Road Bike Geometry: Traditional vs. Comfort (eg. Trek 1000 vs. Trek Pilot 1.0)

I'm in the market for a road bike. Given my limited funds, I'll
probably buy something off ebay. To keep from being overwhelmed with
too many options, I've limited my bargain-hunting so far to Treks,
which has led to the surprising discovery that Trek makes:

1. traditional road bikes (eg. (the 1000, 1500, etc.) marked by a
level/horizontal top tube, among other things, and

2. "comfort" road bikes (eg. Pilot 1.0, 1.2, etc.) with a supposedly
"more natural riding position," marked by a top tube sloped up from
seat post to headset, thus raising the handlebars relative to the seat
position.

Since my budget will limit me to either a Trek 1000 (traditional) or
Trek Pilot 1.0 (comfort), I wonder which way to go. In the last 3
months, I've put about 500 miles on a borrowed vintage (1983) Trek 620
touring bike, which obviously has a very traditional geometry. In all
that time, I've never experienced any discomfort or body pain while or
riding (despite not owning any padded bike shorts and the 620 being
equiped with its original seat).

Q. -- If I'm comfortable on the vintage 620, should I stick to a
traditional road bike (e.g. Trek 100)?

Q. -- Am I being short-sighted passing up a "comfort" road bike?
Especially considering that I don't see myself ever racing or trying to
ride for time.

BONUS Q. -- What brand other than Trek should I seek out to buy a new
or late model road bike? It's not that I am a Trek snob. I just have
found them more plentiful and easier to research.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Gray Strickland
Tulsa, OK

Gray wrote:
I'm in the market for a road bike. Given my limited funds, I'll
probably buy something off ebay. To keep from being overwhelmed with
too many options, I've limited my bargain-hunting so far to Treks,
which has led to the surprising discovery that Trek makes:

1. traditional road bikes (eg. (the 1000, 1500, etc.) marked by a
level/horizontal top tube, among other things, and

2. "comfort" road bikes (eg. Pilot 1.0, 1.2, etc.) with a supposedly
"more natural riding position," marked by a top tube sloped up from
seat post to headset, thus raising the handlebars relative to the seat
position.

Since my budget will limit me to either a Trek 1000 (traditional) or
Trek Pilot 1.0 (comfort), I wonder which way to go. In the last 3
months, I've put about 500 miles on a borrowed vintage (1983) Trek 620
touring bike, which obviously has a very traditional geometry. In all
that time, I've never experienced any discomfort or body pain while or
riding (despite not owning any padded bike shorts and the 620 being
equiped with its original seat).

Q. -- If I'm comfortable on the vintage 620, should I stick to a
traditional road bike (e.g. Trek 100)?

Q. -- Am I being short-sighted passing up a "comfort" road bike?
Especially considering that I don't see myself ever racing or trying to
ride for time.

BONUS Q. -- What brand other than Trek should I seek out to buy a new
or late model road bike? It's not that I am a Trek snob. I just have
found them more plentiful and easier to research.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Gray Strickland
Tulsa, OK

Comfort is one issue, but any bike can be comfortable if you get your
position correct. Another key difference may be the handling. The more
race inspired bikes might feel very twitchy and be difficult to keep in
a straight line. Perhaps the comfort series has angles more like the
touring bike you have been using which I assume has very stable
handling. I do race and ride for time, but not ever in races that
require quick handling (ie criteriums) so my preferences lean toward
straight line stability. I'd go for the Pilot.

I have no direct experience with them but Bianchi has a new series
called "C-2-C" (coast to coast) which is supposed to be a comfort type
of road bike:

http://www.bianchi.it/en/products200...oRoad_C2C.aspx

have fun!

Joseph

Gray wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm in the market for a road bike. Given my limited funds, I'll
probably buy something off ebay. To keep from being overwhelmed with
too many options, I've limited my bargain-hunting so far to Treks,
which has led to the surprising discovery that Trek makes:

1. traditional road bikes (eg. (the 1000, 1500, etc.) marked by a
level/horizontal top tube, among other things, and

2. "comfort" road bikes (eg. Pilot 1.0, 1.2, etc.) with a supposedly
"more natural riding position," marked by a top tube sloped up from
seat post to headset, thus raising the handlebars relative to the seat
position.

