Carbon worth it? Trek 1.5 vs 3.1

pa_

I have been cycling a Trek 1.2 for a year. It got stolen on Saturday night having been locked up in secure underground parking in my new apartment block (false sense of security).

Looking at replacements, the Trek 1.5 (aluminium with carbon forks) is similar with improved gears - costing AU$1200. A 2010 Trek Madone 3.1 (carbon) can be had for $1800. It has Shimano 105 gears.

I cycle 15KM round trip to work each day and do one or two 40km trips mostly on weekends and plan to do a bit of longer touring up to 100km+ per day. Which bike suits my needs most?

Alternative recomendations to Trek are welcome. I was happy with the 1.2, and the naming system they use is easy to compare models, but i'd happily look into others. I live in Australia to cannot avail of offers in Ireland or England.

One more question - would it be work looking into a second hand high end bike like this one?

http://sydney.gumtree.com.au/c-Stuff-for-Sale-sports-bicycles-mr-Jamie-burdett-W0QQAdIdZ303946706

I'll be keeping an eye on second hand adverts and looking up the CCTV footage to try to catch the scumbag who took my 1.2

blorg

The carbon is worth it, yes, it is much better. Much nicer riding and more comfortable as well as lighter.

By touring do you mean day rides or multi-day stuff where you have to carry stuff? Carbon bikes are not generally designed to do the latter.

macnab

As a comparison: I do a regular 37km route with 300m of hills, on a good day this takes me 1:13:00 on a 7.9kg Boardman Team Carbon, it took me 1:15:07 the other day on a standard Trek 1.2 (9.5kg)

Beasty

Thread here on the wider topic of aluminium v carbon, from which you will see general support for blorg's views set out above

Ryder

I suppose if you can afford to upgrade to carbon than you should. 105 is a good groupset. I would just make the point that you may not notice all that much difference in ride quality from the trek 1.2, if you can go for a trial spin first.....and you could always put the 600 dollar difference to new shoes/clothes/rack etc that might improve your cycling more

pa_

Thanks for the replies. I've decided to try for a second hand carbon. Something like this

http://www.bikeexchange.com.au/bicycles/scott/road/scott-cr1-comp-56cm-hardly-used/camperdown/nsw/100384644

Regarding touring, I like the idea of doing a long tour on a bike, but is it possible on any road bike?

bogmanfan

I've had a 3.1 for the last 3 weeks. Put 500km on it in that time. Much more comfortable than my old aluminium Trek (1400), especially over rougher road surfaces. You seem to be in Australia, so not sure if it's the same over there, but the 3.1 was heavily discounted here in Ireland last month. I got €450 off mine.

pa_

Yeah the 2011 has been reduced from $2500 to $2000, and the 2010 can be picked up for a bit less. Looks like a fine bike, if I can't get a deal on a second hand one i'll be very tempted to go for one.

MungoMan

macnab wrote: »

As a comparison: I do a regular 37km route with 300m of hills, on a good day this takes me 1:13:00 on a 7.9kg Boardman Team Carbon, it took me 1:15:07 the other day on a standard Trek 1.2 (9.5kg)

Interesting

Thats an average speed of 30.4 km/h on the carbon and 29.6km/h on the aluminium.

Not a lot of difference is it...unless you are racing.

Did the bikes have similar wheels and tyres ?


In answer to the OP, sounds like he is a casual rider (like me) .....he uses the word "touring" to describe the 100km spins which he aspires to do.

I think carbon bikes are beautiful things to have, and they can help keep interest in cycling, but at the end of the day, you are paying double or triple money to go less than 1km/hour faster.

blorg

Comfort is a bigger factor than the weight IMO. A lighter bike is also more fun to ride even if it is only giving you seconds.

Esmimyst

I've owned a Cube Agree GTC Race 2010 that cost me 2100€. I rode it just about 2000km in a year. However, after buying a Cube Streamer 2010 for commuting, I don't see the point of a carbon bike except for one case: racing!

If you don't race very often, then you have very good alu frame bike that might be stronger and cheaper than carbon bike.

The GTC Race 2010 was really nice but, while riding the Streamer for commuting and not doing any race, I realized a carbon isn't worth it. I sold mine this August for 1200€ so only a year after purchase (quite a steep depreciation).

I would recommend the Agree Pro that is all 105 and costs less or the Agree SL that is the same as the GTC Race but with alu 7005 frame.

Only my personal experience... Do whatever you want with it.

dermur

Alluminium might feel a little livlier on the road but you'll feel every bump and stone too.

Carbon frames are generally more comfortable alluminium and they're usually at least 1kg lighter if you're going to be lugging them up a lot of hills!

Esmimyst

You're right and I was thinking the same but the difference isn't big enough... at least I think personally.

I've learned to have very flexible arms, bended up to 90°. It'll be hard at first if you are used to ride with straight arms. Your triceps will work hard but after a while, you're good.

Carbon bikes are good for racing or competition where you need best performance but anything else, today's alu bikes are more than enough

Lemag

Don't be dissuading others from spending more money now, d'ya hear.

From my experience, carbon bikes are more comfortable. One doesn't need to race to experience this.

Regarding the riding with your arms at 90°. Why?

Esmimyst

Regarding the riding with your arms at 90°. Why?

90° is the extreme but having the arms bended, between 170° to 90°, help to absorb the road irregularities. Riding with straight arms create pain in the back and shoulders. I'm pretty sure that fact is known from most riders, isn't it?

Lemag

Esmimyst wrote: »

90° is the extreme but having the arms bended, between 170° to 90°, help to absorb the road irregularities. Riding with straight arms create pain in the back and shoulders. I'm pretty sure that fact is known from most riders, isn't it?

You only need to have your arms bent slightly to absord the bumps. You should probably buy your Agree GTC back and start riding it properly.

Esmimyst

No, i'm good with my Streamer. :-)

pa_

I went for a second hand Scott CR1 Comp carbon. The guy who bought it did 40km before realising it was too small, so it's good as new. RRP is $2700 and I got it for $1300 - the bargain almost makes up for having my Trek stolen.

I realise it wont make me dramatically faster, but the frame is extremely comfortable and really dampens road irregularities (This particular model is built for comfort and performance). It's a very quick high quality bike but feels great just cruising along even at 50% effort.

It may not be worth breaking the bank for carbon. Alu frame with carbon forks is quite comfortable. But if you can get a deal or are happy to pay up and enjoy carbon, it's a good option.

Looking forward to putting up big mileage on this.