Hello,

I recently saw the 2013 Trek 7.7 FX at our LBS and I was very impressed. Other than the dual crank vs the triple for the 7.9 FX, is there any major differences between these two bikes? Also, if I'm considering chosing between a 2010 7.9 FX almost new and a new 2013 7.7 FX, which one would be a better bike? Your thoughts please.
Thanks.

Whilst you were at the LBS, why didn't you ask them, the experts?

I have a 7.7 due in tomorrow. My first CF bike. CAN NOT wait!

To me the 7.9 looks so antiquated next to the 7.7. Especially up around the head tube. You know the 7.7 frame is the Madone 3 series frame? I wish it had 105 components instead of Tiagra, but I'm very happy with my Deore stuff on my Mendota, so the Tiagra is likely just fine.

So it's a road bike, not a hybrid?

Flat bar road bike.

I always thought Deore was the MTB compliment to the 105 group and Alivio was the MTB version of the Tiagra group.

I don't have any knowledge of the 2010 Trek line. But be careful trying to make comparisons -- especially ones based on stats...

For example: in the DS line, the 2013's are virtually completely different bikes from the 2012's due to a major redesign of the frame.
And: in the FX line, the bikes change character in a dramatic way as you move up the curve from the bottom level to the top level. The top level heads towards racing road bikes while the lower levels tend to be more general-purpose hybrids.

Perhaps the answer to your question is: ride them both and see which feels better to you and will best meet your needs...

Alivio/Sora; Deore/Tiagra; SLX/105; XT/Ultegra; XTR/Dura Ace ...
more or less!

Not really, the experts are here on this forum.

I haven't found a 2010 7.9 FX yet. I'm trying to see if I can eliminate it and get the 7.7 instead. Thank you though.

I saw good reviews on the 105 that's why I'm leaning towards the 7.9 FX. Thank you.

Actually, I think you're off by one...

Tiagra is still in the recreational line while Deore crosses the line into performance...

If you read Shimano's descriptions, they list the Deore as 'performance' and compare it to the higher, performance lines they carry. The description for the 105 is almost identical except they compare it to Dura-Ace and Ultrgra instead of XT and LX.

Meanwhile, the Alivio is described as "quality recreational" while the description for the Tiagra is similar.

I think you are off by one:
Acera/Sora -- Recreational
Alivio/Tiagra -- High End recreational
Deore/105 -- Low End Performance
SLX/Ultrega -- Performance
DA/XTR -- High Performance

Nope, but if so, where then would you place XT (missing from your revision)?
Acera's road equivalent would be 2300, to my mind.

Antiquated huh ... LOL. The 7.9FX is spec'd head and shoulders above the 2013 7.7FX.

Any factory, not just Trek, selling a CF frame bike for under $2,000, or thereabouts, is skimping on something ... big time. Just the way it is.

The Madone 3.1, priced the same as the 7.7, has 105 shifters and rear derailer, although it does share some Tiagra components like the front derailer and cassette. Reckon what was pricier in the 7.7 model that they couldn't keep the components the same?

Well, the 7.7 looks like a really fine bike to me... I don't have any specs for the 2010 7.9 so I can't do any comparisons. But, I think the 7.7 will be a really fun bike to ride. I'll be curious to see what the weight of it is... Probably a LOT less than the old 7.9...

My main concerns are first the double crank of the 7.7 vs the triple of 7.9 as I have a 2012 7.5FX with double crank and it's a bear to ride when I shift to the larger gear/cassette. I wouldn't have this problem with the 7.9. Second, I have a bad back, so the weight is an issue. My 7.5 has disc breaks although excellent braking power, it ads weight to the bike of course. I think both the 7.7 and 7.9 will be light enough for me. Another thing are how these bikes look, I didn't physically see the 7.9 but the 7.7 is really really stunning.
Thank you all.

Well, duh, after thinking about it, there's no such thing as 105 flat bar shifters, so that accounts for that one. It's just the rear derailer they could have kept as 105 and I don't know, but suspect, that the 105 derailer may not accomodate the 12/30 cassette. Maybe??? Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Tiagra will be fine as I'm an old fart and just ride for fun and fitness.

On a related, sad note, I got a call from the LBS yesterday and my 7.7 arrived with a bad scratch and broken cable mount under the top tube They're going to have to return it and order me a new one so another week of waiting. Oh well. What'cha gonna do?

Well, duh, after thinking about it, there's no such thing as 105 flat bar shifters, so that accounts for that one. It's just the rear derailer they could have kept as 105 and I don't know, but suspect, that the 105 derailer may not accomodate the 12/30 cassette. Maybe??? Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Tiagra will be fine as I'm an older fart and just ride for fun and fitness.

