Test Drive

Warwickshire Whizzer

After eventually setting myself a budget of £1k for for my first road bike since I was a nipper, I took out a 2010 Trek 1.5 yesterday for a spin.

So having been happily surprised (I've been on MTBs for years now) - What do I really gain for spending an extra £300?

I know it would get me a cheap carbon frame a la ribble, but feel it doesn't seem worth it. The groupsets all seem similar up to a grand too - looking at tiagra really? (Ignoring the Focus Cayo with 105 for 999.99 at Wiggle)

So, as non serious cyclist, looking to do a few sportives and challenges (coast to coasts etc... - will spending £700 now mean I'll be itching to upgrade in a years time, or will spending a grand now mean I'll be happy for a few years longer on the same machine?

dmch2

That's exactly what i asked a month ago and i bought a trek 1.5 as well

LeicesterLad

I dont think anybody really needs Carbon for coast to coast's, sportives and general leisure riding, especially commutting. (chipping the paintwork on your carbon frame with all the dirt and crap from the gutters deffinately wont make your day)

Serious racing needs the lightest, fastest bike, so forgive the pro's riding carbon bikes. But in the end, speed comes down to you, not the bike, whether its carbon or not it won't go any faster unless you are fitter, and working harder. In many cases, i reakon just a carbon fork is a better option, especially for leisure and commuting, no need to splash high end cash unless you are going to fully utilise the piece of kit you have.

my 2 pennies worth, im sure there will be differing opinions.

steve36

I dont think anybody really needs Carbon for coast to coast's, sportives and general leisure riding, especially commutting. (chipping the paintwork on your carbon frame with all the dirt and crap from the gutters deffinately wont make your day)

+1

Pretre

Warwickshire Whizzer wrote:

The groupsets all seem similar up to a grand too - looking at tiagra really?

There is quite a difference between Tiagra & 105 - I'm not saying that Tiagra is that bad (although there is a reason it's cheap..) but 105 is a great improvement, with Ultegra a bit better & Dura-Ace a little bit better again. As you go further up the scale improvements are way harder to make & so cost a lot more.

Warwickshire Whizzer

Cheers Guys,

Helpful advice - I think i might have saved a few hundred quid there - now, what accesories to buy with it...

CiB

LeicesterLad wrote:

I dont think anybody really needs Carbon for coast to coast's, sportives and general leisure riding, especially commutting. (chipping the paintwork on your carbon frame with all the dirt and crap from the gutters deffinately wont make your day)

Serious racing needs the lightest, fastest bike, so forgive the pro's riding carbon bikes. But in the end, speed comes down to you, not the bike, whether its carbon or not it won't go any faster unless you are fitter, and working harder. In many cases, i reakon just a carbon fork is a better option, especially for leisure and commuting, no need to splash high end cash unless you are going to fully utilise the piece of kit you have.

my 2 pennies worth, im sure there will be differing opinions.

Every so often someone comes up with this, and the correct response is 'cobblers'. You might as well insist that everyone buys a Hyundai i10 to go to work instead of a nice Audi, or that a Nissan Micra will get you to your destination just as quickly as Scooby Doo WC or whatever. Maybe they do, but they're not as much fun.

In this world, we can buy whatever we fancy and whatever our budget stretches to. Me? I commute on a carbon road bike, because I can, and because it's great. When it wears out I'll buy something dafter and enjoy that, rather than opting for something that's not as good as I could have as "it's not really worth doing that".

Cycling is about fun, and reaching your potential. If a lump of shiny yellow carbon gets me to work in about the hour mark (21 miles), that'll do for me. What do you suggest I do with the £400 I might have saved? Change the world?

And

Warwickshire Whizzer

CiB wrote:

... If a lump of shiny yellow carbon gets me to work in about the hour mark (21 miles), that'll do for me. What do you suggest I do with the £400 I might have saved? Change the world?

And

but I don't want a yellow bike... :?

CiB

The real question is do you want to spend £700 on a bike now that's maybe not as good as you'd like, and then have to spend an additional £1000 (or £1200, £1500 whatever) in a year or so's time. Only you really know whether you will want to upgrade, but if you suspect that you will, you probably will. And the whole exercise will have cost a lot more than if you'd just bitten the bullet and bought the bike you hunkered for in the first pace.

I know there are reasons for not buying an uber bike as your first bike, but equally if you're going to buy something good I don't see the logic in buying a not so good version first and then having to spend the same again + more to get what you wanted a year ago. Up to you in the end though.

Nowt wrong with yellow BTW. It goes quicker.

stronginthesun

my friend had a trek 1.5 and loved it , after 1 year traded up to a trek 5.1 and now loves that . put the 1.5 on ebay and got a lot more than he expected . go for it !

BenS999

To the OP, if you are unsure, spend £700 now. Then (as me and I'm sure most) you may want more or better, and sell it and spend £1k, then you realise you need to spend more because you are enjoying it so much that you put the wife on eBay so you can spend £3k. Worked for me!
And if you find the first bike ticks all the boxes, hey presta, another happy rider and it didnt cost much!

Granted it can be a more expensive way of doing things, but hey, its damn fun!

PS Wife on eBay was a joke, I dont mean I didn't do it, I just didnt get any bids.