Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

scott or trek?

Started by noel russell · · Last activity · 7 posts · 1,902 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
15 January 2004
Last activity
25 February 2004
Original author
noel russell
Posts
7
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,902
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–7 of 7
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I am considering buying either a Scott USA Comp or a Trek 1200. Can anybody give advice on the best choice?

  2. Quoted post said:

    Originally posted by noel russell
    I am considering buying either a Scott USA Comp or a Trek 1200. Can anybody give advice on the best choice?

    I'm in the same dilemma. What may influence is me the fact that the Scott only comes in a triple chainset and originally I was thinking of a double. I'm new to road bikes and I don't know if theere are major disadvantages to a triple chainset other than weight. Sory I don't have any answers

  3. A triple is benefical if you live in a hilly/mountainous area and a double will usually serve you better if you live in a flat area. The scott seems to have better components, but I've never ridden one. I've ridden a trek 1000 and the frame is wicked nice.

  4. Quoted post said:

    Originally posted by rutled
    I'm in the same dilemma. What may influence is me the fact that the Scott only comes in a triple chainset and originally I was thinking of a double. I'm new to road bikes and I don't know if theere are major disadvantages to a triple chainset other than weight. Sory I don't have any answers

    After some research, I have learned that the Scott Comp. has a spec. equivalent to the Trek 1400, but the Scott at £899 is about £100 cheaper. The advantage of the triple is that it is probably more useful for climbing tough hills than the dcoublea. I think I will go for the Scott.

  5. Quoted post said:

    Originally posted by noel russell
    After some research, I have learned that the Scott Comp. has a spec. equivalent to the Trek 1400, but the Scott at £899 is about £100 cheaper. The advantage of the triple is that it is probably more useful for climbing tough hills than the dcoublea. I think I will go for the Scott.


    I've decided to go for the trek 1400 as i'v e seen one on the web for £950 and its got Bontrager select wheels, and double crank which i prefer. Theres certainly not much to choose between them. Enjoy your SCOTT

  6. What kind of warr does the scott have? Double or triple can be changed.

  7. Quoted post said:

    Originally posted by shokhead1
    What kind of warr does the scott have? Double or triple can be changed.


    Sorry, I don't know what a warr is. I'm very new to this game. I did enquire of a more knowledgeable friend how easy it is to change a triple to a double. He said its possible but required the shifters to be adjusted. in view of where I cycle he didn't think it was worth it. Many thanks for your interest

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.