|Need Input: C'dale R2000 (CAAD5) v. Trek 5200?||mdehner|
Dec 27, 2002 11:07 AM
|Most common application would be commuting (35 miles round-trip) and centuries. I have always ridden steel so far.
|re: Need Input: C'dale R2000 (CAAD5) v. Trek 5200?||tao|
Dec 27, 2002 12:56 PM
|Obviously, I suggest riding both first, if at all possible. I have both, though in large sizes, 62 for the Trek and a 63 CAAD5. I'm also 185-190 so my comparison may not be valid for you. At my size I don't find the CAAD5 ride harsh at all, yes I get more vibrations than the OCLV, but nothing that causes any soreness and the overall road feel is livelier than the "dead" feel of the Trek. The 5200 is a little lighter, by less than 200 grams, but I find the Cannondale to be much stiffer, especially in the bottom bracket and chainstays. Both climb well, the Trek gets a slight edge when spending several hours in the saddle, and I prefer the CAAD5 for hammering away on the flats and fast cornering. The latter being a matter of the geometry being better suited to me.
I think it will come down to whether you can get past the alleged harshness of aluminum, and the "geez everybody has a Cannondale" realization as well. If you can, I suggest getting the CAAD5 from GVH bikes for $610. You can build it up with whatever you want and save yourself some serious dough. Good luck!
|The TREK!!!!!! nm||benja15|
Dec 27, 2002 9:42 PM
|I've had both ...||Crash|
Dec 29, 2002 8:32 PM
|I had a R2000si for a year and just got a 5500. First of all, like everyone says the bike that fits you better is the bike for you. If they both fit equally well I would pick the Canny for racing, the Trek for everything else. I thought the Canny was pretty smooth for an Alum bike, but I would definitely take the Trek for a century. You also might not consider this a factor, but Cannondale is in serious financial difficulty. I hope they pull out of it, if they don't warranty issues might be a problem. Both nice bikes, very glad I now have the Trek!|| |