Trek 1.5 Vs lemond Reno

sean456

Hi there, I am about to purchase my first road bike And would be grateful for any advice. I have a budget of £600 and so far have been seriously looking at the trek 1.5 and lemond reno. They both seem to be almost exactly the same spec except for the frame, although the difference in frame seems to be marginal compared to previous years as it seems trek have relaxed their frame geometry. I find the lemond more pleasing to the eye but that seems like a poor reason to choose one over the other. I would greatly appreciate if anybody could give me their opinion on the trek vs. the lemond or any other suggestions for road bikes in this price area (I’m really not able to spend more than 600 though).

Although I am not planning to race or anything I am quite a committed cyclist by my standards (200 miles+ a week) , especially during summer. I have , perhaps an unconventional body frame (6ft4 long arms, v. long legs) and so a not too committed frame geometry seems to be the order of the day.

Thanks in advance, Sean.

marky2484

Just got a Trek 1.5. Now done a few hundred miles on it.Very happy . I am a big lad -6foot 2 and sixteen stone . No discernible flex in either wheels or frame. Shifters are Sora - they shift perfectly. What else do you need a shifter to do? No, I can't change down from the drops - but I'm thinking hard to imagine a situation where I might want to......Could have afforded a more expensive bike -but I think the Trek looks ace in Red and White

996JAT

I Agree with Marky the Trek 1.5 looks really good much better than a lemond.

I hope to get one in April when i'm back in the UK.

Jat

gkerr4

I find the lemond more pleasing to the eye but that seems like a poor reason to choose one over the other

actually - i'd say thats a great reason to buy one over the other!

If they both fit you and I think the 1.5 / lemond are similar geometry - i.e. not fully 'relaxed' nut not as racy as some ether - a slightly taller headtube than the previous trek 1000/1200/1500 range.

so spec / fit being the same(ish) - then go for the one you like the look of best - you will want to be out more on a bike which looks good and which make you feel good when you are on.

feel

I've got a Lemond Tourmalet (next one up from Reno) and have done about 900 miles on it. No problems at all and as i get to know it better am very impressed with all the quality of all the fittings and the finish, especially the paintwork.
The silver finish Reno is one cool looking bike 8)

musto_skiff

I have just rented a Reno for a week ... nice bike no problems.

bombdogs

Personally, I'd go for the Trek 1.5. Have reviewed it for my website and it's superlight, plus the one big factor it has over the lemond is that it has the housing in the carbon forks where you can put one of trek's speedtrap computer sensors.

Basically, if you're looking for a decent wirless computer, cadence and heartrate monitor, look no further than the team incite - it's got everythign you could ever need all for just £160 compare with the likes of £40 for a comp with a heavy wire cadence systems then you fork out another £80 for a polar hr watch.

Why not buy something that fits the bill and ticks all the boxes without having to buy loadsa different stuff.

Anyway, back to the bike, the 1.5 really is light for a winter bike around the £600-mark. I used it on the chaingangs over a month ago and managed to keep up easily with all the lads on their top of the range models. For the price, you'll get no better - plus it looks cool as well.

Here's the link to my review of the Trek 1.5. If you mention you seen it on there, they might give you a bit of a discount.

http://www.bikenut.merseyblogs.co.uk/20 ... ek_15.html

Here is he link for the team incite cycle computer and hr strap

http://www.bikenut.merseyblogs.co.uk/20 ... ink_1.html

ram038

I bought a 2007 Lemond reno because it has the 105 groupset, I think 2008 model has gone Sora, tried sora but did not like the shifting mechanism. Love the Reno very good bike for the money.

996JAT

Hi Bombdogs just a question.

I just saw the Trek 1.7 in the flesh.

Have you ridden or reviewed this bike??

In the pictures the 1.5 looks better but the 1.7 is nicer in my eyes in the flesh.

Although i'm a begineer and have never ridden a road bike/racer as i got a mountain bike first for the roads to build some strength in my weak legs in the past 2 months.

Speaking to the assistant he explained how the transmission in the 1.7 are the same as more expensive carbon treks and this will help my speed on the roads. The brakes and tyres are better too.

I guess seeing all this and the fact that although its 800 pounds he would throw in a computer will try to push for a trek computer.

I guess for 200 pounds more i might just pay the extra and get the 1.7 if the transmission, wheels are better and a comp thrown in.

