Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
Slothman
Posts: 166
Joined: 27 Oct 2020, 4:07pm

Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Slothman »

Amongst others, I have been looking at the new 2023 Trek FX 4 Sport.
It looks a great bike, and although over £700 more (RRP) than others I've been looking at it does tick a lot of boxes.
I can get it at 10% off RRP though.
However, is it worth it?

For example, it apparantly weighs in at 10.5kg. That's only 0.4kg less than the Whyte Stirling v3, and nearly half a kilo heavier than the Giant Fastroad SL1 and over half a kilo heavier than the Merida Speeder 400, and they are both around £700 cheaper!

Why is a carbon frame bike so heavy?

Why would I pay the extra for no weight advantage over a decent allu frame bike?

Am I missing something, or have I misread the Trek weight for this bike?

Genuine question, I like the look of the bike but I am questioning why I'd pay £hundreds more for a bike that (other than looking great) offers no weight advantage, which is the main reason for carbon isn't it?
I know some say that carbon is more forgiving and therefore more comfortable but is that on it's own worth the extra £££?
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Vorpal »

Can you try one? That seems to me to be the best way to tell if it's worth it.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Slothman
Posts: 166
Joined: 27 Oct 2020, 4:07pm

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Slothman »

Thanks.
Unlikely, no one has stock, no one wants to order any stock, everyone wants deposits.
It's impossible!

Anyhoo, even if I could (and I am trying) I would appreciate opinions of more experienced riders, who know more about bikes than I do?
Those opinions, along with whatever I manage to find out myself, will help form my conclusions.
iandriver
Posts: 2521
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 2:09pm
Location: Cambridge.

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by iandriver »

A carbon frame isn't necessarily than a much lighter that a good aluminium frame.

A light bike is very much a sum of its parts, with the frame itself being a small proportion of its weight.
To build a very light bike, you need to worry about every part, frame, forks, finishing kit, group set, the whole nine yards.

Given you can have 1: light, 2: strong, 3: cheap, but can only pick 2 of those options is why super bikes cost thousands.
The components on that frame aren't the lightest. The frame probably needs far more expensive kit to make it a very light bike.

In that price range, personally I would prefer an aluminium frame.

The far more expensive version on the same frame is 1kg lighter. https://www.trekbikes.com/gb/en_GB/bike ... Code=black A lot of money to save 1Kg.
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Cugel »

A good frame (or a good bike) isn't defined solely by it's weight; or even at all by its weight. Many lightweight bikes are only fit for looking at by weight weenies; or riding by someone themselves weighing no more than 55K.

Of course, some light weight bikes are very well made indeed - suitable for vigorous riding by those with the heavy muscle to do so. That's why they often cost a fortune. :-)

A good frame/bike has to be defined as such according to the parameters that define the rider's requirements. Light weight is really only a requirement for top class racers who might gain the 5 seconds over their rivals to win over a 100K race. The vast majority of bicycle riders want strength, resilience, comfort and that subtle factor that makes their bicycle use whatever energy they can produce to make the bike go forward rather than heating up various parts as they squish.

Here's an interesting discussion of bike weight:

https://www.cyclingabout.com/how-much-d ... -you-down/

Carbon frames - very plastic in their design such that all sorts of behaviours and features can be included for all sorts of outcomes, particularly comfort, stability and efficient use of your pedalling power. Light weight is really just a possible side effect albeit one of great interest to the weight weenies but also those top class racing folk.

Cugel
Last edited by Cugel on 16 Aug 2022, 7:01pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
tim-b
Posts: 2091
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by tim-b »

It's entirely up to you, but I wouldn't buy a full-priced bike that was also at the expensive end of my list if I couldn't either test ride it or at least see one
I'd have a list of desirable features, e.g. 1x11 wouldn't be my on-road choice. It's also limited on tyre size if you choose mudguards and doesn't mention rear carrier suitability, etc.
What's on your list?
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
Slothman
Posts: 166
Joined: 27 Oct 2020, 4:07pm

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Slothman »

I agree, I’d not buy at full RRP.
A 1x11 is attractive for simplicity in not having to faff with front mech changes and worrying about which gears I should or should not combine for fear of cross chain etc. Also, I’m not really bothered too much about on the flat, or downhill speed, more so about getting up hills without grinding too much, and comfortably messing around on pot holed country lanes. If I wanted more speed for road cycling, I’d also not want a 1x set up.
To be honest, for how I will be riding, I doubt I’d be unhappy with either.
rareposter
Posts: 1992
Joined: 27 Aug 2014, 2:40pm

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by rareposter »

As mentioned above, the frame weight is likely only a fairly small proportion of the difference between the bikes. I'd hazard a guess that those tyres on the Trek probably weigh in at 600+g each - Google is really only giving me reviews and weights of the Team Issue variant of those, not the basic and much more heavily armoured ones fitted to that bike so I reckon a fair chunk of the weight is hidden there.

