Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Went to the LBS tonight to buy a Trek 1.1 (looking to buy my first road bike, and on a TIGHT budget -- craigslist by me doesn't have any options, and there's no used bike stores by me), and ended up talking to one of the managers, who happened to be selling his old 1997 GT ZR-1000 -- all Ultegra components, between 5000-8000 miles ridden, 19.5 lbs with everything on, and the biggest chainring will need to be replaced soon -- offered it to me for $350, knowing I was a student on a really tight budget.

The Trek is $600 plus tax, comes with free tuneups for life from the LBS and all the trek/shimano warranties, shimano 2300 components, and weighs 23.5 lbs. The GT is obviously buyer beware -- to be sold final and as is (he's going to get the mechanics to tune it up, and that's it)

I rode both on the trainer there, they both fit me well, the Trek with a more relaxed angle, the GT with a racing geometry. Trek 1.1 is obviously brand new, shifts nicely and runs silently. GT chain runs OK, needs a tuneup, and the components are definitely "worn in". I spoke to the mechanic there who looked at it -- said that it's definitely a worn in bike, but is in pretty decent shape, and that the 13 year old ultegra components might actually outlast the new 2300 components.

I'm not looking to get into super hi-tech road racing -- I'm buying a bike to get in shape, and use for sprint and olympic length triathlons.

To summarize:

2010 Trek 1.1:
2300 shimano components
23.5 lbs
Aluminum frame and fork
Brand new, free tuneups for life from LBS
$600 plus tax

1997 GT ZR-1000:
Ultegra components
19.5 lbs
Aluminum frame, carbon fork
5000-8000 miles ridden
Chainring needs to be replaced soon
Bike is DEFINITELY "worn in", needs tuneup
$350 firm

What should I get?
 

·
What the what???
Joined
·
12,712 Posts
That's a tough one. I guess for me it would come down to what kind of shape the GT was in. Assuming the manager kept his bike in good shape, I think I would lean toward the GT. The money you'll save will cover some basic repair/replacement issues that might crop up (e.g. cables, chain, pads, etc.)

You mentioned that both bikes fit well, but did you have a preference between the relaxed or racing geometry? If you're eventually planning to Tri, I would think the racing geo might be an advantage. JMHO
 

·
Cycling induced anoesis
Joined
·
13,006 Posts
Because maintenance plays a large role in component longevity, it's not a given, but if the mechanic offered that the owners bike was definitely worn in and is in need of (at least) a new chainring, I think the owners mileage estimate may be way low.

My 105 equipped bike has about 8k miles on it and nothing drivetrain related beyond chains has needed replacing. Generally speaking, chainrings can last far longer than 8k miles.

Assuming both bikes fit well, I'd get the Trek (and a warranty). The peace of mind alone is worth the extra cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
maxw87 said:
turns out the GT is not a 1997 model, but rather a 2000 model.

looks something like this:
http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/BikeSpecs.aspx?Year=2000&Brand=GT&Model=ZR-1000&Type=bike
GT.

Both would be ok, but 2000 ultegra is great stuff if its cared for, and like previously said, I bet the shop owner maintains the bike better then average.

You know why they do "free tune-ups for life" because modern day bikes and components are unbelievably reliable, and simple to fix. Bike's just aren't that complicated of a machine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
The ultegra shifters on the GT were not sharp by any means -- lots of noise, not exact.

The 2300 shifters on the Trek were VERY sharp (as you'd expect on a new bike) -- precise shifting, silent drivetrain.

I'm not sure if the GT noise/inaccuracy is a result of the bike not being tuned when I rode it or if the components are on the way out.

The mechanic said the shifters weren't in the best condition, but that they were definitely functional.

I'm going back there this afternoon to make a final decision, any last bits of advice?

Thanks everyone!
 

·
Cycling induced anoesis
Joined
·
13,006 Posts
maxw87 said:
The ultegra shifters on the GT were not sharp by any means -- lots of noise, not exact.

The 2300 shifters on the Trek were VERY sharp (as you'd expect on a new bike) -- precise shifting, silent drivetrain.

I'm not sure if the GT noise/inaccuracy is a result of the bike not being tuned when I rode it or if the components are on the way out.

The mechanic said the shifters weren't in the best condition, but that they were definitely functional.

I'm going back there this afternoon to make a final decision, any last bits of advice?

