RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Decision, Giant 03 composite/Trek 01, 5900/C40(16 posts)

Decision, Giant 03 composite/Trek 01, 5900/C40kai-ming
Oct 11, 2002 10:46 PM
Hard to make up my mind. Any suggestion?
More info?fbg111
Oct 12, 2002 3:25 AM
What components & groups?
re: Decision, Giant 03 composite/Trek 01, 5900/C40WCC
Oct 12, 2002 4:43 AM
I would probably go for the C40 without knowing anything else.
re: Decision, Giant 03 composite/Trek 01, 5900/C40Lactate Junkie
Oct 12, 2002 8:09 AM
I would probably go for the C40 without knowing anything else.

And you would do that why?? Because it is twice as expensive, heavier, not as technically advanced--or just because it is Italian and has a cool paint job?
because it's Italian, has cool paint....C-40
Oct 12, 2002 9:23 AM
Definitely. But heavier? Less technically advanced? Twice as expensive? Not hardly.

C-40's have been successfully raced since 1994. Subtle design changes have been made several times. The frame rides and handles like nothing else.

Got my 2002 C-40 (my second) with fork and carbon seatpost for about $2400. Not cheap, but a lot better than the $3800 retail.

Add $500 for cool paint on a Trek and I think the C-40's cheaper.
because it's Italian, has cool paint....Lactate Junkie
Oct 12, 2002 6:00 PM
Heavier--Giant Frame and Fork 2.5Lbs(+++); Trek Frame and Fork about 2.9lbs(++); C40 Frame and Fork about 4lbs(+)

Less Technically Advanced--Giant Monocoque Composite(+++); Trek Composite Tubes with Internal Composite Lugs(++); C40 Composite tube with external composite lugs(++)

More Expensive--Giant TCR0 about $1400 full retail(+++); Trek 5900 not sure, right around $2200(++); C40 $3800(+)

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, I just get pissed at people who go "not knowing anything else (probably a true statement)I would buy the Colnago" The C40 is a nice bike but it, and Colnago are hardly the be all and end all in all of bikedom.
wrong again...C-40
Oct 13, 2002 5:57 AM
Where did you get that ridiculous weight on a C-40?

The C-40 may weigh a little more than the advertised 2.4 lbs for the frame and .75 lb for the fork, but certainly not 4 lbs.

The Trek 5900 has an advetised weight of 2.27 lbs for the frame and .75 lbs for the fork, for a total of 3.02lbs. The 5500's advertised frame weight is 2.4 lbs, or only 60 grams more than the 5900. Pretty insignificant.

I also seriously doubt the weight of the Giant is 2.5lb for frame and fork. When making comparisons with th Giant, you also have to consider the extra weight of the longer seat post.

As for "technically advanced", that's pretty subjective. Monocoque composite frames have been around for a very long time. It's not something that Giant dreamed up. The disadvantage is the very expensive molds that limit that sizes offered. With the Giant, you don't get much of a size selection. With Colnago's method, they can customize the size and geometry if desired and they offer 1cm size increments on stock frames.

As for the prices you've quoted, only a fool would pay $3800 for a C-40. I think you'll find that your prices on the others are on the low side. If you want to spout off, why not get the facts first?

As for the low prices on the C-40, go to maestro-uk.com or totalcyling.com. Also remember that you get a carbon seatpost and a Colnago stem in the C-40's price. To compare accurately, at least $200 should be added to the price of the other models.
wrong again...fbg111
Oct 13, 2002 4:01 PM
Pretty close, depending on the fork weight:

"... Giant claims the bare frame weighs a feathery 950g."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2002/features/probikes/once.shtml

As for frame sizing, I thought Giant limits the sizes b/c they are compact frames, and theoretically don't need as wide a range. The cost savings they reap from that is certainly a benefit, and maybe a reason for going all compact in the first place, but they've been limiting frame sizes long before the TCR Composite, with their aluminum frames.
Why not?filtersweep
Oct 12, 2002 11:38 AM
Original poster simply can't make up his/her mind... nothing stated about price or weight. If someone said they would give me one of those three frames, I'd pick the C40 any day.

Speaking of paint... Trek??
Calfee would be on my list too (nm)irregardless
Oct 12, 2002 7:53 AM
pick the one that fits best. Pick something that has soul.Spunout
Oct 12, 2002 12:05 PM
For the money you are putting on the table, you could open up many other choices. Don't be afraid to find a bike that nobody else will be riding in your group.

BTW, I'd put Look and Fondriest on that list too for comparison.
re: Decision, Giant 03 composite/Trek 01, 5900/C40jtolleson
Oct 12, 2002 3:14 PM
What kind of riding do you anticipate? The Giant's reputation for stability and comfort (caveat, the only one of these I've even test ridden is a C40) exceeds the others, but it's overall swank factor doesn't.
re: Decision, Giant 03 composite/Trek 01, 5900/C40kai-ming
Oct 13, 2002 4:10 AM
I am 5'7", 130lbs, will use it mainly for training probably racing in the senior level in the future. Will use Dura-ace components, open pro/DT wheels. Do C40 and fork weight 4 lbs? I thought it should be very close to 5900. I like the idea of monocoque carbon design, light weight. The only thing that I am still not sure is the Taiwan brand name which may look cheap.
misleading info...C-40
Oct 13, 2002 6:12 AM
The advertised weights of the 5900 and C-40 are within 60 grams of each other. Whether their real-world weights differ by more, I can't tell you. Lactate Junkie can't either.

Personally, I think the idea of worrying about a few ounces of weight is ridiculous. Real races aren't won by small amounts of weight reduction. They are won by superior training and tactics. If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, or don't have the conditioning to keep up, 0.1% less weight isn't going to help.

With the strong possibility of crashes in racing, I'd think twice about risking a high buck frame. I'd be more inclined to use disposable aluminum.
re: Decision, Giant 03 composite/Trek 01, 5900/C40JohnG
Oct 13, 2002 6:57 AM
Although I've got an 02 Colnago CT1 (pretty similar to the C40), I'd recommend the Giant for what you want...... probably just an Al version though. The carbon Giant is brand new and when was the last time you saw a new model of anything that didn't have problems. That's why I went with the ONCE Al frame for my race bike.

The Giant has near zero soul but WTF...... it's just a race bike. Use it and abuse it.

JohnG
Forget the C40.ol
Oct 13, 2002 6:50 PM
I have a friend who just retired his one year old C40 b-stay for a brand new giant composite. He is a full on A grade racer who puts a bike through just about everything. His opinion on the giant is that it is at least on par with the c40 in ride, stiffness and handling. The only difference being the price, the c40 an absurd 2000 dollars more. If you want to pay 2000 dollars more for a name and a paint job good luck.