those couple of months. Again, just something to take into consideration.

beginnerbiker1

Summers coming to a close soon so I'd rather get some riding in before it starts getting too cold to ride (I'm in the northeast). Is there something really worth waiting for in 2012? Like a 10 speed Tiagra setup or something that will make the wait worth it?

Shuagster

Well, I really haven't seen the specs or prices on the 2012 models, although that 10spd Tiagra may be worth a look. But you could get a really good deal on an 2011 model when the new ones start coming in.

catonec 

can you assemble a bike yourself?? if so for around $1100.

https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...e/sprint_x.htm (I like the orange)
https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/..._08_carbon.htm
https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...pro20_blue.htm (only $899)