Thanks everyone!
The mechanic has made a couple of comments about the bikes general condition. Listen to him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
maxw87 said:
The ultegra shifters on the GT were not sharp by any means -- lots of noise, not exact.

The 2300 shifters on the Trek were VERY sharp (as you'd expect on a new bike) -- precise shifting, silent drivetrain.

I'm not sure if the GT noise/inaccuracy is a result of the bike not being tuned when I rode it or if the components are on the way out.

The mechanic said the shifters weren't in the best condition, but that they were definitely functional.

I'm going back there this afternoon to make a final decision, any last bits of advice?

Thanks everyone!
Tough call for many but IMO, I'd still buy the GT if it's in good condition. That bike would easily go for $500-600 here in So. Cal- even with the needed work. Shimano Ultegra 9 speed shifters? They aren't made anymore but who cares. You can find NOS Ultegras on ebay for usually around $200. Not that Sora is bad because it's not. It's just that if you were to replace the chainring and shifters- (and the rest of the bike is fine) the GT will be worth more. So, you pay $350, invest $200 and ride it for a year or two. You can sell it for $500-600. It's still an Ultegra bike and probably won't value for under $500 for at least another 5 years. The 1.1 will be worth $350 in less time than that- even if it's in great condition. Hey, there's something attractive about that three triangle frame. You won't look like part of the herd of sheep coming from the Trek camp. I'm not a Trek hater. They are great bikes but darn near everyone has one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts


This is my ride now, back in the day I would have killed someone for that GT. I love my GT it has been a workhorse for the past 10 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
St.Zu said:


This is my ride now, back in the day I would have killed someone for that GT. I love my GT it has been a workhorse for the past 10 years.
That is a gorgeous bike!! My future brother in law has an old school GT ZR1000 that he upgraded to Campy Chorus 10 with Record shifters. The bike is a 2001 model, but he likes that bike more than his three year old Colnago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
I would check the frame over with a fine tooth comb. I have never had any problems with my frame, and I have put a lot of miles on my bike throughout the 10 years I have owned it. I will end up riding this frame until it breaks, and I expect to get at least 5 more years out of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
terbennett said:
That is a gorgeous bike!! My future brother in law has an old school GT ZR1000 that he upgraded to Campy Chorus 10 with Record shifters. The bike is a 2001 model, but he likes that bike more than his three year old Colnago.
Thanks man!:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
There's one thing no one has commented on and it surprises me. the Trek has an Aluminum fork :eek: I wouldn't recomend that to anybody who plans to ride more than 5 miles at a time.
the last AL fork I had was on a mid 90's Trek 1400 and it was miserable. This was just before Carbon forks were either available or affordable and all my smart friends rode steel bikes at the time. That fork was brutal, on one 75 miles ride my fingertips went so numb I didn't regain any sensation in them until the next day.
IMO, avoid an AL fork at all costs, if it doesn't have a Carbon or steel fork stay away from it like you would Herpe's:)
the GT is OK if you have your own tools and can do your own work. If not and your paying the LBS mechanic to do everything for you I would pass on it as well. Since your already at approx. $648. with tax for the trek, just order the 105 eqiuppped Windsor Fens from bikes direct for $699. and free shipping. Comes with a Carbon fork.
Well worht the extra 50 bucks IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
draganM said:
There's one thing no one has commented on and it surprises me. the Trek has an Aluminum fork :eek: I wouldn't recomend that to anybody who plans to ride more than 5 miles at a time.
the last AL fork I had was on a mid 90's Trek 1400 and it was miserable. This was just before Carbon forks were either available or affordable and all my smart friends rode steel bikes at the time. That fork was brutal, on one 75 miles ride my fingertips went so numb I didn't regain any sensation in them until the next day.
IMO, avoid an AL fork at all costs, if it doesn't have a Carbon or steel fork stay away from it like you would Herpe's:)
the GT is OK if you have your own tools and can do your own work. If not and your paying the LBS mechanic to do everything for you I would pass on it as well. Since your already at approx. $648. with tax for the trek, just order the 105 eqiuppped Windsor Fens from bikes direct for $699. and free shipping. Comes with a Carbon fork.
Well worht the extra 50 bucks IMO
Never noticed that until you pointed it out. That would make me consider a 1.2 instead of the 1.1. Also, that aluminum fork on your Trek 1400 was optional. They actually came standard equipped with cromoly fork. I remember I had the aluminum fork upgrade as well. It was a lot lighter than the cromoly fork even if it wasn't as comfortable.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top