|Trek 5500 vs. Kestrel 200SCi frameset||stevemtb|
Mar 22, 2002 6:37 AM
|I am in the process of upgrading an older model Trek 2300 frameset(the one with the 3 carbon tubes)and have possibly narrowed my search down to the Trek 5500 or Kestrel 200SCi. Components are all Dura Ace 9 speed. I do like the ride of the all carbon fiber frame. I have ridden the Trek for a short ride, have not ridden the Kestrel (no local dealer).
Pricewise, the Kestrel is only about $100 more, but I would have to order it from the factory. The Trek I could get locally.
Does anyone have any experience comparing the 2 frames? Or any other suggestions as to carbon framesets?
Thanks for any input.
Mar 22, 2002 7:16 AM
|Seems like there are only a few choices in carbon in the price range you are looking:
Kestral 200 SCI
Look (I'm not sure of which frame would be comparable price wise)
Ultimatly (at the price you are paying) all of these bikes are good bikes, and all of them ride and fit slightly different. At the price point you have in mind (Around $2,500 to $3,000) I would want to make damn sure that I fit well on the bike & that I loved the ride. The only way you can do this is to test ride. Unless you are willing to bet the money that you will like the ride, I wouldn't buy a bike that I couldn't ride for at least a reasonable time.
|re: Trek 5500 vs. Kestrel 200SCi frameset||robbz27|
Mar 22, 2002 8:29 AM
|My only beef with the 5500 is that color is horrible this year. I don't mean to sound like a priss, but I think you can put a better color than dark blue on a $3600 bike.
Have never ridden the Kestrel, but the 5500 is a sweet ride.
|re: Trek 5500 vs. Kestrel 200SCi frameset||pmf1|
Mar 22, 2002 9:32 AM
|I own a 200 Sci and have ridden a Trek 5200, although not extensively. I think the 5500 is just a 5200 with DA, right? I personally like the Kestrel better and think its the better product due to its one-piece design rather than bonded tubes. Plus, its more unique and doesn't have the "T" word on it. But who am I to talk, I have a C-40 that's bonded. The Trek felt a lot more jarring and rough than my Kestrel. I only rode it for 10 minutes though which is not a fair test.|
|Faced with the same choice a few months...||AFred|
Mar 22, 2002 2:20 PM
|...back, I chose the Kestrel. I'm a heavy rider at 175 lbs and I ride some pretty harsh roads around NY. I wanted to add an all carbon bike to my collection so I test rode the Trek and Kestrel, and felt that the Kestrel was a little more responsive. Though both are great bikes at absorbing road chatter, I felt the Trek was a little "dead". I picked up a barely used Kestrel (neither brand holds its value particularly well) in the classifieds on this site, upgraded to DA and kept the Cane Creek wheels. I haven't looked back since, except to ride my Litespeed and envy the guy in my club riding a new Klein Quantum Pro Q (which I found has similar qualities to the Trek).
IMHO it's worth a trip to a Kestrel dealer to give the 200 SCi a test ride. Customer Service from Kestrel has been great, even for a second hand purchaser.
Mar 22, 2002 10:44 PM
|I have ridden both for many miles and I own a trek 5500. This is what I have found out. The Trek has a stiffer bottom bracket and the rear stays are stronger. The bike rides fine and takes a lot of the road vibration away. The Kestrel is about 1 pd heavier than the trek frame to frame. The Kestrel gives a better feel for the road but is a great ride. Trek's paint is better quaility, very good. The Kestrel's clear coats are to soft and chip and scratch to easily. It is a wonderful bike but not as good as the Trek for sprinting. I weigh 220 pds and are a very strong rider. The Trek's are known to give back pains to some people because of the seats down tuble angle.|| |