quintana roo vs trek
 

I have the opportunity to buy my first tri bike. I have narrowed it down to 2 used bikes. The first is a 2001 quintana roo ti-phoon with full dura ace and the second is a 2006 trek equinox 7 with da shifters, ultegra rear dr and 105 front (both bikes are 10 speed and both similarly priced). I know the ti-phoon with it's titanium frame was a very expensive bike in it's time, but it's an 8 year old bike and not as aero as the e7.

This may seem like a silly question to some (maybe not), but, with all the changes in technology over the past decade, is the 2006 entry level bike better than a very nice 2001 bike.

I'm a strong supporter of QR.
Does it have aero tubing and internal routing?

How do the two compare in fit? Fit is most important.

All things being equal (size, condition, etc) the Trek is way more aero and thats one of the most important things to look for in a tri bike. IMO thats what I would go for.

The QR is not very aero. The only tube that is even oval is the down tube and not very much. Both bikes fit well and the components are probably about even (2001 dura ace is probably the exact same as 2006 ultegra).

I had a feeling the consensus might be to get the trek, but it's hard to pass up a bike that originally had a msrp of around $5000 to get a bike with an original msrp of $1600 or so.

I guess it's like computers.... A top of the line desktop in the 80s is like my cell phone today.

whatever fits better, trek also has a different geometry that you might want to consider
qroo is a 78 degree seat tube angle wheras the trek is 76, this means that your body will not be as aero even though the bike is.