Maybe the question should be: is it worth 2000 more TO YOU? Do you need the lightest, fastest bike in Trek's lineup of FX bikes? Do you ride competitively, or just ride for the enjoyment of riding. It's a fine bike, with better components than the FX 2, but do you really need all that? Are you an advanced rider, do group rides where the pace is very quick? I'd say the bike itself is worth the extra money, but TO ME, the FX 2 would be fine (have been thinking about buy an FX 3), for my riding, I don't need the "best". Something that gets me from point A to B, without breaking down, and at a decent pace, is fine. If the FX 2 isn't doing that for you, and you feel a need for the "best", then it might be worth it. Bottom line-the specs justify the extra cost, but is it worth it TO YOU?
Last edited by freeranger; 07-03-21 at 06:38 AM.