Trek Alpha Aluminum 1000c?????

The anonymous NYC XYZ said:

On their site they only list the 1000 and 1000 WSD (whatever "wsd" stands for). There isn't a

"c" model...

Yes there is. The "C" is a "comfort" model. WSD is Women's specific
model. See:

http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/Road/Comfort_Road/Alpha_Aluminum/Index.php

Art Harris

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have any information on this particular model of the Trek
Alpha Aluminium 1000 series of racing bikes? > (This seems a particularly

light bike, too...why isn't bike weight

Quoted message said:

listed among the specs? Or at least individual component weights
[frame, fork, etc.]....)

I have a '98 Trek 1000. The reason they don't list the weight is
because it's HEAVY. I use it for commuting during the work week. There is
no give to the bike, and it's quite rough over bumps. The main difference
between my 1000 and yours is that my front fork is steel, not carbon. Still
I think it's a very good bike, for training and commuting. I wouldn't call
it a racing bike, but it does have racing geometry. It has a longer
wheelbase than their more expensive cousins, but I personally like longer
wheelbases. I have 19,000 miles on it, and have had to replace the rear
der, and the headset, in that time. Main problem is the weight, I think
mine weighed 22 lbs, and the roughness. If you did a double century with
it, you'd have to go to a chiropractic doctor, to get all the bones back in
the right place.

NYC XYZ said:

Hi, All:

Quoted message said:

(This seems a particularly light bike, too...why isn't bike weight
listed among the specs? Or at least individual component weights
[frame, fork, etc.]....)

Because different sizes have different weights, the difference between a
50cm frame and a 60cm frame may be less then 100g, but still, they don't
want to over-state one size, and they can't by law, in many places
under-state another sizes weight, so they don't state the weight.

Quoted message said:

Also, it seems like the standard industry practice to give a customer a
display model bike, instead of giving the customer a "brand new" bike.
Seems like an odd thing to me, but all the bikes shops (the five or so
I've patronized through a decade and a half of biking) do this. Why is
this? They would have to build another bike anyway...what's the big
deal? I hate to fight with them over this, but it's like they insist,
and frankly, it isn't like I could tell the difference anyway, right?
But still, it's the principle of it all...just seems like a pretty
weird practice.

It probably has a lot to do with time, it might take the shop 3 - 4 days
to get around to building and setting up your bike, a lot of people want
to take the bike with them, so they take the display model. As for the
shop, they probably don't care, if you say you want one fresh out of the
box, and don't mind waiting for a few days while the assembler puts it
together, they will be glad to accomodate you, providing they have
another in stock, or the supplier is close enough to get one to them,
within a day or two.

W

Callistus Valerius said:

I have a '98 Trek 1000. The reason they don't list the weight is
because it's HEAVY. I use it for commuting during the work week.

Hey, that's my planned use, too! Funny thing is, it's sooooo light to
me!! Maybe I grew a new muscle or something...but I had thought my old
'98 Trek 7200 MultiTrack was light (which it certainly was compared to
my GT cro-mo MT then)! This 1000c is so much lighter than I'm still
adjusting to the funny feeling of "less" underneath me on the road!

Quoted message said:

There is
no give to the bike, and it's quite rough over bumps. The main difference
between my 1000 and yours is that my front fork is steel, not carbon. Still
I think it's a very good bike, for training and commuting. I wouldn't call
it a racing bike, but it does have racing geometry.

Speaking of "geometry," what's with Trek's "acutal" and "virtual" top
tube spec?? I've got a sticker on the, whachamacallit tube, the stem
tube (?) which has a little graphic noting, I guess, that despite the
angled top tube ("actual" [?]), it'a a "virtual"
straight-parallel-to-the-ground tob tube (??)...?!

I mean, just what IS it with all these bikes these days with that
angled top tube, anyway???

Quoted message said:

It has a longer
wheelbase than their more expensive cousins, but I personally like longer
wheelbases.

"Wheelbase"...is this the same "wheelbase" dimension as what recumbent
bikes spec?

This 1000c seems an inch shorter than my old 7200....

Quoted message said:

I have 19,000 miles on it, and have had to replace the rear
der, and the headset, in that time. Main problem is the weight, I think
mine weighed 22 lbs, and the roughness. If you did a double century with
it, you'd have to go to a chiropractic doctor, to get all the bones back in
the right place.

