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 )


Trek 5200 VS Cannondale R2000(6 posts)

Trek 5200 VS Cannondale R2000dariow
May 9, 2003 1:20 PM
I am purchasing a road bicycle, and I am undecided whether to get the Trek 5200 or the Cannondale R2000. Both of these bikes are 2003 models with triple chaining.

The known advantages and disadvantages and disadvantages of each model is the following:

Trek 5200

Advantages:
1) Full Carbon Frame
2) More comfortable ride
3) Great Customer Service

Disadvantages:
1) This bike has the Race Lite wheels while the Cannondale has Mavic Ksyrium Wheels
2) The Trek is Ultegra and the Cannondale has a Dura Ace rear derailer.
3) The Trek frame is a little heavier than the Cannondale CAAD7

Cannondale R2000

Advantages
1) Better wheels
2) Better rear derailer
3) Lighter

Disadvantages

1) Company filed bankruptcy. Might affect customer service?
2) Warranty has more restrictions
3) Frame is not carbon
4) Ride is not as comfortable?
5) Trek has a better reputation?

I am in my 40s and am primarily interested in cycling long distances and being able to handle difficult climbing since there are many hills and mountains in the Bay Area (Woohoo) and I would like a bike that is best (easier) for climbing.

I would appreciate your input about these bikes as well as your recommendations of which I should buy.
Please either post your suggestions here or email me at dariow@earthlink.net.

Please respond soon as I plan to buy the bike soon.

Much thanks,
Dario
re: Trek 5200 VS Cannondale R2000sievers11
May 9, 2003 2:23 PM
I think you anwsered your own question...more comfortable, better customer service. Done.

THe cannondale will climb a little better, but not much...look the best climber in the world rides a trek oclv. I also think the wheels are about the same.

I have always thought of the cannondales as really stiff sprinters bikes, and they are really powerfull at that. But from a comfort stand point and going on longer rides I would kringe at the thought.

Get the Trek, and in a few month get a new rear derailer.
Agree with Sievers11.......BIG RING
May 9, 2003 2:42 PM
I have had CAAD 5,6 and now own a 5200 and 5900. OCLV, either 120 or 110 is lively and comfortable. The C'dales were great bikes, climbed well, but were harsh. How much heavier is a 5200 at 2.48 lbs than the CAAD 7 and more importantly, what happens if the C'dale fails? Good luck with customer service with a bankrupt company. Ask the shop to upgrade the deraileur before the purchase if you can afford it, or, upgrade later. See if they will swap out the wheels as well to either Ksyrium Elites or SSC's. I have spoken to C'dales customer service in Pennsylvania and Trek's in Wisconsin. Trek has their heads on straight.
I like OCLV so much that I sold my C-40 because the 5200 rode just like it. The 5900 is stiffer than both.
My .02 cents...(I was in the same predicament)jtferraro
May 10, 2003 6:41 AM
Agreed...you more or less did answer your own question, although I'm not sure if Cannondale has bad customer service. It's just not spoken as often and as highly as TREK's customer service. I guess there are more stipulations too, from what I gather. So from a warranty standpoint, sounds like you might be better off w/the TREK.

There is no doubt that the OCLV120 frameset is vibration absorbing! I tested out the '03 C'dale R2000 and the Team Replica (the Team was one of the shop guy's bikes) and was very, very suprised at how smooth it was. Granted, I didn't take it very far, but did intentionally go over some small bumps and pavement patches/undulations and was very impressed at it's smoothness. Smooth, but it didn't seem quite as absorbing as the OCLV.

I agree that the C'dale might climb/sprint a *tad* better but like your point about the world's best climber is on an OCLV.

I disagree, however, w/the wheelsets being "about the same". The Bontrager Race X-Lites are similar to the Ksyrium SL's, but the regular Race Lite wheels aren't up to par w/the SL's.

I went w/the TREK b/c I was able to get a killer deal on a '01 frameset built w/DA and Race X-Lites!

It comes down to which bike fits you better? I think in my case the C'dale might have actually fit me a bit better in the top tube (b/c I have a shorter torso & longer legs) but the C'dale was only 1cm shorter in the TT, so I'm using a 1cm shorter stem. Yeah, I wish I had a 110cm+ stem but the 100cm works and isn't considered "too" short.

I don't know if you really need to upgrade the rear deraileur, though. I wouldn't bother...unless I upgraded everything to DA in the far future.

-Jeff
Have you ridden either one?fracisco
May 9, 2003 2:37 PM
Seriously, have you ridden either one? It looks like you are just reading the spec. sheet from the manufacturers. They are both excellent bicycles that offer a lot for the price.
me toodtufts
May 10, 2003 8:06 AM
I made the same decision about 2 months ago. I went with the trek. I wanted climbing and long distance comfort too.

I was swayed by the promise of better warranty/service and by the all carbon frame. You can't find a better deal on a carbon bike, and a tour winner on top of that. I don't think it's worth swapping out the rear derailer. The K's are better wheels. Do you want to trade frame material for CF to AL for an upgrade in the wheels? I kept the stock Race Lites thinking I could buy some K's next season if I wanted to. At this point, however, I'm very happy with the Race-Lite and probably wont upgrade them for a while.

Take 'em both for a couple of good test rides over a couple of days. Enjoy!