timwu12

I'm deciding on a bike. Trek's best aluminum framed bike (2.3) or Trek's lowest carbon bike (Madone 4.5)? Seems like the only difference are in the brakes calipers, the wheels and tires, crank and of course the frame.

ps: i forgot to say, it's a difference of $550

eminefes

Those are some significant differences, though. The 4.5 is basically the carbon version of the 2.1. The 4.5 used to be spec'd much better, but they downgraded it a lot for 2010 and took a little bit off the price tag. IMO, if you're gonna go carbon, at least go for the 4.7. It might not be OCLV, but it seems like a nice bike with good components. Otherwise, go for the 2.3 (if you must stick with Trek).

roadwarrior

Trek's aluminum frame is not very good in comparison to aluminum for about the same price at Cannondale. The CAAD9 or Synapse aluminum frames are much superior in ride quality.

On Trek aluminum, you are the shock absorber.

DXchulo

$550 is a pretty big difference. I'd say set your budget first and work backwards from there.

zerocool33

I just bought a 2.3 and I don't feel like a shock absorber or that it is a bad thing to "stick with Trek". I'd have to say though that I'm one of the few who doesn't really hate on any brand. Who gives a **** what you ride, it's all good quality at that pricepoint. I wanted better wheels and drivetrain right off the bat. Not that 105 is spectacular, but I don't race and I'm 335lbs so lightweight parts aren't a huge issue. I do prefer SRAM though if given the choice. The 105 feels spongy compared to the rival I had on another bike. For me personally I'd rather have an aluminum bike with better components than a low end carbon with mediocre components. And for all those spouting off about how much greater the CAAD9 is than every other aluminum frame, I test rode one last week and it was nice but not THAT nice. I especially didn't think Cannondales' superior aluminum frame soaked up any more vibration than my 2.3. I test road a CAAD9-4 if it matters. I originally considered one but I get way better prices and service at my LBS compared to the shop that carries Cannondale 20 miles away. It's that simple.

entukay

Go for the carbon, otherwise get some Cannondale aluminum. This from someone who owns a 4.5 and has owned aluminum Treks and Cannondales.

intence

Is getting a Trek a requirement? There's nothing wrong with Trek, but I feel that in the lower end you can sometimes get better value elsewhere.

When I think of Carbon, Giant usually comes to mind, along possibly with Specialized. My guess is that both of them have been making Carbon frames in Asia for much longer than Trek. Trek has been doing Carbon for quite some time, I believe as it was only offered on their highest end bikes until recently, it used to all be done in the US. If I were to buy an Asian made Carbon frame, i'd porbably look at the brands that have been making their frames there for several years.

When I think of Aluminum, then I would strongly consider Cannondale, who is considered by many to be a master of aluminum. Their CAAD9 in particular is very well regarded (and still US made, possibly the last year they'll be doing so). Word of caution on the CAAD though, the geometry is probably more aggressive than Trek. If you're looking at bikes made in Asia, keep in mind that most of the frames (including Trek I believe) come out of one of a handful or factories, so at similar price points there usually nothing significant that makes one much better than another. In general some of the smaller companies tend to offer more for less in order to compete.

I would also think about riding as many bikes that fall within your pricepoint as possible, you may find something that just feels right, although it may have been a brand you hadn't previously considered.

As far as components, IMO, anything at or above 105 (looking mainly at the shifters) will be perfectly fine, same goes for SRAM Rival. The higher end groups are slightly nicer, but the changes are minimal (unless of course you're looking at Ultegra 6700, which is a generation newer than 105 ... in fact taking that into account if you're buying Shimano i'd avoid 105 as it will be redesigned for next year, unless of course you're getting an amazing deal).

Look at the Crankset and Brakes as this is where manufacturers like to skimp, but not giving you the SRAM/Shimano parts, but rather Tektro, FSA, etc. As for the wheels, whatever is coming stock on the bikes you mentioned is something you're probably going to replace anyway (or use for training) so I wouldn't let it be a deal maker or breaker.

I'd also recommend buying the bike with the best frame whether carbon or aluminum. You can always upgrade a component here or there but upgrading the frame is a bit more time consuming.

midgetmaestro 

"Not that 105 is spectacular, but I don't race and I'm 335lbs so lightweight parts aren't a huge issue. I do prefer SRAM though if given the choice. The 105 feels spongy compared to the rival I had on another bike."

My 105 isn't spongy in the slightest.

IMO, I'd go for either the 2.3 or start looking at different manufacturers.

Jinker

As pointed out above, the 2.3 has a better wheelset. Who cares about the brakes, Tiagra works just fine.

As for weight, the 4.5 is a lighter frame, but the slightly lower end wheelset, fork and handlebars wipe out this advantage. The complete bikes weigh within a couple ounces of each other.

The main difference would be ride quality. The carbon frame will somewhat reduce the harshness of road buzz. It should be a little bit stiffer in the bottom bracket which should also help for bigger guys. I'm deep into clyde territory and get way less chainring rub climbing hills than I used to on my aluminum bike now that I'm on a Madone 5 series.

If you many rides longer than 2 or 3 hours, or ride on crummy chip seal roads, I'd go for the carbon bike. Otherwise $500 can get you some really yummy upgrades. Better shorts/shoes/pedals or even a stronger wheelset are within that range.

roadwarrior

Couple things...