This is most interesting...do you mean to say that bike weight has some
kind of a connection to back health?? I've always just thought that it
made for a faster ride and easier portaging (kayaking word, that)...and
I'd figured on 22 lbs. being LIGHT, actually, not "heavy" like you say!!

The Wogster said:

Because different sizes have different weights, the difference between a
50cm frame and a 60cm frame may be less then 100g, but still, they don't
want to over-state one size, and they can't by law, in many places
under-state another sizes weight, so they don't state the weight.

Right, well, I figured they could then list component weight, no? I
mean, especially since weight seems to be such a selling point.

I'm curious how much my 1000c weighs since it's noticeably lighter than
my old Trek MultiTrack 7200 -- which had impressed me eight years ago
for being a light bike!!

Quoted message said:

It probably has a lot to do with time, it might take the shop 3 - 4 days
to get around to building and setting up your bike, a lot of people want
to take the bike with them, so they take the display model. As for the
shop, they probably don't care, if you say you want one fresh out of the
box, and don't mind waiting for a few days while the assembler puts it
together, they will be glad to accomodate you, providing they have
another in stock, or the supplier is close enough to get one to them,
within a day or two.

The thing is, they "insist" on me taking the display model! And I just
don't want to argue with them, especially seeing how I really wouldn't
be any the wiser. But it just seems odd that they don't just keep a
"banged-up" display model and want to keep using a new bike, as it
were, for a display model and give the customer the "old" one...like I
said, these shops almost insist on me taking the thing there and then!
And I do because how would I know, anyway, if I came back later.

Quoted message said:

W

NYC XYZ said:

Callistus Valerius said:

I have a '98 Trek 1000. The reason they don't list the weight is
because it's HEAVY. I use it for commuting during the work week.

Hey, that's my planned use, too! Funny thing is, it's sooooo light to
me!! Maybe I grew a new muscle or something...but I had thought my old
'98 Trek 7200 MultiTrack was light (which it certainly was compared to
my GT cro-mo MT then)! This 1000c is so much lighter than I'm still
adjusting to the funny feeling of "less" underneath me on the road!

Quoted message said:

There is
no give to the bike, and it's quite rough over bumps. The main difference
between my 1000 and yours is that my front fork is steel, not carbon. Still
I think it's a very good bike, for training and commuting. I wouldn't call
it a racing bike, but it does have racing geometry.

Speaking of "geometry," what's with Trek's "acutal" and "virtual" top
tube spec?? I've got a sticker on the, whachamacallit tube, the stem
tube (?) which has a little graphic noting, I guess, that despite the
angled top tube ("actual" [?]), it'a a "virtual"
straight-parallel-to-the-ground tob tube (??)...?!

I mean, just what IS it with all these bikes these days with that
angled top tube, anyway???

A lot of people who remember older style bikes, think of top tube height
as being a roughly parallel tube, so if you measure from the centre of
the bottom bracket to the centre of the top tube, you get a much shorter
measurement, so they diagram a parallel top tube in the design and
measure that instead.

Angled top tubes serve three purposes, one you can eliminate a separate
mens/ladies model if the top tube is angled enough (nobody makes really
narrow skirts anymore, and few women would wear them riding anyway), it
reduces the step over height for older riders, and it makes the frame
slightly lighter, because you can reduce the length of the seat tube, of
course that means a longer seatpost is needed, and those tend to be
heavy steel for strength, so on a complete bicycle, it's actually heavier.

Personally I think it's more a style statement then anything else....

W

Art Harris said:

Yes there is. The "C" is a "comfort" model. WSD is Women's specific
model. See:

http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/Road/Comfort_Road/Alpha_Aluminum/Index.php

Art Harris

LOL -- many thanks! I would have simply done a search, but there
appears to be no search engine, either...or did I miss that too???

Not that it would have mattered...search engines just don't work for
me....

Now, any idea why the "c" model is more expensive at $719, compared to
the regular 1000 at $629?? I know, I know, "components" everyone
says...but, like, huh?? I mean, um, what are these, gold-plated cables
or something???

NYC XYZ said:

Now, any idea why the "c" model is more expensive at $719, compared to the regular 1000 at $629??

Not sure, but I think the "C" has a suspension fork, and maybe other
differences.

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

Not sure, but I think the "C" has a suspension fork, and maybe other
differences.

Art Harris

Thanks again, but no, it doesn't have a suspension fork. No one seems
to know the answer to these types of questions...certainly not the bike
dealers, who could only every just say that "components are better,
they last longer" -- but haven't any idea how much longer they last...!