Just if anyone has reviews of this bike would be great.

Thanks
Jat

bombdogs

Jat,
To be honest, if you've got £800 to spend then a focus cayo off wiggle is prob better for just £719 - and it's got shimano 105 groupset, plus carbon forks and frame - bargin!!!

Here is the link: http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.a ... 5360026044

Also, if you've got £800 and can manage to stretch to £900 then you'll be able to get a full 2007 dolan carbon bike for £899. Formby Cycles near where i live in Merseyside has got a bit of an offer on at the min, but you can always try contacting terry dolan directly through italian solutions uk as formby havent got a website, while terry has.

Both Formby Cycles and Terry are always willing to haggle for the price and you might get £50 or so knocked off or something extra thrown in if you pay the full whack.

The Trek 1.5 (not the 1.7) is a good starter bike if £600 is all that you can stretch too, but you might also be better hanging onto that cash and checking out the ads in cycling weekly or british cycling's website.

Sometimes you can pick up a decent used bike and, let's face it, us cyclists tend to take better care of our pride and joys than we do ourselves, so chances are you could pick up a brilliant used bike for the price of a bottom end new bike.

Ask round your local cycling club. Chances are, one or two of them have prob got bikes they are lookign to sell. Give the club secretary a quick ring, explain what you're after and he/she might be able to put you in touch with someone and they might also invite you out on a clubrun.

The worse thing you can do when starting our or buying a new bike is not to ask people who know more than you!!!

Bombdogs


PS: just had a look at the Trek 1.7 and it looks a really good bike for the price. Althought some people will says its got an ali frame, Trek's black ali frames are lighter than some heavy duty carbon bikes, so at the end of the day the choice is really yours. Go for the bike you like the look of, as you'll take better care of it and feel like you can go faster.

With regards to getting faster on a mountain bike, think you're better training for road riding on a road bike. Mountain bikers tend to be better pedallers than roadies because of constant going up hills, but like i said before if you wanna train for the road ride a road (oh, and join a club)

996JAT

Thanks Bombdogs.

To be honest my legs were really weak and the mountain bike takes so much effort. I've done a 30 mile ride on it so far and its a killer but was really great to bulk up your legs.

I'm a sucker for looks and its the Trek for me. I'm new to it so maybe a new bike from a local dealer maybe better for me. I'm so lazy i take my bike to the shop whenever i get a punture.

Your right though go for a bike that you like, i lifted the trek 1.7 and a carbon bike and it was not too much heavier and i'll know i'll fall off sooner or later. Also i'm 95KG and a lighter carbon bike with a fat bloke on it defeats the point.

Thanks for your help i'll def join a club.

Jat

bombdogs

Jat,
If you big-boned like me (or was) then the best thing you an do is get a road bike adn get out there doing 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or even 80-miles during the lighter nights or at weekends.
Just remember, you dont have to turn big gears to get fit or bulk you legs up. Bulky or musclar legs are only really for the very top sprinters - even then, the likes of Lance Amrstrong won the Tour de France seven times by not churning big gears compare to Jan ulrich.
Armstrong had a cadence of around 110-150 during stage races and time trials using easy gears. The theory is, spin quickly and easy, go faster and longer.
Doesn't take a genius to work out that if you push big gears your legs will get tired quickly.
If you want more advice have a look at my websites archive: http://www.bikenut.merseyblogs.co.uk/archives.html

or download my podcast 'Bikenut Podcast' via iTunes. I put a new episode up every week and after the news, i have features on riding positions, climbing etc. Only on second episode but well worth a listen - i used to be a newbie too!!!

996JAT

Thanks Again Bombdogs.

I love wieght training so i'll always keep to 95kg or so. I also do squats with 90-120KG's so bulky legs are gonna occur, though its funny trying to cycle back the 2 miles after squats.

In fact guys at the gym are telling me not to cycle too much as i wont gain mass muscle but to be honest cyclying has been the only cardio that i dont find boring and sorts the abs out.

i'll download the podcats.

Thanks

muz250

Iv got a 1.5 aswell, a very good bike in my opinion to. Only done 60 road miles on it though got it before x mas and of course the weathers been rubbish and I ve moved house. The weather is getting better so am going to be putting some miles on it now!. It looks good aswell for the money I was wanting to spend it was the best looking imo, But If the specs are pritty much the same I would buy the one you like the look of best.