Trek vs. Specialized

[tulip]

Welcome to TE.

Please go out and try a bunch of bikes to see what you like and what you don't like. Treks and Specialized are fine bikes, but there are others out there, too. Why are you wanting a woman's bike specifically? Are you long-limbed and short-waisted? If so, WSD might be just the ticket. But ride LOTS of bikes of all styles before you make up your mind.

Get the one that fits, because if it doesn't fit, you won't ride it no matter how pretty it is.

You don't mention where you live and what your terrain is like. There is a big difference between regular double chainrings and triples. If you live in a hilly area, you'll probably want a compact double or a triple. If you live in a flat area, a regular double will likely be fine.

While the components can be upgraded (for a price), sticking with Shimano 105 will probably be a wise investment if you can swing it. That's my opinion, others may have other opinions.

Now get out there and start test riding alot of bikes.

[kalimom]

Thanks Tulip!
I have ridden all the bikes available at local shops.
I have been out at the local shops riding bikes and have narrowed it down to those two basically because it is what is available in my area. I am in Ventura, CA . It is hilly. Elevation on a basic 15 mile ride i do is 700ft. The local group rides have about 800ft gain. I am open to other bikes, however, i just havent found one i like.

[tulip]

You say you've narrowed the choice down to those two because that's what's available--but do you like them? Do you prefer one over the other? Is one more comfortable than the other? Have you been able to take them out for a longer ride than just around the parking lot? If neither are going to work for you, keep looking. You might have to go farther afield. I imagine that you are in an area that has lots of bike shops, but that's just my assumption and it might be wrong.


Triple vs. double is going to be a personal choice, based on your strength and conditioning, if you like hills, and your terrain. I could tell you what I would do, but that wouldn't really matter because I'm not you.

[Blue_Fedora]

I have a compact double and live in a hilly area (Santa Clarita). I honestly don't missing having a triple... I've learned to do what I can with what I have and truthfully I think it's making me better at climbing hills. After finally shifting down to the lowest lowest loooooowest gear I simply decide "well, hill... it's just you and me now so let's get down to business, shall we?"

I'm curious what other bikes you've given a whirl during your decision making process.

[colorisnt]

Why not look into the 1.2? Have you tried one? I got a great deal on mine and once I tried it, I was completely disinterested in the 1.1. The gears are better and the bike (overall) is a better buy. Plus, the carbon fork cuts down on weight as well. Not that I think the 1.1 is a bad bike, but the price difference between the two is not that great and the 1.2 is so much nicer.

[Norse]

+1 on the Trek 1.2. DP recently got one, after years of not riding, and absolutely fell in love with it - started bike commuting to work and, after only a few months, signed up for and successfully completed the local MS-150 ride. You get a lot of bang for the buck component-wise and you can get it with a triple if that's your preference.

When I was looking several years ago, it came down to the Specialized Roubaix vs. Trek 5.2 (now called the Madonne 5200). I really liked both but went with the Trek because: again, better quality components for the price and the LBS that sells Treks is closer to our house. There is a lot to be said for buying a bike from a LBS that you trust and that is near to where you live.

[Norse]

Oops, that's a 2.1 that DP got, not the 1.2.