|Year old bike||mduell|
Jan 2, 2002 12:15 PM
|Thanks for all your help on my last qustion (Re: Carbon fork), and, after riding both, I've decided to go with the carbon fork.
Now, I could get the 2002 Trek 1200 w/ a carbon fork for the same price as the 2001 Trek 2000 (comes with carbon fork, and 105's instead of Tiagra). Am I better off getting a bike a year old (but still new) with better components, or did any significant changes happen in the last year?
|re: Year old bike||Dave Hickey|
Jan 2, 2002 12:29 PM
|As a general rule, you'd be better off with the 105 components but I think I read somewhere(ProCycling or CycleSport) that Trek made changes to their aluminum frames for 2002. I'll try to find the article tonight. You might want to check Trek's website.|
|re: Year old bike||scottfree|
Jan 3, 2002 6:50 AM
|No 'significant' changes have happened in many years. Bikes were perfected long ago. If the year old bike has better components, get it.|| |