Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3

Forum guidelines BT super discount
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3 Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2011-03-25 6:43 AM

User image

Veteran
286
100100252525
Rockford, MI
Subject: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3

I currently ride a very OLD road bike with old gears, and have decided to finally upgrade to a entry level to decent new road bike.

I am deciding between these 4 bikes above and leanding toward the 1.5 or 2.1, but wondering if there are any major disadvantages to the 1.2, or advantages to the 2.3.  I've looked at all the specs on the bikes, and I'm sure they all rock compared to my bike.

My LBS has the following prices listed...

1.2 C/T H2  $829.99

1.5 C/T H2  $999.99

2.1 C/T H3  $1,199.99

2.1 C/T H2  $1,199.99

2.3 C/T H2  $1,499.99

2011-03-25 7:05 AM
in reply to: #3413482

User image

Expert
906
500100100100100
Prattville, AL
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3
It really comes down to wheels and components... the 2 series has the Alpha Black AL.. same frame but diff components... buy the best bike you can afford... I have a 2.1 I bought last year and have been really happy with it... color was the deciding factor for me when it came down to the 2.1 vs 2.3... Laughing
2011-03-25 7:06 AM
in reply to: #3413482

User image

Champion
16151
50005000500010001002525
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3
These are the types of questions your LBS should walk you through and explain the benefits of each one. The Trek website should also have the data.

Not intended to be difficult, but the shop should step you through this. That's part of the customer relationship they should be working at.
2011-03-25 7:47 AM
in reply to: #3413482

Veteran
116
100
Austin, TX
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3

I wouldn't go lower than 2.1, that is where you start getting shimano 105 components, which should be a bit more reliable, a bit lighter,  and have nice features like aero cable routing.  Basically at the shimano 105 point you have no excuses not to win the Tour De France if you want to =)  Its just like dura ace plus a few grams.

 

2011-03-26 9:09 AM
in reply to: #3413594

User image

Veteran
286
100100252525
Rockford, MI
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3

I think I'm going to lean toward the 2.1, it's only about $200 more than the 1.5 at my LBS, $1199.99 starting price.

Any idea what the difference is between the 2.1 H2 vs 2.1 H3, I know it's geometry, sounds like the H3 is more for standard riding, so I should try and get the 2.1 H2?

2011-03-26 7:08 PM
in reply to: #3413482


34
25
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3

The 2.1 was the bike I wanted, the 2.3 was the bike I ended up buying because at my height I needed a 64cm frame and the 2.1 only goes up to 62.  Were I of normal height, I would have gone for the 2.1 instead.  The component upgrades from the 2.1 to 2.3 are minor for the most part, with the possible exception of the crank.  For someone who doesn't need the extra 2 cm of frame size, the 2.1 is probably a better value.

And your understanding is the same as mine - the H2 geometry is slightly more "aggressive" than the H3, I believe.  Though the 2.1/2.3 H2 geometry isn't that agressive in the grand scheme of things.



Edited by jsflyer 2011-03-26 7:11 PM

2011-03-30 9:54 PM
in reply to: #3413482


10

Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3
I got the 2010 2.1 back in Feb. this year.  So far I have been very happy with it.  The brakes may say Tiagra, but they pull just as well as 105 IMO.  Wheels and tires will be my first upgrade.
2011-04-01 9:17 AM
in reply to: #3413482

User image

Member
61
2525
Abbotsford
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3
I have the 2010 Trek 2.1 and love this bike its awesome, No problems with it, the thing I changed first was the seat I found it was horrible to sit on for long rides, I switched it to a Selle Italia saddle, I also took off the stock Bontrager tires and rims, and replaced those with a set of Fulcrum racing wheels and the Gagtorskin tires
2011-04-01 11:00 AM
in reply to: #3413482

User image

Veteran
498
100100100100252525
Redding, CA
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3

After 20 years on my old Trek 1000, I've been looking at the 2.1 and 2.3 (and possibly stretching the budget for the Carbon framed 4.5) myself so I've been working on gathering word of mouth reviews from current owners lately.

A recent example of what I've heard: I spoke to another rider Tuesday about his new 2.1 H3. He is in his 50's and has been riding a hybrid for years. He chose the H3 frame for the more comfortable position explaining that he's not as comfortable in the more aggressive H2 position. He told me he loves the bike and has been on several 20+ mile rides on it. He said after having about 100 miles on it the only thing he's going to change is the saddle.

So far the from what I've gathered the 2.1 seems to be best value for the price.

2011-04-01 1:40 PM
in reply to: #3425308

User image

Veteran
286
100100252525
Rockford, MI
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3
I am leaning toward a 2.1 and still plan on getting one, my LBS didn't have one to test ride, when I went in today.  I went ahead and test rode a Madone 4.5 just for fitting purposes.  Wow what a nice bike, I think I'm going to love the 2.1.  They are going to build some 2.1's this weekend, so next week I'm going to test ride one for 30 minutes or so, and if I do love it, I'm buying it.  I'm so overdue for an upgrade compared to my 20 year old bike.
2011-04-02 9:06 AM
in reply to: #3413482

User image

Member
61
2525
Abbotsford
Subject: RE: Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3

You will Like the 2.1 if you get one, I love mine, My Local bike shop www.bspbikes.com , you can see lots of reviews on this bike, I think there is over 40 reviews on the 2.1 and all are positive reviews, besides the seat being uncomfortable.

 

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Trek 1.2 vs 1.5 vs 2.1 vs 2.3 Rss Feed