OlbermannIsAGDI

Looking to get a used (my first) commuter bike and some small (~7-10 mi) rides around the town for the summer, and I've found myself weighing two options. A 1986 Raleigh Grand Prix at $130 and Trek 1400 at $225 (pics unavailable, too new of a user). The Raleigh includes a number of recently replaced or otherwise new parts ("Tires and tubes are new on Araya rims. MKS pedals with cages are not original. VETTA Trishock seat. Shimano 600 brakes and crankset"). I have little info on the Trek beyond pictures. Neither bike has visible rust or damage.

I'm leaning towards the Raleigh for the steel frame (which to my limited understanding would be somewhat more durable than the Trek's aluminum) and considering the seller is able to provide much detailed history of the bike (which causes me to believe the Raleigh has been better maintained than the Trek, even if requiring replacement parts over the years).

I wanted to see if my amateurish intuition was correct or if I'm steering myself wrong (no pun intended)

bargainguy

Welcome. Round tube aluminum Treks, like the 1400, are surprisingly nice rides, more supple than you'd think from an aluminum frame. The durability of steel vs alu is not an issue. That's where I'd put my money.

Nothing against the Grand Prix, it's a fine bike, just not as nice a ride. If you can, test ride both and report back with your impressions.

StarBiker

I have had 1200, and 1400 Treks, and passed on the Grand Prix in the past. The Trek is superior. I road the 1200 for two years.
I also sold both bikes for that $225 asking price.

ClydeClydeson

Aluminum bikes are NOT less durable than steel bikes. When the industry switched from steel to primarily aluminum (mid nineties), frame failures seen in shops decreased. Steel is usually built much closer to the bare minimum strength because adding extra material is too big a weight penalty. Aluminum frames can have thick butting, gussets, and all sorts of reinforcement because there is not much downside to adding such. And Trek makes very good bikes, while Raleigh has always been more budget-oriented.

Also, generally speaking, if comparing two ads and one has all sorts of details about modifications and one has little or none, the one with less detail was usually the less heavily used. Many bikes are purchased and sit unused for decades and the owners know nothing about them. Only bikes that get used a lot have brakes and rims and tires changed. This rule is true for just about any mechanical equipment - if buying a used Subaru, DON'T buy the one that brags of upgraded suspension and engine, buy the one owned by a little old lady who never pushed the car to its limit and so never thought the car needed upgrading.

HOWEVER the primary detail you need to confirm is the fit of whatever bike you want - if the Raleigh fits better than the Trek then the Raleigh is the better bike for you, even if the parts and frame are of lower quality.

Mr. 66

That is a good price on the Raleigh, by 1986 that was a pretty good bike. In the big city I think the Grand Prix would sell for double the asking price, if clean.

That's probably a really good price on the 1400, but we can't tell with out proper pictures.

brian3069

1986 was a very good year for the Grand Prix. Reynolds 531 main tubes, chromoly stays and fork. Assuming it's the right size, the Raleigh seems to be a much better deal.

zukahn1 

I would say the Trek is a better bike but the Raliegh is a much better deal and better suited for using as a commuter bike. Of the two bikes I would suggest test riding if possible and go with the one that is a better fit. For commuting on a regular basis fit is one of the most important things to look for. Both are nice bikes and priced below market if in good condition.

OlbermannIsAGDI

Thank you all for the replies! I'm setting up meetings to try out each bike to hopefully get a feel for my preference. It's great to hear both deals seem good/fair and both bikes are quality for an introductory commuter bike purchase.