Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Upgrade or buy new?

Options
  • 29-09-2007 12:56pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭


    I currently have a trek 1000, (02 model, the orange one).
    It's a small bit worse for wear. I'd like to do it up myself properly. With the price of tools and components, I know I'll end up spending more than the cost of a new, better bike (I imagine so anyway).
    My question really is, do you think it's a waste of time spending a lot of money on that frame?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 sprinter


    With regard to upgrades it all depends how far you are willing to go which deems whether or not it is a waste of money, without a doubt a good frame is the basis for building on, you could spend an absolute fortune upgrading the trek and it will never be as light compared with if the money had been spent on a bike with a very good frame. I guess it just depends what you want from the bike, for casual cycling the bike you have is perfect but if you crave the extra speed and comfort then a lighter frame is the way to go. I have a giant scr3 for commuting which is excellent but for longer more demanding rides it tires me out alot easier than my lighter terry dolan which is such a breeze and pleasure to ride.
    If you are in the market for a new racer let me know as my pride and joy the Terry Dolan is for sale, if you want any info just send me a pm.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    I'd suspect you are better off keeping it for secondary use, there can be a point at which it just becomes a money pit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Explosive_Cornflake


    I think I'm tending to agree with you. Might use as a practice bike for fixing up and short stops.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭Ghost Rider


    Or you could sell it. Depending on the size of it and what's wrong with it, I might be interested...

    I think I'm tending to agree with you. Might use as a practice bike for fixing up and short stops.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Explosive_Cornflake


    Off the top of my head, 54cm frame. It would do with a new block/chain/chain rings, brake pads I'd say. Rear spoke broken. Pretty clean apart from that.
    Just if i was to do it, I'd like to put better parts all round on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭E@gle.


    i upgraded my trek 1000, by putting a new groupset and wheels. In the end i ended up buying a new frame and taking the new groupset off the trek and putting the old one back on.

    you cant go wrong with a new set of wheels


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Explosive_Cornflake


    Yes, it seems to be a lot clearer in my head now that I actually wrote it down. I was going to buy a car for going to the train station, but I think my body would thank me more if I bought a new bike.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭Ghost Rider


    I'm 181.5cm tall (i.e. just under 6'0) with an inseam of 85.5. Does anyone think a 54cm Trek 1000 would definitely be too small for me (before I travel anywhere to try it out...)?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Explosive_Cornflake


    I just checked, it's 52cm. So I'd say it's definitely to small for you. Ah well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭Ghost Rider


    Yeah, reckon so. No worries.
    I just checked, it's 52cm. So I'd say it's definitely to small for you. Ah well.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,154 ✭✭✭Quigs Snr


    Treks tend to size quite small. I would recommend a 58. Armstrong was about 5 10 and rode a 58... I reckon the 60 would be a little on the big side... Defo forget a 52 or 54.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭Ghost Rider


    Good to know that about Trek sizing. Cheers.
    Quigs Snr wrote:
    Treks tend to size quite small. I would recommend a 58. Armstrong was about 5 10 and rode a 58... I reckon the 60 would be a little on the big side... Defo forget a 52 or 54.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭E@gle.


    Quigs Snr wrote:
    Treks tend to size quite small. I would recommend a 58. Armstrong was about 5 10 and rode a 58... I reckon the 60 would be a little on the big side... Defo forget a 52 or 54.

    yeah my trek is a 60cm and its the same size as my look frame which is 57cm


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭Ghost Rider


    I believe Sora shifters can't be fully triggered from the drop position. Do any of you folk who own a Trek 1000 find this a problem? I can imagine it would be.

    Are Tiagra shifters substantially different...?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Explosive_Cornflake


    How do you mean? I alwways get up 1 and down the three on the rear anyway no problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭Ghost Rider


    When I tried a Trek 1000 today I found that when my hands were in the lowest position on the bars, I could only shift the derailleur in one direction i.e. by nudging the break lever sideways. To shift the other way, I seemed to need my thumb, and that meant moving my hands back to the higher position.
    How do you mean? I alwways get up 1 and down the three on the rear anyway no problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Explosive_Cornflake


    Oh yes, that is true, to shift up you need your hands up high alright.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    Tiagra and up is shiftable from the drops. Sora is shiftable in one direction only from the drops.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 704 ✭✭✭PeadarofAodh


    I find I have the same problem with my Trek 1000, gets a bit frustrating having to go back up just to shift the gear


Advertisement