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 )


Eddy Merckx Team SC vs Trek 5200(20 posts)

Eddy Merckx Team SC vs Trek 5200steveadp
May 5, 2003 11:05 AM
Considering either one , last year model of the merckx reduced demo. What are the differences in ride and opinions appreciated.
FWIWNo_sprint
May 5, 2003 11:16 AM
I've seen several head on *what's better* battles between the Team SC and other bikes including Seven, Giant, etc. These were critique sessions put on by the likes of Zinn and many others. The Team SC has come out on top each time. I haven't ridden one. :(
FWIWgeeker
May 5, 2003 11:27 AM
Here's a reviewer who disliked the Team SC:

http://bethelcycle.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=71
LOL!JS Haiku Shop
May 5, 2003 11:45 AM
reviewer = LBS owner.

LBS owner spells Merckx "Mercks".

blasphemy.
AgreedNo_sprint
May 5, 2003 11:47 AM
That's the only knock of the Team SC I've ever ever heard. I'd forget it in about a half second. Next, that's the 2001 model review.
Agreedsteveadp
May 5, 2003 12:04 PM
thanks for the input, clearly the Team SC is the more expensive choice when both are priced new. I feel if they both feel and fit right, go with the better deal. At least the campy is better then the ultegra the 5200 comes with.
Agreedgtx
May 5, 2003 12:06 PM
didn't the 2001 SC have a 1" hs? If so, I could see it having some flex at the steer tube. Merckx forks do have about 1cm more rake than most, so they may feel more "flexy." I'm also assuming the AL frames and fork are built in Taiwan, unless someone has visited the Belgium factory recently and seen them building these bikes there (otherwise how did they ramp up to AL production so quickly). The review does bring up some good points--Merckx frames aren't for everyone, so I would recommend a test ride. Personally, I like the fit/geometry and my 57 Merckx (older steel Century model) fits me quite well. I didn't like the fit or ride of either the 56 or 58 OCLV.
Check the Geo!DoubleK
May 5, 2003 12:07 PM
Let the fit decide. I would love to have a Team SC ride but the slack seat tube angle means getting my proper saddle position compromises the TT length. Unless I went custom, EM bikes are out of the question for me.

I have a teammate that absolutely loves his though!

Good luck with whatever way you decide to go.
re: Eddy Merckx Team SC vs Trek 5200AFred
May 5, 2003 1:07 PM
"Bobke" Bob Roll referred to the Team SC as "Belgian deliciousness". That was enough for me. While it's not to everyone's liking, I think it's a great racing machine. As they say in Belgium, "It goes in straight line." It has laid back geometry, a long wheel base, and is very stiff. The negative review above is the first bad one I've ever seen. I'm not sure I agree with the flexy fork remarks. After all, this model has won three editions of Paris-Roubaix (Servais Knaven even won on the 1" fork model, I believe). If it fits, go for it!
re: Eddy Merckx Team SC vs Trek 5200steveadp
May 5, 2003 2:58 PM
I really appreciate all the feed back on the issue. I notice everybody has commented on the EM with no comment on the Trek 5200. Is there just no comparison, or a strong preference?
re: Eddy Merckx Team SC vs Trek 5200dtufts
May 5, 2003 3:10 PM
Hey, I absolutely adore my 5200, and can gush about it if you want me to, but I know nothing about the Merckx. So for me "there is no comparison" because I have no experience with the other. Sorry.
re: Eddy Merckx Team SC vs Trek 5200I_See_Fred_People
May 5, 2003 6:53 PM
I have owned/ridden both. The 5200 was a 56cm, I am on a 57 cm SC. It feel much larger. Like going from a BMW 300 to 700, if that makes any sense. I really enjoy the SC. I was told I would hate the ride, going from Carbon to Scandium, but i find very little difference(in vibration).