1. At 335 pounds you cannot ride carbon. Depending on the manufacturer, it's 225 to about 250 max rider weight. Simple as that.

2. You are better off with the beefier seat stays on the Trek.

3. If you were referring to me about "hate on a brand" I sell a ton of Treks (I actually am in the bike business) but all manufacturers have their strengths. For a better rider who is economically driven, there is better aluminum out there. Since I used to ride aluminum about 10,000 miles a year, I think I am a decent judge of frame feel and engineering.

4. Your last sentence basically made the rest of your post commentary.

I commend you for getting out there and riding but with all due respect I would not use your experience as a judge of frame feel, quality, nor groupset effectiveness.

Glad you like your Trek. I sold four of them (your type of bike) yesterday.

zerocool33

So what you're saying is that until I'm sub 165lbs and put on more than the 1,000 or so miles I average in a year I have no experience nor knowledge of how a bike feels or performs? And by the way, my shop and numerous people on here have stated that someone my size would have no problem on a carbon bike and might actually be better off. I just went with what I could afford at the time. Guess I've been done told though.

trigger

Reading comprehension? Nobody mentioned 165lbs. When you are sub 250lbs (as per the above poster) and have ridden both carbon and aluminum for significant distances you'll have more to say on the subject.

Nobody is trying to make fun of you or call you out on your weight ... for all we know you're a weight lifter or football player, not a couch potato. That said, I have a hard time believing any reputable shop would have suggested carbon for you if you disclosed your weight. Key here being both 1) reputable shop (as in, not just out for a sale) and 2) weight disclosure on your part. If you are a muscular guy there is little chance someone would eyeball you and get your weight right.

trigger

And uh, yeah ... 1000 miles a year is really not much of a perspective to judge durability or performance from. Consider that most what I'll call "active" sport riders (not racers) probably put on something close to 100 miles a week if not more during what I will conservatively suggest is a 6 month season.

6 months x 4 weeks = 20 weeks x 100 miles per = 2 000 miles.

Anyone who commutes, races, belongs to a club or rides in a temperate climate will put on many more.

Again, not knocking you. It is fantastic to get out there and ride at all, but you must understand that your experience of a bike - both through weight related factors and the amount you ride - will be different from many people on this board.

umd

:

trigger

Nah, I'm going to work. I think I must have read too much of your Bruce Lee thread. You can be a bad influence umd.

The Weak Link

It was an excellent question. Someone needs to say "Steel is Real".

gbg

Where do you get this??? TREK states they do not have weight restrictions on their carbon frames.

From the TREK website!!

The new Madone is available for taller riders! Fitting big guys has often been problematic with carbon bikes, which sometimes aren't made in the biggest frame sizes. Not only saddle height and set back matter, but frame stack and reach matter too. There's no rider weight limit on the new Madone. If you're a big guy and want to see if the new Madone will fit you, read on!

tmass

Uh...which one rode the best when you test rode them? If the carbon feels $550 better then go for it.

deep_sky

I've been pretty pleased with my Trek Pilot 2.1. Aluminum frame, CF seatstays, CF fork, and CF seatpost come standard IIRC. I most certainly do not feel like a shock absorber after a long ride. Granted, I've upgraded quite a bit on my bike, but it still feels just fine. I also like the taller headtube so I can have a more upright position, which is easier on my back, and allows some clearance for my thighs, which are longer than they would normally be on someone of my height.

shouldberiding

This thread has been derailed somewhat. This is not just directed at you but timwu12 is the OP, not zerocool33, and he didn't say anything about being a big rider.

zerocool33

point taken ^^^ I'll shad up.

BigBlueToe

My advice: do whatever you want to aid you in picking a bike - read reviews, ask for opinions on this board, do lots of test rides, listen to people at your local bike shops. However, once you make a choice, don't look back. Love your new bike. I'm sure whatever you end up with will be excellent - most bikes are these days, compared to what I was riding in the 70's. There are much better bikes than my old Allez, I'm sure, but I love it and have no regrets, and no envy. Now get out there and ride, soldier!

recon455

Trek's 2009 one-size-fits-all manual says that "Condition 1 bikes(road bikes) have a weight limit of 275 lbs." Check Trek's 2010 Manual before you buy to see their weight limit. Also consider that the wheels that come on Madones aren't some 32 spoke titans that eat potholes for breakfast.

rumrunn6

spend less, ride more

it's not what you got; it's what you do with it

gbg

The "Condition 1 bikes(road bikes) have a weight limit of 275 lbs" sounds like a generic CYA in a generic manual.

I think when an article specifically about Madones says "There's no rider weight limit on the new Madone" it means "There's no rider weight limit on the new Madone"

There is a video showing the stress tests they do to Madone frames. They use hydraulic rams to bend twist the frame 1-2" out of alignment.
Have you seen how stiff Madone frames are? I thought if you twisted CF that much there would be no question it would snap, and I bet
the strongest Olympic sprinter coudn't get 1/10 of that deflection on the frame. And since CF has NO fatigue limit it can be twisted/bent like that forever.

At 300lbs+ I would worry about the wheels not the frame.