|Trek 5900 vs. 5500||CharlesTT|
Aug 5, 2002 11:36 AM
|Is it really worth the extra $600 or so for the lighter 5900? I am beginning to think its not unless someone can convince me.|
|re: Trek 5900 vs. 5500||hairywinston|
Aug 5, 2002 12:08 PM
|Well watch what the posties do. On the flat to moderate climbing days. They ride the OCLV 120 frames ie 5200and 5500 frame. On the climbing stages they ride the OCLV 110 frame. The reason for that is because the 120 is more comfortable, and the 100 is lighter. You'll be glad with either purchase.|
|re: Trek 5900 vs. 5500||gray8110|
Aug 5, 2002 1:04 PM
|Unless your goal is a high zoot factor or want a superlight/superstiff bike.. no.. I ride a 5900 and love it. I bought the frame and built it out with lightweight stuff. But if that isn't a goal, the 5500 is 99% the bike and more forgiving on the bad roads The 5900 is a little more rigid over the bumps and the straight fork makes the steering a little quicker. The other downside of the 5900 is that you either have to go with the USPS paint job or a Project One job.. I like the Silver fade to black -- I don't like the USPS decals.
|re: Trek 5900 vs. 5500||spiderwj|
Aug 5, 2002 7:15 PM
|I just sold my 5900 :( I loved it. I just switch bikes now and again because I work in a shop and it gives me a wider range of bikes I have ridden. If you are thinking new, check out the '03 5500's. They have straight forks on them for this year. Ought to make steering better but I haven't ridden one or even seen it outside the catalog specs and pic. Either way, your set.
PS I think the postal paint job is nice. (probably biased because I owned one)