[8toes]

Greetings,

I am finally looking for a new bike to replace my stolen LeMond Tourmalet and I like the looks and the spec of the new Treks (something I was never able to say before). If I am going to buy a Trek, I pretty much have it narrowed down to the Trek 2.1 or 2.3. Has anyone purchased or even rode one of these? I have not had the chance to as yet and am curious, specifically about the comfort of the ride.

Cheers and Thanks,

Brian J.

 

[rvman]

I have a '10 2.3 and love it. The 105 components are fantastic!

 

[8toes]

I agree about the components. My LeMond was a 105/Ultegra mix and I loved the crisp sure shifting. How is the ride quality comfort-wise?

Cheers,

Brian J.

 

[rvman]

Unfortunately, I don't have any other bike to compare it to given that this is my first road bike. I transitioned from mountain biking, I was tired of pulling cactus out of my flesh. The 2.3 is extremely comfortable and very agile. I am 6'8" and bought the 64cm frame which allows me to stretch out nicely.

 

[jellis25]

If you have the extra cash go with the 2.3. The upgrade in wheels is well worth it. The brake calipers and the crank is a nice upgrade too. I have a Madone 5.5 but have ridden the 2.3 and really like it. If I had some extra cash I would buy one for winter riding.

 

[turnin&burnin]

As luck would have it my 2011 2.3 arrived today! I went to my LBS, admired it's looks, took it for a quick spin, and then gave it back until my next payday as I still owe $500 before I can take it home

It's a great bike though... rides great, shifts great, looks great. My only regret at this point is paying my stupid mortgage last month. Otherwise I'd be out riding right now.

 

[Trek2.3]

Get the 2.3. It's worth the extra bucks. You'll love it!

 

[TrekBikeRider]

Get the 2.3. It's worth the extra bucks. You'll love it!

I thought you were going to suggest the 2.1 with a screen name like that.

 

[flangy]

My 2.3 has been great--I got it the first model year. I did upgrade the brakes (no-names to 105 calipers) and put a pair of Mavic Aksiums on in place of the Bontrager Race wheels (which were not bad and which I put on another bike) and the bike has performed like a champ. I had a Trek 1400 before and it was also nice. You will find it fast and very agile, you can do some extensive training on the 2.3.

 

[roadmountain]

The spec looks terrific; the only thing holding me back is that dour all grey paint job :

https://www.trekbikes.com/images/bikes/2011/xl/23_blacksilver.jpg

Even a little splash of blue livens up the 2.1 by comparison :

https://www.trekbikes.com/images/bikes/2011/xl/21_platinumblue.jpg

Yeah, I'm superficial like that.

I like the looks of the 1.2 even better :

https://www.trekbikes.com/images/bikes/2011/xl/12_whiteblack.jpg


If only they had a custom program for the 1's and 2's.

 

[Trek2.3]

I thought you were going to suggest the 2.1 with a screen name like that.

I have a 2.1 as well. But I upgraded it to a "2.3" by installing the 105 components and wheels off my real 2.3 when I put an Ultegra group on it. That made a BIG difference in the 2.1.

OTOH, I didn't find the Ulterga group to be much of an upgrade on the 2.3 (but I didn't spend much on it).

IMHO, the 105 group makes the 2010 2.3 a better buy.

 

[Trek2.3]

The colors are better in 2008 and 2009. My 2.1 is a "creamsicle."

 

[drussell]

I got the '09 2.3 at the spring bike show in Toronto. It's my first road bike as well, so I don't have any other frame of reference. However, I'm generally quite happy with it after 1500 kms so far. '09 was the last year before they got rid of the carbon seat stays, but with the later models they've changed to 105 calipers, where I have generic ones (probably a bigger deal than the carbon stays). I've ordered some 105 replacements as I don't feel like the current brakes are really all that hot. I also changed the Bontrager Race seat out for a Specialized Toupe, which I find MUCH more comfortable. Finally, I have an Ultegra standard crankset (53/39) waiting for me at home, which I'm going to swap out next week. The compact 105 is fine, but I wanted to give standard a shot, and the price for the Ultegra was right.