Since my budget will limit me to either a Trek 1000 (traditional) or
Trek Pilot 1.0 (comfort), I wonder which way to go. In the last 3
months, I've put about 500 miles on a borrowed vintage (1983) Trek 620
touring bike, which obviously has a very traditional geometry. In all
that time, I've never experienced any discomfort or body pain while or
riding (despite not owning any padded bike shorts and the 620 being
equiped with its original seat).

Q. -- If I'm comfortable on the vintage 620, should I stick to a
traditional road bike (e.g. Trek 100)?

Q. -- Am I being short-sighted passing up a "comfort" road bike?
Especially considering that I don't see myself ever racing or trying to
ride for time.

BONUS Q. -- What brand other than Trek should I seek out to buy a new
or late model road bike? It's not that I am a Trek snob. I just have
found them more plentiful and easier to research.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Gray Strickland
Tulsa, OK


Hi Gary,

I ride a 1985-89 peugeot roadbike, described, fairly so perhaps, by the road
expert at my LBS as a farm gate with wheels. But personally, i find the
traditional style roadbikes more comfortable, despite the slightly more bent
over riding position. I find the extra pressure on my spine from sitting
more upright is more uncomfortable on both my back and tackle so i guess
whether or not the "comfort" range of bikes are actually more comfortable is
personal, not very helpful i know, but sitting on them is the only decent
way to tell.
In addition, for speed and endurance i seem to perform better on
traditional styles. I also never race but prefer the race style, they're
much nippier when needed.
Also, despite the higher gear ratios i find traditional style kinder to my
knees, this may be unique to me tho.
Perhaps consider a race bike with a compact geometry? They're meant to be a
little more comfortable than standard roadbike style, lighter by virtue of
less frame material and the geometry stiffer. I guess this is a speed
machine. Despite the similarities in frame apperance between this and the
'comfort' range the ride will be very different.

It really depends on needs; if you like to look around, wave at people and
generally 'amble' for A to B then get a tourer/hybrid. Just be careful that
you don't all of a sudden you don't get excited by out and out speed (if
only for leisure or fitness as opposed to competition). Also take typical
road surface in to account, anything but tarmac for my bike a the wheels
would no doubt 'taco'.

Go to LSB and sit on as many as you can, then put the ebay bids in.
cheers

"Gray" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm in the market for a road bike. Given my limited funds, I'll
probably buy something off ebay. To keep from being overwhelmed with
too many options, I've limited my bargain-hunting so far to Treks,
which has led to the surprising discovery that Trek makes:

1. traditional road bikes (eg. (the 1000, 1500, etc.) marked by a
level/horizontal top tube, among other things, and

2. "comfort" road bikes (eg. Pilot 1.0, 1.2, etc.) with a supposedly
"more natural riding position," marked by a top tube sloped up from
seat post to headset, thus raising the handlebars relative to the seat
position.

Since my budget will limit me to either a Trek 1000 (traditional) or
Trek Pilot 1.0 (comfort), I wonder which way to go. In the last 3
months, I've put about 500 miles on a borrowed vintage (1983) Trek 620
touring bike, which obviously has a very traditional geometry. In all
that time, I've never experienced any discomfort or body pain while or
riding (despite not owning any padded bike shorts and the 620 being
equiped with its original seat).

Q. -- If I'm comfortable on the vintage 620, should I stick to a
traditional road bike (e.g. Trek 100)?

Q. -- Am I being short-sighted passing up a "comfort" road bike?
Especially considering that I don't see myself ever racing or trying to
ride for time.

BONUS Q. -- What brand other than Trek should I seek out to buy a new
or late model road bike? It's not that I am a Trek snob. I just have
found them more plentiful and easier to research.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Gray Strickland
Tulsa, OK


The Pilots are pretty much 'fast tourer' geometry. If you like the tourer,
then the pilot is closest. a I've got a 1.2 as a winter training bike.
Well made, takes mudguards (handy in the UK), and sporty enough to let me
keep up with a racing club run. I think you can fit guards to the 1000 and
1200 now, just. If you don't race and you like the colour, go with a Pilot.
If Treks are readily available where you are, that is good. Find a dealer
you get on with and it could be the start of a wonderful relationship. I'm
not a fan of buying a whole bike of eBay or similar. The up-front price
isn't the whole of the story. For instance, at a dealer they're not going
to charge you to swap a stem to fit you better.

