Ok, I'm down to two bike choices for purchase.
1st is the 2008 Kuota K-Factor and 2nd is the 2007 Trek E9.
Both fit and ride nicely. The E9 is 500.00 less expensive and
comes with better components. I guess my question is carbon (K-Factor) worth the extra money. I race mostly sprint and oly distance races with a
goal set for a 1/2 in the near furture. Any thoughts on these two bike would be help full. Thanks
Scott.
I had looked at a few bikes
I had looked at a few bikes before I purchased my Guru and K-Factor was right at the top of the list. I personally think it's worth the $500. Upon searching for my bike, I came across this review which may help you decide....
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/kfactor.shtml
Both look like solid picks.
Both look like solid picks. I can't speak to the benefits of carbon, but I would point out that $500 can be put towards a good set of aero race wheels.
Sorry to add to the
Sorry to add to the confusion, but I went to the bike shop last fall thinking I was going to buy a K-Factor and liked the Felt S22 and Cervelo P2SL better, for less money, so maybe consider those as well. I ended up getting the S22 and I love it. If you do mostly sprints and olys you may not need the full carbon frame. The Felt has a carbon fork and rear triangle, which should dampen the bumps enough for shorter races, IMO. I didn't ride the Trek.
The main difference between
The main difference between a carbon and aluminum frame is the weight, which in most of our cases doesn't matter in the slightest, and how much it dampens the feel of the road. For sprints and olympic distance races, the effects of a carbon frame won't be felt very much. If it were me, I would go with the Trek and save the money you saved for a set of race wheels.