Trek 1.2 v 1.5

rickenbacker89

Hey Everyone,

Just got some money for christmas to get a new road bike. I was only given enough to buy the Trek 1.2. But was wondering if it was worth the extra money for the 1.5. Are the upgraded components and frame worth it? I'm just getting in to cycling and want a good entry level bike. I've narrowed it down to these two. I know the frame in the 1.5 is better but is it worth it? Anything you all have to say will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

adeyboy

I'm sure there will be more useful advice than this - but my two-pence worth is just to say that the 1.5 frame is shared all the way up to the 1.9 at £1200. At the end of the day the frame is the most crucial part of any bike and this is where the money should go.

I went through the same thing as you in late summer, having decided on the 1.2 I 'found' the money for the 1.5 once I'd had a good look and a think about the difference. Mind you, at 2008 prices and with a few quid off at the LBS it was only £75 difference.

You have to draw the line somewhere spending wise, but I think the better frame (and other components) warrant the extra dosh. Seems to me a far bigger step from 1.2 to 1.5 than 1.5 to 1.7 and 1.9.

Waffle waffle.

adeyboy

Oh, and if you can find a 2008 1.5 snap it up - you would get it for about the same as a 2009 1.2. There are a few around if you know your size.

fatfreddy

My wife bought a 1.2 and I was so impressed decided to get one. But come the day, went for the 1.5. My LBS swapped the front mech for a Tiagra (to match the rear) at no cost and did me a good deal on some Mavic wheels.

I love it - it's a great bike.

ff

LingfieldXC

correct me if i'm wrong but the 1.2 is 27 speed compared to the 1.5 which is 30, if you intend on upgrading in the future you would have to buy a whole new chainset to make it 30 speed as you can't use 27sp shifters on the 30sp deralleurs etc. go with 1.5.

keef66

I was hankering after a Trek last year, and quickly decided that the 1.5 was as low as I'd go in the series because that frame's used for the dearer bikes too. Then I decided I preferred the level of equipment on the 1.7 By the time I got around to doing anything about it all my local dealers had sold out of my size, and I ended up spending nearly twice as much as the 1.5 would've cost on something completely different!

alfablue

I think you would just need new shifters (still about £140), the chainset and mechs should be okay, but the bike may be better being sold on rather than upgrading. Nevertheless, 27 speeds is perfectly fine, but the biggest bugbear (an issue to some people like me, but not other people) is the Sora shifters having that thumb button. My girlfriend has the 1.2 and is perfectly happy with it as it is, once we reduced the reach of the levers.

colint

Bike Factory in Chester were doing 20% off all bikes last week, so you'd get the 1.5 for about £510. The sale ended at the end of the week I think but worth giving them a call

adeyboy

LingfieldXC wrote:

correct me if i'm wrong but the 1.2 is 27 speed compared to the 1.5 which is 30, if you intend on upgrading in the future you would have to buy a whole new chainset to make it 30 speed as you can't use 27sp shifters on the 30sp deralleurs etc. go with 1.5.

My 2008 1.5 triple is 9 speed, as is the 2009 as far as I'm aware (well, just checked Trek's website!).

gkerr4

are they really different frames?

both are sora - so the main difference I can see is that the wheels are different - and those SSRs aren't worth an extra £100 - they're rubbish!

if the frames are the same I'd go for the 1.2 and a set of mavic aksiums - try and budget (negotiate?) for a set of decent tyres and you'd have a pretty good entry level bike

colint

the frames are different grades of aluminium

rickenbacker89

thanks for the replies so far. the 1.5 would really stretch my current budget but hopefully i'll be able to pull some strings and upgrade. i think the fact they have different frames doesn't make much sense but that's the way it is, i guess.

gkerr4

"The frames are different grades of aluminium"

so what?

they are both relatively cheap aluminium frames - just cos one says "black' aluminium and the other says 'white' alumiunium - whats the difference?

the geometry is the same - the weight might be different but by how much? 100g? 200g?
Could they even be the same? - shame on trek, but do they really have another production line running frames of the same geometry in s slightly different aluminium??

a 1.2 with aksiums might still be a better road bike - OK - it needs a carbon seatpost too - PBK have one for £14 (although the alloy one is probably lighter!!) and the rear mech being tiagra - it's like a £15 part too. the difference in RRP is £175 - is the 1.5 really £175 better?