Very interesting!! Thanks so much for answering...I was wondering
myself if it weren't more of a "fashion statement" than anything else!

The Wogster said:

A lot of people who remember older style bikes, think of top tube height
as being a roughly parallel tube, so if you measure from the centre of
the bottom bracket to the centre of the top tube, you get a much shorter
measurement, so they diagram a parallel top tube in the design and
measure that instead.

Angled top tubes serve three purposes, one you can eliminate a separate
mens/ladies model if the top tube is angled enough (nobody makes really
narrow skirts anymore, and few women would wear them riding anyway), it
reduces the step over height for older riders, and it makes the frame
slightly lighter, because you can reduce the length of the seat tube, of
course that means a longer seatpost is needed, and those tend to be
heavy steel for strength, so on a complete bicycle, it's actually heavier.

Personally I think it's more a style statement then anything else....

W

Answers from a Trek dealer, and long-time bike shop employee:

1) Why is the Trek 1000"C" model more money than the standard? "C" model
has the extra set of brake levers ("cross" levers on the top-flats so you
can brake while sitting upright), an adjustable-angle stem, and a
suspension seatpost, all of which cost more than what's on the standard
model.

2) Yes, all bike shops sell the "display" models. They aren't displays,
they are new, for sale bikes. The bikes on display are there TO BE sold,
not to be displays to look at for reference. Otherwise you'd only see one
of each model out there, when in fact you see several of one model in
different sizes out there. None of those bikes you see sit there for more
than a week or two unless they are super high-end. The only reason a person
will get a new bike out-of-the-box, never-even-sat-on is because they need
a size that isn't already put together. There's no difference between a
bike on the shelf and one just put together for you. Maybe the one on the
shelf had a test ride or two. Oh well.

3) Like someone else said, bike weights change with size. Weights change
with components too, and many times companies will switch components here
or there in the middle of the production year, so they can't be sure.
Weights of individual parts also vary alot. Tolerance isn't as tight as you
would think. Two "identical" frames of the same size, color, model can vary
up to 1/4 pound, not to mention tires, seats, etc. And as anyone can tell
you, whenever a company DOES decide to list the weights of their bikes,
even with a given size (e.g. 56cm), they lie anyway. The weights are always
3/4 to a full pound lighter than actual.

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1125324212.707050.31900
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Hi, All:

Does anyone have any information on this particular model of the Trek
Alpha Aluminium 1000 series of racing bikes? On their site they only
list the 1000 and 1000 WSD (whatever "wsd" stands for). There isn't a
"c" model...and it's what I've just bought! I'm particularly concerned
because I paid $669 for it (before taxes), whereas the 1000 series
lists on the website for $629 -- I'm wondering if I got charged more
for a discontiuned model!! =(

(This seems a particularly light bike, too...why isn't bike weight
listed among the specs? Or at least individual component weights
[frame, fork, etc.]....)

Also, it seems like the standard industry practice to give a customer a
display model bike, instead of giving the customer a "brand new" bike.
Seems like an odd thing to me, but all the bikes shops (the five or so
I've patronized through a decade and a half of biking) do this. Why is
this? They would have to build another bike anyway...what's the big
deal? I hate to fight with them over this, but it's like they insist,
and frankly, it isn't like I could tell the difference anyway, right?
But still, it's the principle of it all...just seems like a pretty
weird practice.

TIA!

The thing is, they "insist" on me taking the display model! And I just
don't want to argue with them, especially seeing how I really wouldn't
be any the wiser. But it just seems odd that they don't just keep a
"banged-up" display model and want to keep using a new bike, as it were,
for a display model and give the customer the "old" one...like I said,
these shops almost insist on me taking the thing there and then! And I
do because how would I know, anyway, if I came back later.
======================================

So, from reading this paragraph of yours, it sounds like you're saying
that you noted damage of some sort on the bike? You said it is banged
up?

Did you note if this bike had a carbon fiber fork? That may be the
meaning of the "C" designation, and the increased cost?

Doubtful that the Carbob fork would be much of an advantage concerning
both ride comfort, and performance, and may even be a detriment, as it
might not be as durable as the standard aluminum fork.

At my own local Trek Dealer here in Southern New Mexico, I was watching
him put together a Trek 1000 last week, (He sells tons of these) and he
has them in a myriad of colors direct from box, to you. Virtually
anything you wanted. Actual customer cost for the standard 1000 Trek was
$525.00 he told me(probably plus tax)
This also includes in his shop, a one year free service-adjustment
policy.

