which Trek to get?

I am considering getting a Trek to ride on the road/park. i.e., mainly road
or rugged path.

Considered
- Trek 4300
- Trek 4100
- Navigator 300
- Navigator 200

Navigator seems the most expensive, but what looks attractive is the
"Suspension" saddle. Certainly don't think I need the extra gears on
offered by 4300 or Navigator 300, but is it worth having the better
fork/brake on offered by these 2 (compared with 4100, 200)??

"help" wrote in message
...
I am considering getting a Trek to ride on the road/park. i.e., mainly
road
or rugged path.

Considered
- Trek 4300
- Trek 4100
- Navigator 300
- Navigator 200

Navigator seems the most expensive, but what looks attractive is the
"Suspension" saddle. Certainly don't think I need the extra gears on
offered by 4300 or Navigator 300, but is it worth having the better
fork/brake on offered by these 2 (compared with 4100, 200)??

Any one of them would be good. You can't go wrong with a Trek

JD

"JD" wrote in message
s.com...

"help" wrote in message
...
I am considering getting a Trek to ride on the road/park. i.e., mainly
road
or rugged path.

Considered
- Trek 4300
- Trek 4100
- Navigator 300
- Navigator 200

Navigator seems the most expensive, but what looks attractive is the
"Suspension" saddle. Certainly don't think I need the extra gears on
offered by 4300 or Navigator 300, but is it worth having the better
fork/brake on offered by these 2 (compared with 4100, 200)??

Any one of them would be good. You can't go wrong with a Trek

JD


LMAO! Come on JD, anyone of these will serve "his" purpose.

--
- Zilla
Cary, NC
(Remove XSPAM)

"Zilla" wrote in message ...
"JD" wrote in message
s.com...

"help" wrote in message
...
I am considering getting a Trek to ride on the road/park. i.e., mainly
road
or rugged path.

Considered
- Trek 4300
- Trek 4100
- Navigator 300
- Navigator 200

Navigator seems the most expensive, but what looks attractive is the
"Suspension" saddle. Certainly don't think I need the extra gears on
offered by 4300 or Navigator 300, but is it worth having the better
fork/brake on offered by these 2 (compared with 4100, 200)??

Any one of them would be good. You can't go wrong with a Trek

JD


LMAO! Come on JD, anyone of these will serve "his" purpose.

It appears that one of our new psychos has way too much time on their hands:

X-Abuse-Report:
Message-ID: m
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:26:22 GMT
Lines: 22
Reply-To: "JD"
From: "JD"
Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike
References:
Subject: which Trek to get?
Organization: Egos Anonymous
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

Quite lame, if you ask me.

JD

I Have a 2002 4300 myself (sliver, and candy blue), and I'm loving it.
Mostly ridding off road on the weekends, and to and from work 80 percent of
the time. I run a 2.1 WTB on the front wheel and I've upgraded my forks to
01 Marzocchi Z5's also switched to M515 pedals. lots of smaller things too
like the BB. I plan on riding this bike for a very long time. Slowly
upgrading parts then moving them over to a Custom built Ti SEVEN cycles
Sola. Most likely in the winter of 2004. My point is that I'll hold on the
Trek for sure, "I see it being rebirthed as a single speed".

My only concern with a suspension seat post is. That when your seated and
you roll over something large enough to compress the suspension. It will
shorten the distance between your pedals and your saddle. So you really
can't pedal while riding over something unless you stand up which means your
not using the seat post.
Other than that I can still see the plus side to the added comfort when
rolling.

Brakes who uses brakes? Just kidding I'm really not familiar with the brakes
on the other models you've listed.

Zilla is right anyone of these bikes should serve your purpose well. Test
ride all four in your size, each one will have a different feel. And then go
from there.

Greg