Im looking for an inexpensive road bike. I'd even ride steel if I could find it and it was cheaper.

Anyway, I am looking at the Trek Pilot 2.1 which has MSRP $1540 or the Trek 1.2 which has MSRP of $770. OK Who am I kidding? I'm looking at the one for $770.

The question is, when they say the Pilot has a more natural riding position, what do they mean? I can't really see any difference in these bike frames worth making a whole separate series of bikes.


Anyone know?

The Pilot has a longer head tube & other 'adaptations' that put the rider in a more upright vs. aggressive leaned-over position. But you can generally achieve the same fit with a frame with more traditional geometry. I generally prefer the look of traditional geometry over bikes with sloping top tubes & sometimes the long head tubes look plain silly (the Litespeed Sportive -- UGLY), but to each his own.

That's a pretty big price spread if those are the only two bikes you're considering.

IMO, Treks tend to underspec'd for the money, at least at the lower end; they really dropped the quality of the components this year. Felt's Z-series is similar in concept to Trek's Pilot series. The Z70 & F85 slot in pricewise between both the Treks you listed. The F85 would be more comparative to the 1.2 in terms of geometry, but with components that are several steps up--much, much better than on the 1.2 and substantially better than on the 1.5 which is about the same price.

http://www.feltracing.com/08/product.asp?catid=1504,1515&pid=8678

http://www.feltracing.com/08/product.asp?catid=1504,1515&pid=8667

One thing of note on the Pilot are the carbon seat stays, which should (in theory) make for a more comfortable ride.

Anyway, happy bike shopping!

 

It was more a question to understand the difference between the bikes. I am trying to get a bike at least assembled in the USA. The lower end Trek's don't appear to me. At least they don't wear the moniker.

I will likely be purchasing next year. So I have time to do this learning curve. Currently I have an old Spalding Blade. I would love to just upgrade the components on that one, but I am scared that finding newer components to fit it will be hard. I don't want to get saddled with special parts that cost a premium.

There are just a lot of bike brands that I have not heard of.

 

The question is, when they say the Pilot has a more natural riding position, what do they mean?

"More natural" is marketing talk for "more upright" than an out-and-out racing bike. It's done primarily by lengthening the head tube, which makes it a little easier to raise the handlebars to or even above the level of a properly adjusted saddle.

 

Ahh OK. Then upright is what I am looking for. I will not be racing. At least not competitively.

I'll have to start a new thread on if I should try to salvage my old bike or spring for a new one. I already get the impression that its cheaper to buy a bike than build one.

 

Ahh OK. Then upright is what I am looking for. I will not be racing. At least not competitively.

I'll have to start a new thread on if I should try to salvage my old bike or spring for a new one. I already get the impression that its cheaper to buy a bike than build one.

In general, it is cheaper to buy a complete bike than to buy a frameset and build it up, but if you have a frame that you like you could build it up from there, salvaging the 'good' components and upgrading others. However, it still might end up cheaper to buy a new bike. I guess it all depends on how attached you are to you current ride, but I never seem to want to let mine go!

 

In general terms,

Ahh OK. Then upright is what I am looking for. I will not be racing. At least not competitively.

you can be more upright on almost any bike if you insist on the largest frame size that still fits you safely and comfortably. Many bike shop people will try to put you on the smallest size possible.

 

You mentioned... "Many bike shop people will try to put you on the smallest size possible."

I've noticed that too, but why? Is it because most people think they need a larger bike frame than they correctly fit into?

Thanks,

Mike

 

Pilot Series Discontinued...

FYI: My Trek dealer told me that the company no longer makes the Pilot series. He didn't say why, except that the Trek 2.1 is a compatiable ride to the Pilot.

Did you look at the Fuji Newest Series? I'm shopping too. I rode the Newest 1.0,
($1050) and it seemed very comfortable. Plus it has an adjustable stem that gives you the option to tip the bar to a more upright angle. They also make three other models that are less costly that than the 1.0.

Check it out ------> http://fujibikes.com/2008/bikes.asp?id=407

 

Some generalizations.

You mentioned... "Many bike shop people will try to put you on the smallest size possible."

I've noticed that too, but why? Is it because most people think they need a larger bike frame than they correctly fit into?

Thanks,

Mike

I think it's mainly because many salespeople are enthusiastic riders or racers. They believe (and rightfully so) that a smaller bike with a good amount of seat post showing and a long stem can be ridden faster, is more enjoyable to ride and looks better than a large bike with the saddle on the top tube and a stubby stem. The problem comes when they forcefully project their beliefs on every customer, many of whom are inexperienced, unfit, physically inflexible and don't really care to go fast or race.

In all fairness, customers sometimes drive this. Some insist on inches of (unneccessary) standover clearance, others want their bike set up so it looks exactly like the ones on the manufacturer's web site, or like the ones they see the racer boys riding in the local hammerfest.

 

That brings up something else I was wondering. What makes a bike too small? If you're on it and it's very comfortable and rides well, but it looks too small for you, what determines that it's too small?

 

More general observations.

That brings up something else I was wondering. What makes a bike too small? If you're on it and it's very comfortable and rides well, but it looks too small for you, what determines that it's too small?

Vertically, it's too small if you can't get the handlebars high enough to suit you without resorting to goofyness like fork steerer extensions, upjutter stems or 4 inches of spacers. Horizontally, it's too small if you can't dial in proper reach (butt-to-hands) without resorting to goofyness like extra-long offset seat posts, saddle slammed all the way back, extra-long stems, or handlebars with extra-long reach. Not saying you can't ride a bike like that, but you probably wouldn't reach your potential, the bike would not handle well and you might feel more pain than you need to.

If your body has some very unusual proportions, you might have to resort to some of these measures, or go custom.

 

Vertically, it's too small if you can't get the handlebars high enough to suit you without resorting to goofyness like fork steerer extensions, upjutter stems or 4 inches of spacers. Horizontally, it's too small if you can't dial in proper reach (butt-to-hands) without resorting to goofyness like extra-long offset seat posts, saddle slammed all the way back, extra-long stems, or handlebars with extra-long reach. Not saying you can't ride a bike like that, but you probably wouldn't reach your potential, the bike would not handle well and you might feel more pain than you need to.

If your body has some very unusual proportions, you might have to resort to some of these measures, or go custom.

OK, so if I grab the Trek 2.1 in a 58 off the rack and it feels great, even though I'm 6'2", nothing else matters? I guess this size would be OK with me then because the only thing the salesman had to do was raise the saddle a little.

I guess what confuses me is that Trek lists this size bike as a "MEDIUM" frame.

 

The larger medium.

OK, so if I grab the Trek 2.1 in a 58 off the rack and it feels great, even though I'm 6'2", nothing else matters? I guess this size would be OK with me then because the only thing the salesman had to do was raise the saddle a little.

I guess what confuses me is that Trek lists this size bike as a "MEDIUM" frame.

I can't say for certain if that bike's OK without seeing you ride, but chances are good that it will be. Remember, the 2.1 Trek comes in two "mediums"—M 56 cm and M 58 cm. Also, Trek's "M 58" might well be some other company's "large" or "59 cm," so don't put too much stock into these sizing designations.

To put this into perspective: human bodies are amazingly adaptable and don't really need high-precision fits down to the last millimeter. Hearing fit experts talk, you sometimes get the impression that they think in mechanical terms—where, for example, a connecting rod 2 mm too long would, in fact, destroy an internal combustion engine. Muscles, tendons and ligaments have ranges in which they operate safely and comfortably. Also keep in mind that as you get more flexible, stronger and faster, things change. After some time on the 58 cm Trek, you might start thinking that you'd like to try out a differently-sized bike, perhaps a little longer or shorter horizontally, vertically or both—who knows. Enjoy the 2.1, and ride lots!

/w