Decision on new bike - what do you lads/lasses think?

dg74
dg74 Posts: 656
edited July 2009 in Road beginners
I'm looking at buying something better than what I have so I have narrowed it down to 2 bikes.

Firstly we have the Trek 1.5T
Secondly Specialized Allez 24 or 27.

Bikes are being bought on the cycle to work scheme and like everyone else, I have a budget to stick to.

Thanks all.

Comments

  • Grazy81
    Grazy81 Posts: 196
    I have recently bought an allez and am happy with it maybe just not the right frame size for me though but everything else is spot on i went for the 18 speed and have never thought i should have gone for the 24/27 So unless you really have bad hills near you i would consider the 16/18 too
  • dg74
    dg74 Posts: 656
    Grazy81 wrote:
    I have recently bought an allez and am happy with it maybe just not the right frame size for me though but everything else is spot on i went for the 18 speed and have never thought i should have gone for the 24/27 So unless you really have bad hills near you i would consider the 16/18 too

    Good point on the 18. It's fairly flat where I live. I think I may have been seduced by the notion of a triple. :D
  • Grazy81
    Grazy81 Posts: 196
    Yeah i was very tempted after crawling up some hills on my mtb so i thought i would need more gears but i now just fly up them with only one really being much of a challenge but is still comfortable with the 18 gears
  • jswba
    jswba Posts: 491
    One difference between the two (I think) is that you'll be able to attach full mudguards to the Trek whereas you have to stick with raceblades on the Allez. Just a consideration given the rubbish summer we're having!
  • FlamingTberto
    FlamingTberto Posts: 41
    I started out looking at the Specialized Tricross Triple as I fancied the range of gears and a flexible frame for mudguards, chunky tires and racks.

    I ended up with a Kona which is similar to an Allez double. I don't do many uber long rides with big hills but if I did, I would like to have a triple as an insurance bet for when I am tiring.

    I've got up hills from London to Oxford and Cambridge with the double, though not so sure I could climb Ditchling Beacon (Brighton) with my double whereas I managed it on my mountain bike last year.
    2009 Kona Zing - second ever racer and follows my 5 speed downshifters Raleigh Milk Race of 1987ish :-)
  • dg74
    dg74 Posts: 656
    jswba wrote:
    One difference between the two (I think) is that you'll be able to attach full mudguards to the Trek whereas you have to stick with raceblades on the Allez. Just a consideration given the rubbish summer we're having!

    I'm not too fussed about getting wet when riding (at least I'm not anymore) so mudguards don't even enter the equation.
  • bice
    bice Posts: 772
    dg74 wrote:
    I'm not too fussed about getting wet when riding (at least I'm not anymore) so mudguards don't even enter the equation.

    Mudguards protect the bike and it is best to use them. That said, race blades, which take two mins to put on, are excellent and I would not want permanent mudguards on a road bike.

    Both your bikes are bog-standard sensible choices and either will be fine.
  • themightyw
    themightyw Posts: 409
    Trek 1.5 has done me proud so far, and is a solid frame that you can upgrade. To be honest, it all comes down to personal preference and you might want to take them both out for a test ride to see if you have a 'gut' instinct, as both are decent bikes.

    FWIW I went for the triple, as I live in a fairly hilly part of Scotland, and even after a year of riding I wish I had gone for the double. That said, it's always nice knowing that you can drop down another level if you're really gubbed.
  • -spider-
    -spider- Posts: 2,548
    themightyw wrote:

    FWIW I went for the triple, as I live in a fairly hilly part of Scotland, and even after a year of riding I wish I had gone for the double. That said, it's always nice knowing that you can drop down another level if you're really gubbed.

    I'm still in two minds over a triple. I live in a particularly hilly area but currently manage on 12 gears (it's not much fun somethimes though).

    On bad days I dream of hundreds of gears (well OK - having a triple) but from what I read here I may be better with a good 16/18.
    -Spider-
  • gkerr4
    gkerr4 Posts: 3,408
    -spider- wrote:
    themightyw wrote:

    FWIW I went for the triple, as I live in a fairly hilly part of Scotland, and even after a year of riding I wish I had gone for the double. That said, it's always nice knowing that you can drop down another level if you're really gubbed.

    I'm still in two minds over a triple. I live in a particularly hilly area but currently manage on 12 gears (it's not much fun somethimes though).

    On bad days I dream of hundreds of gears (well OK - having a triple) but from what I read here I may be better with a good 16/18.

    Whats a 16/18?

    also - I think the bikes in question - even the 'double' is actually a compact is it not? - which with the right casette this can have pretty much the same range of gearing as a usual 'triple' - albeing losing the very lowest and very highest gears of the triple.

    My previous road bike was a triple (trek pilot 1.2) but my newest bike (S-Works roubaix) is a compact. The switch over was easy enough and I don't regret going for the compact at all although it is a massive change from 50 to 34 so you end up dropping at the front and then going up a few cogs at the back to lessen the jump.
  • -spider-
    -spider- Posts: 2,548
    gkerr4 wrote:
    -spider- wrote:
    themightyw wrote:


    Whats a 16/18?

    16 or 18 gears rather than the 24 or 27 you'd get on a triple.
    -Spider-

Categories