|Trek versus Cannondale||kreese|
Oct 8, 2002 9:08 AM
|I am switching from Triathlon to cycling full time and will be selling my pure tri-bike in favor of a road bike. The 2 I am considering are the 2003 Trek 5200 with the U.S. Postal Service Frame, Full Ultegra, Bontrager Lite wheels, etc. and the Cannondale CAAD 7 R 2000, also full ultegra, Mavic Ksyrium SL wheels.
Any advice on which would be the better bike?? Prices are comparable from what I've seen. Please e-mail back at
firstname.lastname@example.org if you have an opinion one way or another.
|Fit, test ride, warranty, LBS service, $$$$$. No opinion, NM||Spunout|
Oct 8, 2002 9:32 AM
|re: Trek versus Cannondale||JimP|
Oct 8, 2002 10:13 AM
|I have to agree with spunout - test ride the bike! I rode a Cannondale for a number of years before switching to an Aegis carbon fibre bike. The difference was amazing! The Cannondale was a great bike for racing but transmitted too much vibration through the frame into my growing older and softer body. I think the Aegis is just as fast and will transmit the energy to the wheel as well as the Cannondale did and is so much easier on the body. The new Cannondales may be a better ride than my old one so, again, test ride the beasts - and not just around the block.
|gut reaction to this subject line...||JS Haiku Shop|
Oct 8, 2002 10:23 AM
|Mothra's made in Taiwan from sub standard paper mache...jeez : )||Scot_Gore|
Oct 8, 2002 10:29 AM
|Don't you realize that!!!!!|
|Ford vs Chevy???? nm||Dave Hickey|
Oct 8, 2002 10:30 AM
Oct 8, 2002 11:21 AM
|re: A tough fight to call||dzrider|
Oct 8, 2002 10:29 AM
|The Cannondale boasts considerable punching power, but has had problems going the distance. He needs to land one big punch early and put the Trek away. If the Trek boxes well and stays out of trouble he should come on strong in the later rounds as the Dale tires.|
|I have test ridden both...my opinion...||briko51|
Oct 8, 2002 10:38 AM
|had the chance to test ride an 03' Trek 5200 and '3 C-Dale R3000 (dura-ace). I'm about 6'1 and these were both 58cm frames...
cannondale was VERY light and very stiff. it was definately lighter than the trek. welds were awesome. the stock fizik poggio saddle SUCKED and my ass was sore after 30 minutes. but i do blame the saddle...i think the frame is a great improvement in ride quality over the previous CAAD's. it climbed very nicely and sprinted even better. cool too that the R2000 comes with Mavic Ksyrium
the trek was also impressive. very comfortable yet stiff...and responded well to accelerations. the bike climbed great (although i've ridden a 110 frame and that one was more effortless on the climbs). the new straight fork was a nice improvement over previous years. although i can't say i like this stock saddle either, the bike was very absorbant of road vibration, yet it was still very nice and responsive...
its a tough call...i'm in the same boat as you and still deciding. i'm leaning towards the trek, but i'll have to wait and see...maybe after a few more test rides :) hehe
good luck with your decision!
|Carbon vs Aluminium ... A world of difference.||pmf1|
Oct 8, 2002 10:46 AM
|Definitely test ride them. I have not ridden the newer Cannondales, but the old ones were pretty rough riding. I really prefer carbon bikes. I've got 2 of them although neither is a Trek. Some folks do not like carbon and say it has a "dead" feel to it. I think its plush. Its a matter of opinion though. Most of the miles you ride will not be racing miles, get something you feel is a good all around bike. And take Jim's advice and ride it for a little longer than around the parking lot if possible.
