Trek 1.9 2009 Vs 2.1 2010

Smonks

I've been looking at buying a 2009 Trek 1.9 Compact through the cycle scheme.

It appears Trek are replacing it for 2010 with the 2.1 Compact.

They are both of a similar price - just under £1k and appear to have relatively similar specs - mostly 105 kit.

I have heard some people say the 2010 model isn't as well specced?

Can anyone point out the primary differences in the models and is the 2009 model a better deal?

2010 model is £950, 2009 model is £925

Monkeypump

Don't think you're looking at the 1.9 (blue & white), probably the 1.7 (red & white).

The 1.9 is full Ultegra, 1.7 105.

The 2010 equivalent models are

1.9 --> 2.5
107 --> 2.3

It seems they've numbered all the Alpha Black Alu frames 2.x and the Alpha White alu frames 1.x for 2010

2009 bikes look like much better value for money. My 2009 1.9 was £1150, the 2010 2.5 is £1400. Frames and kit look much the same, no revolutionary changes for 2010.

Smonks

Yes, you're right, it was the 1.7 I was looking at.

Hmmm, well the 2.3 is a fair bit more expensive and beyond a cycle scheme purchase so I best get a 2009 model sharpish!

Not sure where the 2.1 comes in then?

Smonks

Yes, you're right, it was the 1.7 I was looking at.

Hmmm, well the 2.3 is a fair bit more expensive and beyond a cycle scheme purchase so I best get a 2009 model sharpish!

Not sure where the 2.1 comes in then?