Trek Madone 2.3 - ok choice?
Discussion
Hi,
I used to cycle a lot when I was younger but I've had a gap year...s of about 10. I spent a lot of time in the saddle on my road and mtb and so I've got a good idea of componentry frames and bike tech, including what I want but things have changed.
I've picked a Trek Madone 2.3 2013 bike. It has a mainly Shimano 105 groupset and alu frame (carb forks). A sportive esq. frame geometry. I've looked at a couple of alternatives and I just like the look of this bike and the combination of colour and spec. I can't quite stretch to the 3.1 (all carbon frame) but otherwise this seems a reasonable choice.
Has anyone got one or know more about the bike? Trek don't state the weight of their bikes so I don't know if there will be much difference between the all carbon 3.1 (or all carbon from another manufacturer) as oppossed to alu with carb forks. From trek the groupset is downgraded on the 3.1 so weight saved in the frame might be increased in lower spec components.
I know the wheelset isn't that great but I can always upgrade those in the future. It also comes with a compact groupset. I like the idea of just having two chainrings but I tend to push reasonable sized gears. I gather it would be easier enough to replace the large chainring with a larger one (like 52/54).
My MTB is about 30 years old so this should be a joy to ride anyway!
I used to cycle a lot when I was younger but I've had a gap year...s of about 10. I spent a lot of time in the saddle on my road and mtb and so I've got a good idea of componentry frames and bike tech, including what I want but things have changed.
I've picked a Trek Madone 2.3 2013 bike. It has a mainly Shimano 105 groupset and alu frame (carb forks). A sportive esq. frame geometry. I've looked at a couple of alternatives and I just like the look of this bike and the combination of colour and spec. I can't quite stretch to the 3.1 (all carbon frame) but otherwise this seems a reasonable choice.
Has anyone got one or know more about the bike? Trek don't state the weight of their bikes so I don't know if there will be much difference between the all carbon 3.1 (or all carbon from another manufacturer) as oppossed to alu with carb forks. From trek the groupset is downgraded on the 3.1 so weight saved in the frame might be increased in lower spec components.
I know the wheelset isn't that great but I can always upgrade those in the future. It also comes with a compact groupset. I like the idea of just having two chainrings but I tend to push reasonable sized gears. I gather it would be easier enough to replace the large chainring with a larger one (like 52/54).
My MTB is about 30 years old so this should be a joy to ride anyway!
I've got the 4.5, which I think has the same h2 geometry and tubeless ready wheels. Had my first ride on it at the weekend. Nothing quirky about the handling, and very comfortable. I was impressed with how well it soaked up the rough roads - suspect the skinny carbon post does a lot of the work.
You'll realise that you are playing a premium for it compared to Ribble / Dolan et al. As such, I hope your local bike shop is treating you well. Mine is great, hence was happy not to go chasing bargains online.
You'll realise that you are playing a premium for it compared to Ribble / Dolan et al. As such, I hope your local bike shop is treating you well. Mine is great, hence was happy not to go chasing bargains online.
Hi The 2.3 and the 3.1 both weigh the same, 8.7kgs The reason many manufacturers don t print weights is because so many cheat. They weigh the smallest frames in a slightly non rideable format, bottle bolts missing etc. If you are going to be honest ( and thats teh only reason for printing your weights) then your going to seem heavier and why would you print that?
The Trek weigths above are for a complete ready to go bike in size 56cm.
Hope that helps
The Trek weigths above are for a complete ready to go bike in size 56cm.
Hope that helps
Crippo said:
Hi The 2.3 and the 3.1 both weigh the same, 8.7kgs The reason many manufacturers don t print weights is because so many cheat. They weigh the smallest frames in a slightly non rideable format, bottle bolts missing etc. If you are going to be honest ( and thats teh only reason for printing your weights) then your going to seem heavier and why would you print that?
The Trek weigths above are for a complete ready to go bike in size 56cm.
Hope that helps
My shop were willing to weigh bikes against each other.The Trek weigths above are for a complete ready to go bike in size 56cm.
Hope that helps
BTW- re the Race TRL wheels, the shop said they'd had zero problems with them (this in the context of me looking for an excuse to by a pair of hope hoops), and that included cyclocross use. They'd only had one person convert to tubeless though. I like the idea. A guy I know on another forum is running the Hope / Stans road tubeless wheelset, and loves them.
I hope you enjoy your 4.5. I picked it up in the shop and it's a wonderful thing. I couldn't stretch to it this time round but if I get hooked again, then my next bike may be further up the range. I'm getting a cracking deal on the bike (new) so the difference in moving up the range would have cost me more.
Crippo - good to hear the wieghts are the same. Not that it will make much difference to me now but good to know that saving the extra cash for the 3.1+ hasn't cost me anything in wieght terms.
I've just noticed that the duotrap is only available on the 4 series (for cadence reading) as I can only read speed using speedtrap on mine. I'll have to explore that more when I've got it. Cheers.
BTW- re the Race TRL wheels, the shop said they'd had zero problems with them (this in the context of me looking for an excuse to by a pair of hope hoops), and that included cyclocross use. They'd only had one person convert to tubeless though. I like the idea. A guy I know on another forum is running the Hope / Stans road tubeless wheelset, and loves them.
Crippo - good to hear the wieghts are the same. Not that it will make much difference to me now but good to know that saving the extra cash for the 3.1+ hasn't cost me anything in wieght terms.
I've just noticed that the duotrap is only available on the 4 series (for cadence reading) as I can only read speed using speedtrap on mine. I'll have to explore that more when I've got it. Cheers.
DrMekon said:
Crippo said:
Hi The 2.3 and the 3.1 both weigh the same, 8.7kgs The reason many manufacturers don t print weights is because so many cheat. They weigh the smallest frames in a slightly non rideable format, bottle bolts missing etc. If you are going to be honest ( and thats teh only reason for printing your weights) then your going to seem heavier and why would you print that?
The Trek weigths above are for a complete ready to go bike in size 56cm.
Hope that helps
My shop were willing to weigh bikes against each other.The Trek weigths above are for a complete ready to go bike in size 56cm.
Hope that helps
BTW- re the Race TRL wheels, the shop said they'd had zero problems with them (this in the context of me looking for an excuse to by a pair of hope hoops), and that included cyclocross use. They'd only had one person convert to tubeless though. I like the idea. A guy I know on another forum is running the Hope / Stans road tubeless wheelset, and loves them.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff