Before comitting to any bike, you owe it to yourself to look at this.

Nice, but not the kind of bike I need. I'm getting a road bike, not a mountain bike. Mountains are for HIKING in, not BIKING in, IMHO.

Nice bike. Trek at least used to have a good name, although I've never owned one. My first bike was a large-tubing Cannondale that I bought back in 1983. My advice is this:

Don't buy a racing frame unless you're going to race. It's just a lot less comfortable than a touring frame. If you know you're going to tour occasionally, get a decent frame with braze-ons (or otherwise attached lugs) for racks and such; my current bike (Pinarello, with some old Shimano 105 stuff) doesn't have that. And make sure you get a decent saddle if you plan on spending any time in it.

That said, I've got to partially disqualify myself for not having done any significant amount of riding in the last decade or so. I've been toying around with commuting that way, but toying is as far as it's gotten.

The Trek 1500 is the highest-end of Trek's "recreational" road bike products. I'm still considering buying the Trek 2100 instead. It costs $1,429 ($330 more) and has six upgrades from the 1500 - the first of which is you get the lighter-weight OCLF Carbon frame rather than the Alpha SL aluminum frame. You also get clipless pedals, which is a $50 upgrade I would do anyway if I got the 1500. And you get a better/lighter seatpost, handlebars and stem, and a better headset. All that for a mere $430 more. Arguing in favor of buying the 2100: It's only $280 more that I was going to spend ($330 minus the $50 pedals) and it is the same frame as their $2,099 bike. Arguing against: Is it enough less weight to be worth the extra $280? And of course that $280 would go a long way toward a nice digital camera...

Less weight is less important. I know few people that couldn't easily lose the two or three pounds that several hundred dollars worth of upgrades is going to cost you. A straight frame is important. Comfort is important. Good, durable components are important.

JMHO, of course.

I'm one of the few - I'm a tall, thin guy who could eat nothing but fast food and still not gain weight. So I don't have the option of losing a few pounds. You seem to be knowledgeable about bikes, slart - what is your opinion of the 1500 vs the 2100 vis a vis the components. Other than the weight (and the pedals, which i would upgrade even if I got the 1500) are the components on the 2100 worth the extra money? I haven't bought a bike since the late 1980s, when I bought an Atala.

Don't let me fool you; I've not bought a new bike or even an new component in a decade. I'm riding around on ancient Shimano 105 stuff. My rear dropouts actually were bent when my bike fell off the rack in the garage and I inadvertently backed over it, and I had it straightened. The rear derailleur was also bent; rather than replace it I bent it back. Still a little noisy, but serviceable.

That said, my opinion is this: unless you intend to race, the 2100 is just money thrown away. It's got even more in the way of race components on it than the 1500 does, and unless you're going to compete, I think those are pretty unnecessary. The cranksets, shifters, rear cassette, saddle, brakes and derailleurs are all the same, and those are the things you're going to notice for the most part. The seatpost, handlebars and frame aren't going to be on the level of what you can notice, unless you're racing and have legs the size of tree trunks. If it were me, I'd just swap up for the better pedals and go with the 1500.

Realize, though, that you're going to have to drop a few extra bucks on shoes. And pick a good pair that don't fit too tightly. The worst thing in the world is being on a long ride, and having your feet hurt like hell in addition to your legs and ass.

I like that the newer road frames come stock with a triple-crank. I did a bike tour back in '93 that went from Reno to Fresno via Yosemite; the first day was up over Mt. Rose into the Taho basin and down to the south end of the lake; right around 70 miles IIRC. I wasn't prepared in terms of front chainrings, and there wasn't a triple crank at any of the local bike shops that fit. I had to settle for getting a smaller inner chainring up front. Still, was painful, as I live in Florida and there aren't much in the way of hills here.

Weight can matter to the recreational rider - especially if you are logging big miles in hilly terrain or mountains. I had a Trek 1200 (Al) with a 105 groupo that I thought just fine. Two years ago I upgraded to a full carbon fibre Giant TRC and man what a difference. In fact, it reinvigorated my desire for the road.
That being said, the fit of the frame is the most important IMO, oh, and the saddle.

Yes, that's a consideration. But when riding in the mountains, you're going to lug along some cold-weather gear, perhaps (although not necessarily in Tennessee; you don't have the capricious weather they get in the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas) and a lot of food and water. Unless you've got a chase vehicle, in which case you might want to shave weight off the frame.

To me, a 21 lb bike means I'm driving roughly 206 lbs uphill; while a 23-lb bike means it's 208 lbs, or just under 1% more. I think you're going to see much more effect out of slightly more efficient gear ratios, new (or clean and lubricated) chain, new bearings, fully inflated tires, etc. You may even notice much more difference from a slightly different frame geometry.

I used to have a KHS frame (which is mass-produced in Taiwan, IIRC) with the 105 components on it, and when I acquired the Pinarello frame those same components went on the new frame. The difference in ride was remarkable, and was (likely to be) mostly due to the straightness of the frame. Still, the steel Pinarello frame was perceptibly more whippy than my roommate's large-tubing Klein. But it didn't cost me a couple of grand, either.

The more expensive frame may ride better, Bill. You just have to balance that out against other things you may want to do with the money. Good point, bains. I'd missed the ride quality point altogether. Bill, if they'll let you test ride both, and you still have a question, go ride them one after the other. That way you'll know what you're giving up if you choose the cheaper bike.

Thanks for all the good thinking and advice. One thing to point out: I'm not going to ride THIS new bike across the country. I plan to ride this one to get in shape, but buy a better bike for touring later. I hadn't examined the gear ratios but anticipated working that out with the bike shop - they're real pros and I know the owner from college. They'll provide the right set-up for the region.

Good luck! The only time I get on a bike anymore is to ride rollers. Not the same as being on the road at all.

Bains has got it right..be sure you get a good seat, one that adequately supports your "sit bones". You won't regret it.

Good on-line resource: rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup. Got some good info when I was tweaking my tandem.

Have fun on the new bike!

A good website for bike related stuff is here.

I'm sorry to hear about Ed Soto. That's terrible news. I would also check out the League of American Bicyclists who work on initiatives for bikes and cars to share the road.

I may be interested in contributing to a bike blog. I personally bike commute almost every day.

The other point to be made about performace frames is that they aren't always as durable as touring frames and the like. You should consider how much use you want out of your frame and the type of terrain that you expect to ride on.

Bill,

I would recommend riding both bike to see if you can feel any difference. Even if it's only around the parking lot you may notice a difference. I don't think you feel as much difference between the models your looking at compared to a full carbon bike vs aluminum. I would suggest getting the 1500, and see about upgrading the wheels if you really want a ride improvement. Most bike shops will have demo wheels to try. Good luck on whatever choice you make.

Oh well, I have the same decision to take. I don't know what to buy between the 1500 and 2100. At the beginning, I was suppose to buy the 1200...

I'm still very confuse. Thought that the 2100 was much lighter, but they don't give any weights on the web site, neither in the catalog.

Need to decide before saturday. If you have other comments to do, don't hesitate!

Thanks,
Frank

No one has mentioned recumbents yet. I switched a little over a year ago (Easy Racers "Tour Easy" model). Not just because I'm 20 years older than you Bill, but also because any kind of long distance (more than 25 miles) was just too much on my body with numb hands, butt, aches and pains in lots of other body parts:-).
For touring, you can put a heck of a lot more on a LWB recumbent than you can on a diamond frame. I'd urge you to try a few models out before you make the committment to your touring bike later on. MOO (My Opinion Only)