# Trek Navigator 3.0 vs Trek 7100: On-road and paved path riding



## TrickyBeta (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm looking to get a Trek bicycle mainly for on-road and paved path riding, but occasionally for longer treks.

The two bikes I'm looking into are the Trek Navigator 3.0 and the Trek 7100.

I'm not looking into serious mountain biking or off-roading with this bike, but being able to go off the pavement and onto bike paths is a huge plus for me. I'll be going long distances as well - 10 to 20 miles.

Can anyone point me to the right bike? Thanks in advance!


----------



## trek7100 (Jul 15, 2007)

I bought a Trek 7100 last year and its been a great bike. Its a 21 speed and has 700 x 32 tires. I bought it to get in shape - to ride the rail trails, run errands, bike paths, road. Its a very comfortable bike. I felt like I out grew it, I wanted to ride more and commute, so I bought a road bike this year(plus a mountain bike ). The Navigator also looks like a 21 speed(at least the 2.0) and the tires are a 26 x 1.95(Navigator 2.0). I wished I would have got one of the Trek FX bikes - flat bar road bike. I rode my 7100 off road on gravel and hard packed trail. I would say that if you plan on riding off road on a regular basis to get a Navigator because of the tires, but if you're going to do the majority of your riding on pavement the Trek 7100. I would also upgrade to the Trek 7200 if possible, its a 24 speed, plus the components, pedals, etc... is better(a friend that I ride with has the 7200). Either way you can't go wrong with purchasing a Trek. Good luck with your purchase. Let us know what you decide.


----------



## Squash (Jul 20, 2003)

*Agreed...*

the 7100 isn't meant for unpaved paths or trails. It's what is called a hybrid, a cross between a road bike and a mountian bike as far as frame gemometry and design, but there the similarity ends. It's not designed for anything rougher than paved bike paths or very smooth and level unpaved paths. They don't do well in gravel or on wood chip coverd paths or on other loose surfaces at all. The 7000 series of bikes make very good and comfortable town bikes for errands, commuting, or just riding around. And they will do fairly well over long distances as long as the terrain isn't to variable, they're not the best climbers, so fairly level routes are best. Don't get me wrong, you can climb with the bike if you're in good enough shape and your legs are strong. But there are better bikes out there for the task.

The Navigator is considered a Cruiser. They are quite a bit heavier built than a hybrid, but are even more comfortable and very durable due to the heavier construction of the frame. Certainly not designed for long distance riding and not designed to be particularly fast. They are basically what the name implies a bike to just cruise around on. They're okay for short commutes, running up to the mini-mart, stuff like that. I work at a Trek dealer and we most often sell the Nav's to folks that hang em on the back of their RV's, haul em to whatever tourist trap they desire and use them to see the sights, run for groceries, etc. The Nav would certainly do better on unpaved bike paths as long as things weren't too hilly, the tires and wheels would lend themselves much better to unpaved surfaces than those that come on the 7100. But the heavy weight of the Navigator would limit you to fairly level areas unless you have legs like the Governer of California and the lungs of a Tour Racer.

Anyway, either bike will do what you are thinking of. The Nav would be better on dirt paths, the 7100 will be faster and lighter on pavement and better for the long distance rides. As trek7100 said, if the majority of your riding is going to be on pavement the 7100 sounds like the better way to go.

Good Dirt


----------

