Trek Pilot wsd vs 1600 wsd

[krau911]

Hi all.. I am brand new to this forum.... I am hoping to get some guidance about my new promised purchase by my husband... we have narrowed my choice down to a pilot 1.2 wsd, pilot 2.1 wsd or a 1600 wsd. I have read all the literature regarding all 3 but was interested in real opinions. Don't want to spend all his money and then wish I had bought one of the others. FYI .. my hsuband used to race... has a vintage DeRosa frame, but now we just ride together 15-30 miles for pleasure with an occasional hard run! :)

thanks Sharon in Maine

[Maureen Valley]

Well...as a brand new Trek WSD Pilot 2.1 owner....(See pots entitled 'I have a new bike') I can tell you I love my 2.1. I'm still getting used to the clipless pedals and to be honest didn't ride either of the other WSD's you mention. This one fit....was the color I wanted and was in my price range. I loved one that was less $$$ but couldn't deal with the color. Gimme black....no pastels, thank you very much. When all things were equal...I went for the 2.1.

Some of the other women on this forum have alot of experience...so I'll defer to them.

Best from Florida...where storms and tornadoes raged all day today. :eek: We're ok.
Maureen

[love2bike]

I bought a new bike in July. I didn't consider the 1600, but was torn between the two Pilots. I like how the Pilots put me in more of an upright position on the bike.
I ended up with the 2.1 - the seat was soooo much better than the 1.2, and the components are better - worth the extra $$$$ in my opinion.

Patty

[Maureen Valley]

Glad you brought up the seat issue. In another post, I said I'd heard some negative stories about the seats on the Pilots...specifically the 2.1. The most I've ridden without so much as taking a water break was 18 miles and the seat was a DREAM. Of course a good pair of gel chamois shorts add to the comfort of any seat. I thought when I saw the seat..."Oh, God....it's so skinny...." To me it looked like some form of torture device.

I was wrong.

It fit like a kid glove.

Maureen

[KSH]

Pilot 2.1 WSD specs: (Ranked #1)


Frame ZR 9000 Alloy w/TCT Carbon seat stays
Fork Bontrager Satellite Plus, carbon
Shifters Shimano 105 STI, 10 speed w/Bontrager FIT reach adjust
Front Derailleur Shimano 105
Rear Derailleur Shimano Ultegra
Crank Shimano 105 50/39/30
Cassette Shimano 105 12-25, 10 speed




1600 WSD specs: (Ranked #2)



Frame Alpha SLR Aluminum
Fork Bontrager Approved, carbon
Shifters Shimano 105 STI, 10 speed w/Bontrager FIT reach adjust
Front Derailleur Shimano 105
Rear Derailleur Shimano Ultegra
Crank Shimano 105 50/39/30
Cassette Shimano 105, 12-25, 10 speed




Pilot 1.2 WSD specs: (Ranked #3)



Frame Alpha SL Aluminum
Fork Bontrager Satellite Plus, carbon
Shifters Shimano Tiagra STI, 9 speed
Front Derailleur Shimano Tiagra
Rear Derailleur Shimano 105
Crank Bontrager Select 52/42/30
Cassette Shimano HG50 12-25, 9 speed



Well, just looking at the specs... the 2.1 seems to be the best bike. I only say that, because it's full carbon with a 105 and Ultegra mix. This is a bike you can ride for many years. In fact, it's very nice for a beginner component and frame wise.

The 1600 looks good too, except it's not a full carbon bike. It's a great starter bike, but you might be looking for a new frame in a couple of years.

The 1.2 is a pure starter bike. Decent components, but in a couple of years you will probably want to upgrade the frame and components if you start putting some serious time in the saddle.

In the end though, it's all about what you feel comfortable on and enjoy riding.


the seat was soooo much better than the 1.2, and the components are better - worth the extra $$$$ in my opinion.


A seat should never be a determiner on if you buy a bike or not. 9 times out of 10, the seat will be replaced. I don't know many people who actually ride on the stock seat.

You were right to pick the bike based on the better components. That is money well spent.

[Triskeliongirl]

Pilot 2.1 WSD specs: (Ranked #1)


Well, just looking at the specs... the 2.1 seems to be the best bike. I only say that, because it's full carbon with a 105 and Ultegra mix. This is a bike you can ride for many years. In fact, it's very nice for a beginner component and frame wise.

The 1600 looks good too, except it's not a full carbon bike. It's a great starter bike, but you might be looking for a new frame in a couple of years.

The 1.2 is a pure starter bike. Decent components, but in a couple of years you will probably want to upgrade the frame and components if you start putting some serious time in the saddle.
.