No, the bike isn't a Dura-Ace equipped Trek Madone, but IMO, a very darn
nice bike for a little over $500. Mark

NYC XYZ said:

Callistus Valerius said:

I have a '98 Trek 1000. The reason they don't list the weight is
because it's HEAVY. I use it for commuting during the work week.

Hey, that's my planned use, too! Funny thing is, it's sooooo light to
me!! Maybe I grew a new muscle or something...but I had thought my old
'98 Trek 7200 MultiTrack was light (which it certainly was compared to
my GT cro-mo MT then)! This 1000c is so much lighter than I'm still
adjusting to the funny feeling of "less" underneath me on the road!

"Heavy" is a relative term.

Compared to the 7200 you've got yourself some new wings. You'll love
the 1000. My son went from a mountain bike to a Trek 1000, he loves it.

22 lbs or 10kg is a good weight for commuting look no further and enjoy
your bike ;-)

But yes for *racing* 22 lbs is called heavy, even a Trek 2300 which is
20 lbs (9kg) is heavy, yet 2.5 times the price of a Trek 1000!

What is light? A Tour de France bike is 15 lbs (6.8 kg).

At 17 lbs (7.8kg) my all carbon bike, which is similar to a Madone SL
5.2, is only considered "pretty light" but not awesome, a "training
bike". I'd need to pay a clear $double$ to lose that final pound or
two!

For commuting and riding with my son I wish I had a Trek 1000 type
bike, not expensive, not too fancy, yet not too shabby, a good bike.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is
no give to the bike, and it's quite rough over bumps. The main difference
between my 1000 and yours is that my front fork is steel, not carbon. Still
I think it's a very good bike, for training and commuting. I wouldn't call
it a racing bike, but it does have racing geometry.

Speaking of "geometry," what's with Trek's "acutal" and "virtual" top
tube spec?? I've got a sticker on the, whachamacallit tube, the stem
tube (?) which has a little graphic noting, I guess, that despite the
angled top tube ("actual" [?]), it'a a "virtual"
straight-parallel-to-the-ground tob tube (??)...?!

I mean, just what IS it with all these bikes these days with that
angled top tube, anyway???

The notion is to make less frame sizes and use the seat height to
accomodate more people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It has a longer
wheelbase than their more expensive cousins, but I personally like longer
wheelbases.

"Wheelbase"...is this the same "wheelbase" dimension as what recumbent
bikes spec?

This 1000c seems an inch shorter than my old 7200....

Quoted message said:

I have 19,000 miles on it, and have had to replace the rear
der, and the headset, in that time. Main problem is the weight, I think
mine weighed 22 lbs, and the roughness. If you did a double century with
it, you'd have to go to a chiropractic doctor, to get all the bones back in
the right place.

This is most interesting...do you mean to say that bike weight has some
kind of a connection to back health?? I've always just thought that it
made for a faster ride and easier portaging (kayaking word, that)...and

I think the geometry, posture and personal fit are more important to
back health.

Quoted message said:

I'd figured on 22 lbs. being LIGHT, actually, not "heavy" like you say!!

As I said above "light" or "heavy" are relative terms.

Weight is very expensive to play with. Unless you're in a race it isn't
money well spent IMHO. You're better off getting the exercise ;-|

Help that helps, enjoy your bike.
Cheers.

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Art Harris said:

Not sure, but I think the "C" has a suspension fork, and maybe other
differences.

Art Harris

Thanks again, but no, it doesn't have a suspension fork. No one seems
to know the answer to these types of questions...certainly not the bike
dealers, who could only every just say that "components are better,
they last longer" -- but haven't any idea how much longer they last...!

You paid extra for the suspension seatpost, larger saddle, adjustable stem
and top mount brake levers

Alvin Ryder said:

NYC XYZ said:

Callistus Valerius said:

I have a '98 Trek 1000. The reason they don't list the weight is
because it's HEAVY. I use it for commuting during the work week.

Hey, that's my planned use, too! Funny thing is, it's sooooo light to
me!! Maybe I grew a new muscle or something...but I had thought my old
'98 Trek 7200 MultiTrack was light (which it certainly was compared to
my GT cro-mo MT then)! This 1000c is so much lighter than I'm still
adjusting to the funny feeling of "less" underneath me on the road!

"Heavy" is a relative term.

Compared to the 7200 you've got yourself some new wings. You'll love
the 1000. My son went from a mountain bike to a Trek 1000, he loves it.

