Giant SCR verses Trek 1200 verses...

loco020
loco020 Posts: 15
edited July 2008 in Road beginners
Does anyone have anything positive or negative to say about the Trek 1200 or Giant SCR 2.0? I'm looking for a new bike and have seen a few of these around second-hand. Or, can you suggest a 1 to 3 year old alternative? I've seen the Specialized Allez rated well in other posts.

Also, whats the difference between Shimano Tiagra and Sora gears as fitted on the SCR 2.0 and 3.0, respectively. They seem to be the only differences between the 2 bikes' specs but their list prices are £545 and £465.

Thanks,
Dave

Comments

  • gkerr4
    gkerr4 Posts: 3,408
    they are very different - the SCR range is quite a comfortable road bike - made for all -day efforts where the trek 1200 is a lot more 'racy' in it's geometry and not as comfy for it.

    the allez is closer to the SCR than the 1200 in it's layout.

    The SCR is stil a current model - the 1200 has been discontinued with trek moving to a 1.x model line-up for the alloy models.

    sora is a range lower than tiagra - I think it is 8-speed only where tiagra is 9-speed. There are some differences in the lever design too - the sora levers use a little thumb button to change to a smaller cog where the tiagra use another paddle behind the brake lever (in common with the rest of shimano range)
  • mivecboy
    mivecboy Posts: 34
    Picked up my SCR2 with the Tiagra groupset on at the weekend and very pleased. Was looking at the Trek 1.5 but groupset on SCR2 is better and it costs less so i went with that and dont regret it.
  • yackers1
    yackers1 Posts: 108
    "they are very different - the SCR range is quite a comfortable road bike - made for all -day efforts where the trek 1200 is a lot more 'racy' in it's geometry and not as comfy for it."


    I am unsure about the above comment. I have a Trek 1200 whereas my other half has an SCR 3.0. I find my Trek absolutely fine (I suffer from really numb hands and wrists on the MTB but not on the racer - due to more hand positions(?)) whereas the other half was whinging that her back aches, her arms ache and her wrists ache after 26 miles.

    As with the rest of the bike I am really pleased. The Tiagra gears are fantastic with good positive shifting (they don't have the gear display in them like the new Tiagras and I don't know if it worth upgrading to these in the future at c. £140 ).

    I only have a double front (I am unsure if they do a triple since there weren't any in the LBS when I bought mine) and do not know whether it is better or worse than a triple. This is my first proper racer so I have nothing to compare it to.

    Based on the very short ride I had on the SCR I don't regret choosing the Trek over the Giant. :D
  • gkerr4
    gkerr4 Posts: 3,408
    i know what you mean - different people, different fit etc - but by design, the SCR is intended to be an all-day comfort road bike - where the trek is intended to be an out and out 'racer'
  • mivecboy
    mivecboy Posts: 34
    gkerr4 wrote:
    i know what you mean - different people, different fit etc - but by design, the SCR is intended to be an all-day comfort road bike - where the trek is intended to be an out and out 'racer'

    Hit the nail on the head. I bought my Giant for occasional use and fitness and not racing. Giant is more upright than the Trek so buy whatever suits your intended usage and style of riding.

Categories