HELP ! First road bike.

SimPick

Hi,

So, unfortunately I am another pain in the butt newbie with dumb questions !

Anyway, let's not beat about the bush here, I am a 46 year old, fat (100 kg), 6 foot 1 or 2, drink, smoke 20 a day, and generally very very unfit. I bought a MTB last summer and have worked my way up in the last year from 5-10km per ride to the 50km weekend rides I do now, but I am now stepping up the km's quite a lot each month or two. I only manage to get out on Sundays due to kids, wife, etc etc ...... but I have noticed recently that I am doing a lot more on the road and have been thinking about getting a road bike to take me to the next level due to being really keen now on getting out on the bike.
I also don't live in UK but I am English, and I noticed that not all bike specs are the same in different countries. What I am currently looking at seriously with my conservative budget (due to only riding weekends and not worth spending a lot), is a Trek 1.9 with full 105, and a Scott S20 with rear Ultegra and 105 the rest. Both bikes almost exactly the same price. But the Trek is online so I can't test it. I just love the look of it in that lovely blue paint scheme.
I should maybe throw Boardman and the Focus Cayo 105 LTD from Wiggle into the mix, but that only adds to confusion, because where I live the Boardmans are completely unknown and the Focus isnt in any LBS either, so both would be blind buying on the internet. The only one of my choices I can test is the Scott.

So, please help. I know all this is subjective and personal choice, but I guess I just can't make my mind up and value a second opinion from those that know.

Cheers.

velocanman

I am also 6'-2" and have experience riding both Trek and Scott bikes, albeit the carbon variety.

Both bikes look very comparable in geometry. The Ultegra rear der on the Scott is a nice touch but you probably wouldn't notice much difference with 105 in the cockpit. Both bikes look to be about 19+ lb.

From the reviews I've seen, the Trek might feel more plush and comfortable while the Scott might feel faster and more nimble. It depends on what you are looking for.

I generally wouldn't recommend buying a bike without riding it. I thought Trek was dealer-only brand and didn't think you could buy it online? If you've ridden the Scott and it felt good, you could do worse so maybe just buy it. Disclaimer: My current bike is a Scott CR1 but I also lust over Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, and Cervelo.

We are similar in height and build, but I can say that 20 years of cycling has kept my muscles and cardio fit. It will work for you, too. Good luck and keep it up!

SimPick

Cheers velocanman,

The Trek is online at eBay from a dealer in Germany who is selling a new and unused 1.9 that happens to be a 58cm frame. The Scott is on sale for approx 928 pounds, down from 1400 pounds at current exchange rates, due to a partial clearout at the LBS. The price of the two bikes is almost identical when you factor in shipping for the Trek.
A LBS has Trek, but they don't stock much and must order bikes you want. They do have a 1.2 in stock that I can try, but not sure about basing the decision on a 1.2 if I am looking at a 1.9. But maybe it could give me a feel for Trek bikes. I was initially looking at the 1.2, but with these two offers it places both the 1.9 and the Scott slightly cheaper than a new 1.2, so that's a no brainer considering the 1.2 is Sora or Tiagra, can't remember which.

I agree with you about buying online. A bit dodgy unless I can test one here first, which sadly I can't. Shame because the Boardman gets a good write-up, as does the Focus. Anyway, may go after work this week to try the S20 and see how it feels. If I am happy then I may get it there and then due to the offer and only having two or three left in my size at that price. Looks nice too in silver and white with the white rims. I heard the rims let it down and it's worth changing the wheels, but I don't want to be bothered with that to be honest, and I can't afford it either. I want a bike that will go for years, as it is the day I buy it. OK, a saddle change may be needed, but I ordered some cycling shorts that I am hoping will reduce the pain.

velocanman

I am fairly certain the 1.9 and the 1.2 share the same frame. The 1.2 may ride very comparably to the 1.9 and fit should be the same.

I recommend you throw a leg over one of the Treks I think the 58 cm you are looking at may be too small. The effective top tube is only 57 cm. See if you can get on a 60cm before you order the 58cm.

SimPick

Ok, will do. I had a body scan recently for my MTB and he said that I need a 58, but I read recently that Trek seem to be a little smaller than others and It's not uncommon to need the next size up. So buying on the net is a bit of a worry in that regard. I sat on the Scott which was a large, and the guy said it was equivalent to 56-58, and seemed to fit well although I didn't ride it because I had the kids with me and couldn't leave them.
But I certainly take on board what you say, and it may be worth a quick ride on a 1.2 even if I have no intention of buying it.