Other than that it looks a great bike and if you can get a bit of a discount, well worth it.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Vorpal »

Slothman wrote: 16 Aug 2022, 9:43am Thanks.
Unlikely, no one has stock, no one wants to order any stock, everyone wants deposits.
It's impossible!

Anyhoo, even if I could (and I am trying) I would appreciate opinions of more experienced riders, who know more about bikes than I do?
Those opinions, along with whatever I manage to find out myself, will help form my conclusions.
Maybe you could try this year's version? (significant changes were made between the 2021 & 2022 versions)
tim-b wrote: 16 Aug 2022, 5:04pm It's also limited on tyre size if you choose mudguards and doesn't mention rear carrier suitability, etc.
What's on your list?
The 2022 & 2023 versions have clearance for 42 mm tyres without mudguards and 40 mm with mudguards. That seems pretty good for a CF hybrid / gravel bike?

Trek have a compatibility sheet on their website. That indicates that the FX carbon bikes do not take racks.
https://retailerassetsprd.blob.core.win ... UlT%2Fo%3D
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Slothman
Posts: 166
Joined: 27 Oct 2020, 4:07pm

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Slothman »

Thanks.
A few quick responses…

I have been offered 10% off a new 2022 model, so should be the latest spec etc.

Racks are irrelevant as I won’t use any.

Mudguard fittings and clearances are irrelevant as I won’t use full bolt on types.

Tyre clearances are irrelevant as I will replace with 32’s anyway.

I appreciate your advice, keep it coming 👍
tim-b
Posts: 2091
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by tim-b »

The 2022 & 2023 versions have clearance for 42 mm tyres without mudguards and 40 mm with mudguards. That seems pretty good for a CF hybrid / gravel bike?
I got figures from a review site, 32mm with mudguards, 35mm without. Typo? The same site didn't mention rear carrier capability but Trek say that fittings exist; lesson learnt, look at the manufacturer's site :)
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Vorpal »

tim-b wrote: 17 Aug 2022, 4:17pm
I got figures from a review site, 32mm with mudguards, 35mm without. Typo? The same site didn't mention rear carrier capability but Trek say that fittings exist; lesson learnt, look at the manufacturer's site :)
They were probably reviewing the 2021 (or earlier) design. It changed for this year.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Slothman
Posts: 166
Joined: 27 Oct 2020, 4:07pm

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Slothman »

It may be a moot point anyway.
The M seems the right geometry and size except for the high 787mm standover. At approx 780mm max inside leg, that’s a no goer.
The small is a better standover but may be too squashed up in other aspects of the geo?
Bonzo Banana
Posts: 416
Joined: 5 Feb 2017, 11:58am

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Bonzo Banana »

Trek don't manufacture anything themselves its more just a brand. Yes they have a design team I'm sure but its likely most of the engineering is done by the manufacturer whoever that is. Giant and Merida are actual manufacturers so will likely offer better value in fact either could actually be the manufacturer of the Trek model. However Trek CF road frames I think are still made by Quest Composites and that in my opinion is quite a poor factory. Many of the Trek CF frames have had shocking tolerances and when you look at the Quest Composite factory, the images are on the site it looks very crude compared to other CF frame factories. They also make Canyon frames. I think Hambini and Luescher Technik have given quite critical reviews of their frames.

Ultimately if the Trek seems poor value and uncompetitive with models from other brands it probably is. There is no secret sauce that you are getting that you think you might be getting based on the price.
Slothman
Posts: 166
Joined: 27 Oct 2020, 4:07pm

Re: Trek FX4 Sport 2023 - Heavy for a carbon bike? (so why pay the extra over allu?)

Post by Slothman »

Bonzo Banana wrote: 22 Aug 2022, 9:28pm Trek don't manufacture anything themselves its more just a brand. Yes they have a design team I'm sure but its likely most of the engineering is done by the manufacturer whoever that is. Giant and Merida are actual manufacturers so will likely offer better value in fact either could actually be the manufacturer of the Trek model. However Trek CF road frames I think are still made by Quest Composites and that in my opinion is quite a poor factory. Many of the Trek CF frames have had shocking tolerances and when you look at the Quest Composite factory, the images are on the site it looks very crude compared to other CF frame factories. They also make Canyon frames. I think Hambini and Luescher Technik have given quite critical reviews of their frames.

Ultimately if the Trek seems poor value and uncompetitive with models from other brands it probably is. There is no secret sauce that you are getting that you think you might be getting based on the price.
Thanks, that's interesting. I thought Trek were supposed to be very good frames?
Then again, I'm new to all this so I've probably got that wrong?
Post Reply