December 9th, 2008Need help deciding between Trek 2.1 56cm vs. Trek Pilot 2.1 58cm?
uppercanadagolfer asked:
I am 5'11"" tall and measured my inseam to be between 34 and 34.5 inches. I think this puts me between a 56cm and 58cm frame according to my calculations. I am trying to choose between a 2008 Trek 2.1 ( 56cm frame ) and 2008 Trek Pilot 2.1 ( 58cm frame ). The Pilot is supposed to have a more "comfort"-fitting geometry, but the frame may be a tad big. I honestly can't tell as this would be my first road bike. The Pilot has upgraded components with Shimano 105 ( front derailer and brakes ) and Shimano Ultegra rear derailer. The regular 2.1 has 105 rear derailer and Tiagra front, and Tiagra brakes. Though I am told, and it appears to be accurate, that the 2008 Tiagra brakes are the equivalent to the prior year Shimano 105.
I am 5'11"" tall and measured my inseam to be between 34 and 34.5 inches. I think this puts me between a 56cm and 58cm frame according to my calculations. I am trying to choose between a 2008 Trek 2.1 ( 56cm frame ) and 2008 Trek Pilot 2.1 ( 58cm frame ). The Pilot is supposed to have a more "comfort"-fitting geometry, but the frame may be a tad big. I honestly can't tell as this would be my first road bike. The Pilot has upgraded components with Shimano 105 ( front derailer and brakes ) and Shimano Ultegra rear derailer. The regular 2.1 has 105 rear derailer and Tiagra front, and Tiagra brakes. Though I am told, and it appears to be accurate, that the 2008 Tiagra brakes are the equivalent to the prior year Shimano 105.
I am not a racer. Other than taking both bikes out for a long ride, what else should I be considering? I've tried them both out in the "fitting" machine and find the difference marginal. Just don't want to be disappointed either way. I was told the 56cm is a better fit but that the 58cm frame could work - but is at the limit of a good fit.
Only about a $240 difference between the two bikes ( $1,150 vs $1,390 ).
Any input would be appreciated.
Vitamin K
4 Responses to “Need help deciding between Trek 2.1 56cm vs. Trek Pilot 2.1 58cm?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:04 am
You would be better off with the smaller frame.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
i ride the 2.1 and im in love with it…i would recomment changing out parts if you are considering racing though
December 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
the Pilot is a nice ride. But I question a 58cm frame. You have long legs for your height so I’d bet the 56cm is what you want. Heck one bud of mine is 5-11 and rides a 54 – it’s a good fit for him. 105 is better then Tiagra, last year’s model or not. But Tiagra is OK. The Pilot is the better bike but don’t buy if it’s too big.
With frame size, your inseam is only one component of fit. If you get a big frame ’cause you have long legs be sure the top tube isn’t too long. Reaching too far for the bars is very uncomfortable and can cause many problems like numb hands, tired arms, saddle fit issues (it causes you to roll forward off your sit bones on to your soft tissue – ouch!) A shorter stem may help but may not be enough.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Just get fit by someone who knows what they are doing. I am 6′3″ and have a 34.5 inch inseam and I ride either a 58 or 60 cm frame dpnding on he company. I used to have a Trek 5200 that fit me perfectly in a 60 cm setup. However, the three Felt road bikes I ride now all have 58 cm frames. The smaller frame has more room for fitting. The bigger frame might not fit regardless of changes made. With your inseam, it’s obvious that you have a shorter torso so please get a proper fitting first. Your bike will fit you like a fine tailored suit.