Why limit yourself to these two bikes, especially if you're paying anywhere near retail price for them? Personally, I think Cannondales and Treks are over-priced for what they are. At least in the carbon category, there are lots of carbon bikes that are nicer than the Trek. There are lots of bikes out there, shop around a bit. Why eat at MacDonalds when you can go to Bob's Smokey BBQ Pit?
|Carbon vs Aluminium ... A world of difference.||Frith|
Oct 8, 2002 10:56 AM
|I think Cannondales and Treks are over-priced for what they are. At least in the carbon category, there are lots of carbon bikes that are nicer than the Trek. |
You mind throwing some names out. I'm looking for something comparable to a 5200. What about the TCR 1 carbon? How much is that one retailing for? What else should I be looking at in the world of carbon w/ ultegra?
|TCR Composite 1 at my lbs for $2499 (SE NC). nm||fbg111|
Oct 8, 2002 11:10 AM
|Carbon vs Aluminium ... A world of difference.||pmf1|
Oct 8, 2002 11:51 AM
|I probably shouldn't have bad mouthed Trek and Cannondale too much. They're just so common around here. For an aluminium bike, the Cannondale seems really high priced. Isn't the point of aluminium to be light, cheap and disposable? I hear Cannondale has really good customer service. I don't hear that about Trek.
I do not know anything about Giant bikes. Not a fan of compacts. Their bikes seem to be a good deal. Both Kestrel and Aegis are made in the U.S. and are one-piece designs. Parlee and Look are also carbon bikes I'd check out. There's also Calfee. Then there's the Colnago C-40. If you don't mind riding the pre-2003 model (w/o the HP chain stay), I bet you can find a deal on one if you shop around. The next few months would be the time to get one. Factor into the price the fork, stem and seatpost that comes with the frame and they're cheaper than many bikes.
Generally, I buy a frame and components rather than a pre-built bike (unless the pre-built is just too good of a deal to pass up). It often costs the same and you get exactly what you want.
|TCR1 Composite $2200 at LBS n/m||fracisco|
Oct 8, 2002 12:32 PM
|Those are the same 2 bikes I've narrowed it down to, too!||jtferraro|
Oct 8, 2002 11:14 AM
|Just like you and Briko! I like the Trek's "tried & true" OCLV 120 frame but I'm not crazy about its overall weight and some of its other parts, including the stem, hbar, seatpost, and saddle. The '02 is on the heavy side @18.8 lbs., too! I'm not sure what the '03 weighs, w/its lighter/stiffer fork. NEway, the C'dale isn't carbon but it certainly is some of the best aluminum you can get, weighs significantly less than the Trek AND some better parts than the Trek:
1.) better wheels - Mavic Ksyrium SL's
2.) better rear derailleur - Dura Ace
3.) better stem - 3T Forgie
4.) better hbar - 3T Forgie
It's really a hard call and I guess you can say it comes down to fit. I have to double check my meaurements on the 5200 and test ride a 2000. I did test ride the '03 R1000, though.
|and 1 more thing...the C'dale has a better(ti) railed saddle(nm)||jtferraro|
Oct 8, 2002 11:34 AM
|Those are the same 2 bikes I've narrowed it down to, too!||FrankDAfish|
Oct 8, 2002 5:19 PM
|i havent weighed my '03 58cm 5200 yet, but i have weighed an 02 56 centimeter 5200 and it weight 17.75lbs on the shop scale. I dont know where you are getting your figures from. The bontrager parts arent super light, but they aren't heavy either. The seat and the wheels are the only heavy things on the bike, and the wheels arent even that heavy, <1800grams. I think it would be pretty hard to build an 18.8 bike with a 2.4 pound frame and ultegra. Hell, the trek 2300t that i weighed was 18.5lbs!|
|Weigh that '03 5200...||jtferraro|
Oct 8, 2002 6:54 PM
|I'm getting this info from Trek's website. Here is the link to their '02 OCLV bikes, including the 5200:
I agree...I can't figure out how the '02 5200 can weigh so much w/one of the lightest production frames?!
|re: Trek versus Cannondale||LI Biker|
Oct 8, 2002 1:30 PM
|Lance and his Postal teammates seem to do ok on the Trek. Same frame and Ultegra is only one step lower than Dura Ace. It's more the weight than the function.
I have the 2000 Trek 5200, but swapped the saddle and wheels (Heliums) for the ones off my old bike. It has been a pleasure for just about two years and over 4,000 miles.