If you can stretch to the 1.2 / 1200 the better components are (to me
anyway) worth it.

Not sure about altenatives. If you don't need guards, then there are plenty
now. Specialized Roubaix, Giant SCR being two.

Skippy E&OE

In article .com,
"Gray" wrote:

I'm in the market for a road bike. Given my limited funds, I'll
probably buy something off ebay. To keep from being overwhelmed with
too many options, I've limited my bargain-hunting so far to Treks,
which has led to the surprising discovery that Trek makes:

1. traditional road bikes (eg. (the 1000, 1500, etc.) marked by a
level/horizontal top tube, among other things, and

2. "comfort" road bikes (eg. Pilot 1.0, 1.2, etc.) with a supposedly
"more natural riding position," marked by a top tube sloped up from
seat post to headset, thus raising the handlebars relative to the seat
position.

I really don't understand the practical difference in terms of riding
position b/n the two. Doesn't matter if the headset is higher than the
seat post and what angle the top tube is at, with the way how people
typically fit it, the seat is invariably significantly higher than the
handle bar. The top tube angle is almost irrelevant as it's the handle
bar level and seat height that determines that so called "comfort"
position.

There may be handling, ride quality differences b/n the two, but I just
can't see what comfort has to do with it.

Of course, this is assuming identical seat and fork angles and other
basic geometries.
--

On 2006-09-10, Artoi wrote:

[ Trek 1000 vs Pilot 1.0 ]

I really don't understand the practical difference in terms of riding
position b/n the two. Doesn't matter if the headset is higher than the
seat post and what angle the top tube is at, with the way how people
typically fit it, the seat is invariably significantly higher than the
handle bar. The top tube angle is almost irrelevant as it's the handle
bar level and seat height that determines that so called "comfort"
position.

You're right that the seat and handlebar position is what matters.
You're missing the effect that frame design has on the handlebar
position.

The Pilot and similar bikes have a sloping top tube because the head
tube is taller than usual relative to the top tube length and standover.
That, plus the long steerer that's normal on such bikes, means that the
handlebars can be set quite a bit higher.

For instance, before I got my Pilot I used to ride an old Sekai. The two
bikes are similar in basic frame geometry: seat tube is within 1/4",
effective top tube is within 1/2", and standover is close enough that I
don't notice a difference.

For all that similarity, with the Sekai's quill stem at full extension,
the handlebars on the Pilot are about 3 inches higher. It might *just*
be possible to make up that difference with a really tall quill stem,
but as far as I know threadless stems with that kind of rise just don't
exist.

You're right that the top tube angle doesn't have any direct effect on
comfort. However, it is influenced by things that do.

wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
Comfort is one issue, but any bike can be comfortable if you get your
position correct. Another key difference may be the handling. The more
race inspired bikes might feel very twitchy and be difficult to keep
in
a straight line. Perhaps the comfort series has angles more like the
touring bike you have been using which I assume has very stable
handling. I do race and ride for time, but not ever in races that
require quick handling (ie criteriums) so my preferences lean toward
straight line stability. I'd go for the Pilot.
snip
Joseph


Some bikes will never be comfortable. Early Cinellis (pre mid 1970's)
had a reputation for being "nice" riding bikes. Around 1976 someone
traded in a 56cm Cinelli frame. I'd lusted for a Cinelli for years so I
grabbed it. The frame had relaxed 72° or 73° seat and head tube angles
with about 42cm chainstays. I built it up with a Campy NR gruppo,
Cinelli bars and stem, a Unicanitor seat and sewups.

At almost 23 lbs. it was rather heavy for a 56cm bike. I soon realized
that the frame was made of Columbus SP heavy gage "pipe" tubing which
made for a super stiff frame. After a few days of bone jarring, teeth
rattling riding I pulled off my components and hung it back up for sale.

Most steel frame Treks of that era were made with fairly light gage
tubing. Smaller frames 54cm frames or less are going to be stiffer
riding especially for riders weighing under 150 lbs. Heavy gage tubing
is also going to make for a stiffer riding bike.

I remember a fellow who won our UCSF state championship road race on
year was riding a new Gios Torino. He claimed he won because the bike
was so stiff that he kept saying to himself "I got to get off this bike,
I got to get off this bike.....".

Chas.

On 2006-09-10, Gray wrote:

[...]