On a related, sad note, I got a call from the LBS yesterday and my 7.7 arrived with a bad scratch and broken cable mount under the top tube They're going to have to return it and order me a new one so another week of waiting. Oh well. What'cha gonna do?

Hey, glad to see Trek decided to bring CF back to it's FX line. Guess they read how much 7.9 owners loved their bike even though it cost more. 2013 7.7 looks even more like a road bike though with dual pivot brakes and double chainring [just looking at specs; haven't seen any in person]. Looks like they got rid of that squirrely iso-seat on the 7.9 too. I like a solid platform for a saddle myself. How big of a tire can the 7.7 muster? I know the 7.9 can take at least 32mm, maybe larger [if you ever plan on carrying a rack and light loads]. I'm still looking for statistic on just how large a load the 7.9 is rated for in the back. I'd really like to take that bike touring with me with tent and bags...but CF...I dunno. If the 7.7 rides anything like the 7.9, you're gonna love it. BTW, have the LBS put some ergo grip bar extentions on the flat bar as part of the deal.

Or a Satellite Elite Trekking bar. Perfect!

Keep us updated on the new rig!

I brought home my new 2013 7.7 this week. *I bought the 54cm but when I got it home I was very surprised it was about 2 inches shorter end to end than my 2010 7.5 (20inch model) *The salesman set me up on the 54cm looked like the right fit for me and it felt ok on my test ride, but when I got home and saw the difference it really confused me.
*
I always thought the old bike fit me wonderfully - not that I know much.*But I know I was always comfortable.

Anyway because of rain this week, I only rode it once for 10 miles. *I did wonder if the new madone frame and all makes it so that the bike is shorter, or did I have too big a bike last time, or do I need to go back in and try the 7.7 in the 56cm size.

Yes. This raises a pet peeve of mine (sorry!): the 'new' 7.7FX is, literally, a Madone 3-series frame with flat-bars thrown onto it. That frame was/is designed for drop, not flat, bars.

Part of the shorter wheelbase you are noticing is down to shorter chainstays; a further substantial part of it is down to the top tube being too short. The "54" 7.7 is not equivalent (for fit), with flat bars, to your 20" 7.5 re. effective t/t. If your 7.5 fits you "wonderfully", you really should try the "56" 7.7FX; that might get you into the ballpark. The "54" 7.7 is likely way too short in effective t/t, for you.

IMHO, road bicycles that are going to be fitted with flat bars should be designed to be used with flat bars; part of that means having an effective top tube at least a couple of cms. longer than that of an equivalent frame designed for use with drop bars, for a given size, to compensate for the forward throw of the hoods on drop bars. I dislike the current trend among the big 3 (Spec, Giant, Trek) simply to market their carbon road frames as "flat-bar bikes" w/o proper modification. Conversely, Giant's aluminum Rapid is correctly designed (in relation to its Defy cousin). I understand the economics, but I don't like it. Effectively, one is always going to have to look at at least 'one size up' on these bikes, unless one wants an extremely "upright" position. E.G. I would ride a "54" Madone or Spec. Roubaix, but would need a "56" in a 7.7FX or Sirrus Limited; unfortunately, this 'sizing up' re. the latter brings compromises in other areas (head tube height, standover etc.) I would find unacceptable. YMMV.

Thanks for the comments Badger, pet peeve or not it sure helped me see the bigger picture as I went back to the store. I went back and rode the 56cm and it was almost identical to the old20in. both in length and t/t - and in addition to the way it felt sitting on it. I didn't seem to be scrunched like I was beginning to feel on the "54" size I had purchased. It was a better fit for me. Unfortunately after riding both my 2010 7.5 and the 2013 7.7 back to back, I was surprised to find that even though new bike was much lighter, the ride seemed harsher on the new carbon bike, I could feel every bump and crack. I even traded back and forth twice to compare and it appeared to be true to me. I suppose it is the bigger tire size. 32 vs the 25 is the reason - perhaps that is all it is, but with the lower gearing in the 7.5 I can move the heaver bike up the hills with no problem.

But all of this was enough for me to decide that it wasn't the bike I wanted to keep. So I asked to ride the new Domane to compare, and I have to admit that I was blown away by how smooth the ride was, I read the reviews recently but though it was mostly hyperbole, but after riding it together with the FX 7.7. and my old FX 7.5 I decided it was true. It was smoother than anything I had ridden in my limited experience.

I returned the new 7.7 since it was only 1 week and 3 rides old and took home the Domane 4.1 with a stem change to help me sit a little higher and help my old age back adjust easier. I still have my old FX for casual riding or even some touring, but hoping I can get settled in on the new Domane and ride with the local groups and keep up a bit better. I have only ridden the FX more than 50 miles a few times and it is really, really hard to enjoy the longer rides. I hope I'm not setting my expectations too high to think my new bike will make it easier to enjoy the longer group rides...