Now, that being said, the life expectency is quite a bit shorter I believe. There is only a 2 yr warranty on the Merckx. If mine were to break, i would probably order a new SC tommorow(even though i love to try new bikes). The only thing is, I really like the old Domo/Farm Frites paint job more than the Loto/Domo even though I havent seen it up close. There is also a new clear blue paint job, that I bet looks great.
People will invariably pick the MerckxLazywriter
May 5, 2003 7:42 PM
because they are less in number. The Merckx is a great frame and has been reviewed positively by most mags for ride quality. However, I question the price of such an aluminum frame and the life span. Lightweight aluminum is dogsh$%. They break very easily after they are ridden hard. Look at the Bianchi Ev frames. They are constantly cracking. I have seen many of these break. Aluminum frames shouldn't cost $2000 +. Sorry, I don't care how much tuning goes into them, they are still aluminum.
The Trek is mass market CF but seems like a good buy. I am having one built up right now and time will tell how good it is for me. From a value perspective and technology standpoint, the OCLV is far more advanced a frame and very light. Carbon will last longer as well. Titanium is even better. I just built a NEW Trek 5200 (almost a 5500 as I upgraded a lot of parts to Dura Ace) for $1400. A TDF winning bike built for that price is ot bad. Could of gotten 4 frames for the price of my Vortex. Scary when I think about it.
My SC is no lightweight.alansutton
May 6, 2003 8:08 AM
Size XS slopping, (46cm) it's 1440grams for the frame only. The frok came in at 585 grams. It's a 2002year Domo FWIW.
People will invariably pick the MerckxCrankist
May 6, 2003 9:30 AM
"Aluminum frames shouldn't cost $2000 +. Sorry, I don't care how much tuning goes into them, they are still aluminum."

I've been thinking/saying this all along. Mat'l. is
cheap, easily shaped, easily welded, easily heat-treated, easily painted. Why some alum. frame prices exceed some ti frame prices just escapes me.
What's you point?alansutton
May 6, 2003 11:57 AM
Why do certain steel frames cost $2000+?
How can certain ti frames cost less than certain steel frames?
Why do Aluminum cars cost so much more?

Spend some time reading and learning before making haste comments.
What's you point?Crankist
May 6, 2003 12:20 PM
CrMo is more difficult to shape than alum. and more expensive. Not sure how your probably rhetorical questions relate, especially the quirky remark about cars(!)
My inadequate learning includes 20+ years as a journeyman aerospace machinist, seven years in aerospace materials procurement. Do tell me about what you've read so I can learn more.
What's you point?alansutton
May 6, 2003 1:51 PM
Tell me how your 20+ years of machining has anything to do with bicycle fabrication? If aerospace materials and fabrication techniques were applied to bicycles, we'd all be riding riveted aluminum frames. How much structural CrMo did you procure in your 7 seven years?
Merckx Team SC frames cost $2k+ because of the quality......ATLien
May 6, 2003 11:17 AM
Granted I bought my 62cm 2002 Team SC frame from GVHbikes at a pretty steep discount, but the quality of the welds and workmanship on the frame is beyond anything I've ever seen. Hands down, no questions asked. I've never seen welds so smooth, even compared them side-by-side to Litespeed, Pinarello and Colnago.

Mine built up at just a hair under 18lbs, which is pretty darn light for a 62cm Ultegra build. The geometry may not be the best for everyone (who's is?) and yes the low bottom bracket will make you question pedaling through the occasional corner in a crit, but the laidback geometry is perfect for my 6'4 all-legs and arms build and it's a stiff, responsive ride. Accelerates like the proverbial bat and descends even faster.

It's been bulletproof so far too. I laid mine down on a 35mph descent and didn't even see the tiny ping in the top tube for 2mo. I have a feeling any less bike would've had some serious damage.

If you can get a deal on it, go for it!!
High end aluminum still costs a lot becauseLazywriter
May 6, 2003 2:32 PM
aluminum is still the choice for most professionals. This in turn allows the frame makers to charge higher prices for their flagship frames even though the materials are as cheap as their low end frames.
That is the only justification I can see. It is a cheap and easy material to work with. Period. It is not like carbon or titanium which continue to drop in price, but low and behold, "high end" aluminum keeps rising. They make great racing bikes, but they are cheap to manufacture. As far as aluminum cars, they are a novelty in the automobile industry as so scarce. Insuring an aluminum Audi for example is a joke. Look into it. One small crash and you are looking at $20000 damage. Some companies won't even insure that A8 Audi.