I do like the notch in the fork for the speedtrap sensor - keeps the fork nice and tidy.

Same paint scheme as this one...

edit...looking at the picture now, that white seat is AWFUL! Makes me double glad I went with the black Spec. Black bar tape and cable housings next......

 

[RockingAndRolling]

The Madone 3.1 is an affordable full carbon alternative when considering the 2.3. I have not questioned the LBS about the differences between madone 4.5 and 3.1 but it looks like a sweet alternative.

 

[zac]

The 2.3 all the way.

I have said it before and I will again: The 2.3 is an almost perfect all weather/winter training bike.

Pros:
-Inexpensive: so, I am not going to cry if I crash it or beat on it.

-Stiff: Excellent well tested Aluminum frame and a Shimano 105 crank, (which is one of the stiffest you can get). Both the 3.1 and the 4.5 have lesser cranks IMHO. Although I wish it was spec'd with a standard double instead of a compact.

-Durable: Again Aluminum frame, and easy to replace and find parts. Wheels are just right for tough and crappy training rides, and you could race on them too.

-Easy to upgrade, (not that you have too): you can easily intermix and incrementally upgrade parts from Ultegra or Dura-Ace.

-Training/Winter Bike: Hell, it has fender mounts!!!!!! Can't tell you how cool that is for a training/winter bike.

Cons:
-Crankset. While the compact/11-28 cassette gives you essentially the full range of a standard double with a 12-25, I, particularly, don't like compacts and the wide spacing they require. Especially for a winter bike, I would rather have a tighter cassette. I suppose you could just do a cassette change (12-23 or so) and loose the big gears, but why not just spec a standard double and have it all.

The 2.3 is ready to ride out of the box, after pedals. Perhaps a new saddle (which you would probably do anyway), ask LTD/LBS to replace the compact with a standard double, and a better cassette, and that bike has all it needs. Plus, I have never heard a bad word about the 2.3 from anyone who has some miles on one.

Did I mention it has fender mounts?!!!

HTH
zac

EDIT: Maybe one of the owners can pipe in here, but the 2.3 with 1700gram training wheels and a reasonably light saddle can't weigh much more than ~17lbs. if that matters to you. Out of the box it is probably around 18lbs., which is excellent by the way.

 

[kritiman]

It will take 28mm tires, and I'm pretty sure 32mm for your winter interests.
That will give you a more comfortable ride and better flat protection.

The wheels don't look real beefy, but what do I know? If you have the cash it would be nice to have wheelsets/tires to swap out for summer and winter use.

 

[roadmountain]

If only it looked a bit nicer:

The industrial monotonous gray is really a letdown.

 

[bugztom]

question on the fit - My local trek shop said the 2.1/2.3 are available in 2011 in all three fits - H1/H2/H3. This is not apparent on the website, but the H3 fit is the reason there isn't a pilot 2.0/2.1 - what fit did you guys get?

 

[MorganRaider]

Go with 2.3. I just picked up a 2011 and really like the 105 all the way around. I could not believe they had a 58cm because a lot of stores have them on back-order til Nov 22nd. The shifters no longer have the cables sticking out. It's a 50/34 with 11-28 in back. And the color is not gray, it's more of a taupe gold and looks really sharp against the black.

Ride is excellent. Shifting is crisp. Brakes modulate really well. I added some Bontrager ISOGEL pads under the bar tape. I also swapped out the stock handlebar for a Bontrager Blade handlebar - wider grips. Really comfortable. Wheels are good, tires - hard case for flat resistance. Can't go wrong on the 2.3.

 

[lnathan]

Trying to decide myself between 2001 Trek 2.1 vs 2.3. Both ride well. Any other thoughts out there?