|Colnago c-40 -v- Trek 5500 or 5900||pjh01|
Nov 24, 2003 12:06 AM
|I'm unable to test ride before deciding on the trek or colnago, i was after any useful feedback on ride qualties. I'm 6ft2in and 190pds.|
|looking down this page would be a good start...||collinsc|
Nov 24, 2003 4:10 AM
|Bob1010 "Trek 5900 vs 5500" 11/23/03 10:18pm
The second step would be a search. Hate to be so rude (wait, no, I dont) but this is a widely discussed topic, tons of info can be found in the archives.
|re: Colnago c-40 -v- Trek 5500 or 5900||Chen2|
Nov 24, 2003 7:18 AM
|I haven't owned a C-40 (have one on order) but this summer I had a chance to ride my friends 56cm C-40 to compare with my Trek 5500. The fit is quite different, I recommend that you consider that first. In my size the Trek is built with a lot more standover clearence but with a longer top tube and shorter head tube. The C-40 absorbs more road shock and vibration. My Trek accelerates much quicker but I believe that is mostly the difference in my wheels and tires. The Trek has a steeper head tube. There were some big differences in the way these particular bikes handle but I don't know how to compare the way the frames handle because in this case there was a big difference in stem lengths and I don't know the fork rake on this Colnago.
|Biggest difference is 2000 dollars nm||bigrider|
Nov 24, 2003 7:47 AM
|C40HP frame = $2400, the Trek is only $400? nm||divve|
Nov 24, 2003 8:04 AM
|Actually have a friend who||bigrider|
Nov 24, 2003 8:30 AM
|owns a c40 and a trek 5200. I am real curious about ride characteristics of bikes and while out on a group ride ask him what the difference is between his campy outfitted top of the line C40 and the Trek Ultegra outfitted bike. He simply replied "About 2000 dollars". I had to laugh. I mean here is a guy that is probably the best prepared to answer this question which is one of the most popular on the board and that is the answer I got.
I have looked at the C40 but never considered them because of their shorter top tube geometry.
|C-40 frame only, $2142 at World Cycling. (nm)||Chen2|
Nov 25, 2003 11:52 AM
|How much is a Trek 5200/5500 Frameset? n/m||fracisco|
Nov 24, 2003 1:48 PM
|I think around $1500 msrp (nm)||geeker|
Nov 24, 2003 3:35 PM
|sorry, r & a cycles has for $1395 (nm)||geeker|
Nov 24, 2003 3:39 PM
|Consider a Calfee||Jas0n|
Nov 24, 2003 8:28 AM
|ive rideen all of those frames, and own(ed) a 5500 and a 5900. recently, i sold the 5900 and bought a Calfee Dragonfly. Soon, the 5500 will be gone for another Calfee. I cant explain how wonderful the ride is. Smooth, Stiff as can be, and soooooo Comfortable. Add into the equation custom geometry, heatube and seatube extensions, and choice of finish, and I think you have the best of all worlds. Best warranty in America, Tour de France proven. Ride one and you'll fall in love. Before any of my customers leave on a test ride, I ask them what color they want so we can get the bike ordered and have it here as soon as possible. I hpoe you get the point.|
|I'm looking at the same three frames but||jiggs|
Nov 24, 2003 6:57 PM
|I'm 6'-0", long legs and short torso and I think the top tube is too short if I get the right height so I will have to try them for size before deciding. I need a 56 frame and about 58-3/4" - 59" top tube, even with a setback seatpost & 125 stem.|
|I'm looking at the same three frames but||divve|
Nov 25, 2003 3:32 AM
|Sounds more as if you have short legs and a long torso. Generally speaking a 58-59cm top tube is considered very long for a 56cm frame. I'm slightly more than 1/2" taller than you with what's considered regular proportions and fit well on a 60cm Colnago with 120 stem or a 59 with a 130.|
|my legs can't be too short cause||jiggs|
Nov 25, 2003 5:56 AM
|they both reach the ground pnga, pnga.
I never thought about it really but that could be the reason I'm having trouble understanding the charts. I do have long arms though, 34" shirt sleeve. My 58 cm CAAD 5 nearly fits but I still should have a setback post.
thanks for input