So my Trek 1.2, which I love, according to online reviews is not a good racing bike?

The reviews don't mean that your bike is not good, or will break anytime soon. Just that for RACING where a few hundred of a second can be the difference between winning and loosing, other bikes may have some advantage. And that is important only if you are in the TDF or something. You didn't say you are in competitive racing so why bother. Are you riding for money or for fun?

I ride with some guys that have bikes that cost 2-4 times what I paid, and some that paid less than I did. You can't see much difference since we are not competing.

Just enjoy your bike.

Your bike isn't quite up to the level of a bike that would be competitive for racing. That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with it, it is a perfectly good road bike for road riding. You could ride it in a race and probably do fairly well if you were in good enough shape, but in the end, someone equally good would beat you if they had a better bike. However, that better bike might cost 3 times as much as your Trek. Once you get to a certain point, it costs a lot of money to improve a bike. A pro quality race bike would sell for at least 5 times as much as a Trek 1.2

Be happy with your Trek 1.2 continue to love it. Most people attach best to anything because of the war they have been through with it. Many touring bike riders will never purchase another brand bike because of their experience in hard and good times on the road. When it finally comes time to purchase another bike after 15 years, they get another one. Marketing and advertising are about like the serpent tempting Eve in the creation story. Whatever apple they are selling is going to be so much better six months to a year later than previous editions. Therefore, try not to buy the hype, rather enjoy the ride. Trek is exceptional in the bike world. They do not build a bad bike, its just not in them to do so. A rider who has skill and savvy can race a rider with not as much experience and beat him on a Trek 1.2. Its all relative and its all fun.

Best.

A more expensive bike will help but it wont make you a winner. I have an entry level bike like your Trek and a more expensive road bike with Ultregra components. The more expensive bike is liter and climbs hills better but over all it's not that much faster. The best upgrade is more training and losing excess weight. I should be flying up those hills once I get rid of that excess training weight.

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

So my Trek 1.2, which I love, according to online reviews is not a good racing bike?

But am I right when I say it's not the bike but it's the racer? How much "better" would I be if I had a "good racing bike." And I'm speaking about road racing.

Trek 1.2 Review

They got it right...the difference is small time-wise. I ride both a Trek 1000 and a Madone 5.2, depending on the mood I'm in and what I'm up to. Both are great bikes, and go where I point them at the speed I pedal them. the Madone has a much more smooth and slick feel to it. More damping of the bumps in the road, and stiffer.

But my 1000 is the first good road bike I had, and I still love riding it.

It completely depends on you, I personally need a fully carbon frame because I like how it's flexes in corners ect, if you like how your bike moves there's no point in changing it as it'll effect your riding style, if you decide to get a better bike make sure you are comfortable with the way it moves or it'll slow you down and put you off

tricky

Yes, you got it right.... two different issues. As far as the bike is concerned, is an entry level road bike. You may not be a lick faster on a top of the line madone. But, it will shift, coast, and be as smooth as it can be.

Soccerref

Parents