I agree the 2.1 is the best bike, but it is not 'full carbon'. I believe that it is aluminum with carbon seat stays and fork. But the others do not even have carbon seat stays, so it still has more carbon where it counts, and it also has excellent components. I also second the ignore the saddle comment. If you like the stock saddle great, but most of us as we put more miles on our bikes replace the saddle. Don't worry about the 'upright position.' Its not really upright. Most women have proportionally shorter upper bodies and arms, so the pilot just makes it easier to get your hands level with the saddle. So, unless you have racing aspirations or a body that feels good in a low aero position, the geometry may suit you and your cycling goals well. I also believe it accepts wider tires which is a bonus for credit card touring.

[KSH]

I agree the 2.1 is the best bike, but it is not 'full carbon'. I believe that it is aluminum with carbon seat stays and fork.

I got confused....


Frame ZR 9000 Alloy w/TCT Carbon seat stays
Fork Bontrager Satellite Plus, carbon


Alloy is...metal?

But it does have more carbon.

[Triskeliongirl]

ZR9000 is an aluminum alloy, a very high grade one at that. Read more here:
http://www.kleinbikes.com/us/road_bikes/index.html

For some reason trek doesn't define it but Klein does. But, some very high end bikes are combinations of high grade aluminum alloys and carbon (like the cannondale six13). A bike that is 100% aluminum can be too stiff (i.e. good power transfer but not comfortable) while some bikes that are 100% carbon cannot be stiff enough (i.e. too cushy, weaker power transfer). I am only now learning about tube stiffness, as I just got a new bike that is reynolds 853 steel. This bike is definitely stiffer than my titanium bike, and even though it weighs more I think it is actually faster since the power transfer is more effecient. BUt getting back to the posters question, your post with the specs makes it clear which is the better bike and why. I would say unless the pilot geometry does not suit her body or riding style she is best off with the 2.1. She will outgrow a tiagra bike really fast, but shimano 105 is really solid and will take her quite far (and of course the ultegra bits are a bonus). The carbon seat stays will insure she is comfy enough to keep riding.

Another comment, shimano105-10spd is a much better group than the 9spd 105/tiagra bontrager mix. It was completely redesigned last year and is excellent. If you really get into it, as parts wear out they will be interchangeable with ultegra10 if you want to upgrade, but you can't upgrade from 9 to 10 spd piecemeale, you need to change out a lot at once. SO, *if it fits you* pilot 2.1 is the way to go. BUt, make sure on the fit. I personally can't ride treks cuz the seat tube angles are too steep for my long femurs. But if I could really like the pilots.

[indysteel]

Actually, the 2.1 Pilot is not a full carbon bike; you have to go up to the Pilot 5.0 for that. The 2.1 is made of Treks' "ZR 9000 [aluminum] alloy" and has carbon seat stays and fork. In looking at Trek's website, I can't really tell you what benefit the ZR 9000 alloy has over Trek's Alpha Aluminum, i.e., the frame material used for the 1600. You may have to ride both of them to see if there's a difference in their "feel."

Given that the 1600 and 2.1 have comparable components, I would buy the one that "feels" and "fits" the best. The Pilot has more of an upright, relaxed geometry, which a lot of recreational riders find more comfortable. I think most bikes, however, can be set up to provide a more upright geometry. I agree, too with KSH that you shouldn't buy a bike based on the saddle. They're easy enough to change out.

[KSH]

What a ton of great educational information! I hope she reads all of this before making her decision.

Wonderful discussion and comparison of the 3 bikes.

[alforfun]

I tried both the Pilot 2.1 and the 1600 WSD, did not like the feel of the Pilot at all. Love my 1600.... I really think you have to go with what "feels right". Definitely try to get the best bike you can for the money, and go with what is right for you. Good luck!

[krau911]

I have been following posts with interest.. everything you all have said makes perfect sense.... I think these are the types of discussions that are imperative, especially to newer riders. Thanks again... anyone have anything more to add I am all ears?

For those that have changed seats.. what seat is recommended if I see a need to change?

LEt's hope for an early spring! Still no snow here in Maine!

the best

SHaron

[Carm]

I purchased my Trek Pilot 2.1 in March of 2005 and love it. I replaced the standard seat with a Terry Butterfly. I also had a professional bike fit but the bike needed very little adjustment. This bike has a carbon seat post and fork with an aluminum alloy frame. I would go with the best bike that you can afford and that feels good when you ride it. Best of luck to you on your decision.

[Bikingmomof3]

Which Trek do you feel the most comfortable on? I tried 3 different Treks, loved them all and my final decision was the one that felt as though it was a part of me.

I choose a Brooks seat. I love it and brought it with me when I tried out Treks.

There is an entire section devoted to Saddles. :)

Enjoy the bike shopping experience.