22 lbs or 10kg is a good weight for commuting look no further and enjoy
your bike ;-)

But yes for *racing* 22 lbs is called heavy, even a Trek 2300 which is
20 lbs (9kg) is heavy, yet 2.5 times the price of a Trek 1000!

What is light? A Tour de France bike is 15 lbs (6.8 kg).

At 17 lbs (7.8kg) my all carbon bike, which is similar to a Madone SL
5.2, is only considered "pretty light" but not awesome, a "training
bike". I'd need to pay a clear $double$ to lose that final pound or
two!

For commuting and riding with my son I wish I had a Trek 1000 type
bike, not expensive, not too fancy, yet not too shabby, a good bike.

The cheapest way for a bike to lose 5lbs is that part that fits above
the saddle :-)

W

Todd said:

Answers from a Trek dealer, and long-time bike shop employee:

<SNIP>

2) Yes, all bike shops sell the "display" models. They aren't displays,
they are new, for sale bikes. The bikes on display are there TO BE sold,
not to be displays to look at for reference. Otherwise you'd only see one
of each model out there, when in fact you see several of one model in
different sizes out there. None of those bikes you see sit there for more
than a week or two unless they are super high-end. The only reason a person
will get a new bike out-of-the-box, never-even-sat-on is because they need
a size that isn't already put together. There's no difference between a
bike on the shelf and one just put together for you. Maybe the one on the
shelf had a test ride or two. Oh well.

<SNIP>

Hi, thanks for responding. I still don't get the "display model
thing"...if they will have to build another bike anyway, why not give
ME that other bike that's to be built and leave the one hanging up for
test rides, etc.?

You see, there's a little damage to the finish of the right brake/shift
lever on my Trek 1000c bought this Sunday, and I really do wonder if it
came that way from off the wall where it was hanging up, as I barely
rode it in a day and a half and was very careful with it.

Anyway, I guess the reason for this practice must be economic: a
"display model" that hangs off the wall for just that purpose is a
money-loser, as eventually it will need to be sold for less than usual.
But how this happened in the bicycle business and not with, say,
furniture, etc., is beyond me (I further suppose the profit margins are
just so much slimmer, than...).

On 30 Aug 2005 06:58:53 -0700, "NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hi, thanks for responding. I still don't get the "display model
thing"...if they will have to build another bike anyway, why not give
ME that other bike that's to be built and leave the one hanging up for
test rides, etc.?

How many bikes of the make and model that you want that are also in
the same size do you think they have in the back room? Why do you
think the bike shop manager will automatically put the same model in
the show room?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Hi, All:

Does anyone have any information on this particular model of the Trek
Alpha Aluminium 1000 series of racing bikes? On their site they only
list the 1000 and 1000 WSD (whatever "wsd" stands for).

WSD = women specific design

Quoted message said:

There isn't a
"c" model...and it's what I've just bought! I'm particularly concerned
because I paid $669 for it (before taxes), whereas the 1000 series
lists on the website for $629 -- I'm wondering if I got charged more
for a discontiuned model!! =(

It is usually a good idea to do your research before you buy, not after.

Quoted message said:

(This seems a particularly light bike, too...why isn't bike weight
listed among the specs? Or at least individual component weights
[frame, fork, etc.]....)

Also, it seems like the standard industry practice to give a customer a
display model bike, instead of giving the customer a "brand new" bike.
Seems like an odd thing to me, but all the bikes shops (the five or so
I've patronized through a decade and a half of biking) do this. Why is
this? They would have to build another bike anyway...what's the big
deal? I hate to fight with them over this, but it's like they insist,
and frankly, it isn't like I could tell the difference anyway, right?
But still, it's the principle of it all...just seems like a pretty
weird practice.

The display models are new bikes. They build them as they need them. If you
insist on a bike out of the box, they might rush to build it up for you. I
don't see what the big deal is. The only exception would be if the bike on
display was damaged in some way.
-------------
Alex

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Art Harris said:

Not sure, but I think the "C" has a suspension fork, and maybe other
differences.

Art Harris

Thanks again, but no, it doesn't have a suspension fork. No one seems
to know the answer to these types of questions...certainly not the bike
dealers, who could only every just say that "components are better,
they last longer" -- but haven't any idea how much longer they last...!

You paid extra for the suspension seatpost, larger saddle, adjustable stem
and top mount brake levers

I get the impression the OP is too lazy to compare the two bike specs.
-----------------
Alex