Since my budget will limit me to either a Trek 1000 (traditional) or
Trek Pilot 1.0 (comfort), I wonder which way to go. In the last 3
months, I've put about 500 miles on a borrowed vintage (1983) Trek 620
touring bike, which obviously has a very traditional geometry. In all
that time, I've never experienced any discomfort or body pain while or
riding (despite not owning any padded bike shorts and the 620 being
equiped with its original seat).

Q. -- If I'm comfortable on the vintage 620, should I stick to a
traditional road bike (e.g. Trek 100)?

Q. -- Am I being short-sighted passing up a "comfort" road bike?
Especially considering that I don't see myself ever racing or trying to
ride for time.

If there's any way that you can ride examples of both, I'd do so. That
will answer your questions better than anything. Failing that, try to
compare the geometry of your current bike to the ones you're
considering. If you're comfortable on what you ride now, try to match
the relationship between the handlebars, saddle, and bottom bracket as
closely as practical.

Don't assume that the 1000 will be the most similar to your current
bike. Touring bikes are usually set up for a more upright riding
position than sport bikes.

BONUS Q. -- What brand other than Trek should I seek out to buy a new
or late model road bike? It's not that I am a Trek snob. I just have
found them more plentiful and easier to research.

Just about any brand that's sold in bike shops, really. Most
manufacturers' entry-level sport bikes are more or less similar in spec
to the 1000. Models similar to the Pilot 1.0 aren't too hard to find
either. The Specialized Sequoia and the Raleigh Cadent 1.0 come to mind.

"* * Chas" wrote:

Most steel frame Treks of that era were made with fairly light gage
tubing. Smaller frames 54cm frames or less are going to be stiffer
riding especially for riders weighing under 150 lbs. Heavy gage tubing
is also going to make for a stiffer riding bike.

Common wisdom, perhaps, but I have to point out that when Bicycle
Guide magazine did a blind test 15 years ago (give or take), and had
otherwise identical bikes built from every set of tubing in the line
(from Columbus, IIRC), suddenly all the "common wisdom" disappeared...
the reviewers who'd previously waxed eloquent on the relative and
obvious changes that resulted from changing one tube in a frame were
suddenly unable to distinguish any of the frames from each other. In
fact, when they summarized the overall impressions, the lowest-grade
(heaviest) tubing got more votes for the best riding frame.

The position (that frame material, especially subtle variations in the
same kind of material - make a big difference in ride quality) is one
that many on r.b.t. have challenged. Many have disagreed with these
challenges, but none has been able to come up with a plausible
mechanism that supports the contention that somehow a vertically
inflexible structure like the rear end of a bicycle can deflect enough
to make a significant difference when masked by the much, much larger
vertical compliance of the tires, rims, saddle, bars, stem and bar
tape.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

In article ,
Steve Gravrock wrote:

On 2006-09-10, Artoi wrote:

[ Trek 1000 vs Pilot 1.0 ]

I really don't understand the practical difference in terms of riding
position b/n the two. Doesn't matter if the headset is higher than the
seat post and what angle the top tube is at, with the way how people
typically fit it, the seat is invariably significantly higher than the
handle bar. The top tube angle is almost irrelevant as it's the handle
bar level and seat height that determines that so called "comfort"
position.

You're right that the seat and handlebar position is what matters.
You're missing the effect that frame design has on the handlebar
position.

The Pilot and similar bikes have a sloping top tube because the head
tube is taller than usual relative to the top tube length and standover.
That, plus the long steerer that's normal on such bikes, means that the
handlebars can be set quite a bit higher.

For instance, before I got my Pilot I used to ride an old Sekai. The two
bikes are similar in basic frame geometry: seat tube is within 1/4",
effective top tube is within 1/2", and standover is close enough that I
don't notice a difference.

For all that similarity, with the Sekai's quill stem at full extension,
the handlebars on the Pilot are about 3 inches higher. It might *just*
be possible to make up that difference with a really tall quill stem,
but as far as I know threadless stems with that kind of rise just don't
exist.

You're right that the top tube angle doesn't have any direct effect on
comfort. However, it is influenced by things that do.

Thanks for confirming it. At one stage I was guessing if the angled top
had some special magical mechanical characteristics.

In any case, I note that Bianchi seemed to be favour this so called
compact design. I quite like it. Just need a longer seat post.
--