(i don't know the answers btw - i'm just asking - and probably confusing the [email protected] out of the OP(sorry))

pbracing

I don't know, but it's entirely possible that Trek could have one of the frames made in a different country under licence, let alone different production line.
That could mean a different grade and quality of aluminium, with more strength where it matters to give a faster and more responsive ride. Which could be why it's used all the way up the model range. Could help with longevity too, perhaps.

I dunno, I'm just making it up really, but it could happen. :?

Anyone who knows ridden a 1.2 and 1.5?

madandybell

Sod trek and take a look at the boardman range, Ritchey finishing kit and a mix of tiagra / 105 on the comp model.

sportbilly1976

Well I have a 1.2T on order, as it was all our bike to work scheme would stretch to.

Am I really going to notice the difference in components?

As one of the contributors signature goes - we should spend more time & effort improving our engine rather than the benfit of a slightly different frame / seatpost etc!!

colint

gkerr4 wrote:

"The frames are different grades of aluminium"

so what?

they are both relatively cheap aluminium frames - just cos one says "black' aluminium and the other says 'white' alumiunium - whats the difference?

the geometry is the same - the weight might be different but by how much? 100g? 200g?
Could they even be the same? - shame on trek, but do they really have another production line running frames of the same geometry in s slightly different aluminium??

a 1.2 with aksiums might still be a better road bike - OK - it needs a carbon seatpost too - PBK have one for £14 (although the alloy one is probably lighter!!) and the rear mech being tiagra - it's like a £15 part too. the difference in RRP is £175 - is the 1.5 really £175 better?

(i don't know the answers btw - i'm just asking - and probably confusing the [email protected] out of the OP(sorry))

Well, Trek say they're different, so we either believe what the maufacturers say or we assume every alu frame is the same (geometry aside), and just buy the cheapest frame available on the market, ignoring all the marketing buff.

adeyboy

gkerr4 wrote:

are they really different frames?

both are sora - so the main difference I can see is that the wheels are different - and those SSRs aren't worth an extra £100 - they're rubbish!

if the frames are the same I'd go for the 1.2 and a set of mavic aksiums - try and budget (negotiate?) for a set of decent tyres and you'd have a pretty good entry level bike

The frames most definitely ARE different. It is fairly easy to see visually, even on their website - scroll the zoom box over the two frames and compare welds etc.

As to how much difference in quality there is, well that's where you have to take the company at it's word - but as has been repeated, the 1.5 frame is esactly the same as the frame with the £1200 1.9 bike.

colint

Yep, they are obviously different, comapred my 1.7 with the 1.2 today

rickenbacker89

thanks for the suggestions,everyone. I went to my LBS this afternoon and scheduled a fitting. i think i'm going to go for the 1.5 in black/white. when i saw it in the shop i just couldn't resist. the guy at the shop recommended the 1.5 as well.

oldabe10

I have a trek 1.7 08 model for sale in size 58cm, near perfect condition, in pearl white/black/red paint job (type it into google images). £550

punkypossum

rickenbacker89 wrote:

thanks for the suggestions,everyone. I went to my LBS this afternoon and scheduled a fitting. i think i'm going to go for the 1.5 in black/white. when i saw it in the shop i just couldn't resist. the guy at the shop recommended the 1.5 as well.

Is that the 08 model? This years 1.5 is puke green and white - I only know this because I bought the 1.7 over the weekend (based on wanting a triple and non-sora shifters). Very glad that wasn't green, not sure if I could have coped!!!!

oldabe10

Yup 08 model, painjobs stunning especially after i cleaned it

rickenbacker89

I'm going to uni in the states so they have an additional color combination here for the 2009 1.5. Black/white it looks really great in person.[/quote]

jamieh5463

The trek 1.5 in america has exactly the same paint job as the trek 1.7 uk (08) model, but on the us model the letters are black whereas the uk one was white (not trying to sell it to you because sold now anyway).