|Trek 2300 vs 5200||Taylor_A|
Jun 20, 2001 11:56 AM
|I am looking at purchasing either a Trek 2300 or 5200 in a 62cm frame. I would appreciate any input on the pro's and con's of each.
|re: Trek 2300 vs 5200||Elefantino|
Jun 20, 2001 5:32 PM
|I have a 5200 in a size 62. (I'm 6-5). To me there was no comparison. The 2300 ride was like a CAAD4 or a TCR One, which for me were too harsh, too much vibration. The 5200 was supple, and I didn't notice any too-soft problems when climbing the big local bridges that qualify for hills around here. About the only thing I noticed bad about the 5200 was it didn't have that butt-kicking sprint response that the 2300 did, but considering that I suck at sprints it didn't matter to me.|
|I had a 2300||lonefrontranger|
Jun 24, 2001 9:28 AM
|and mostly hated it, except on crit days - it sprints like a violated monkey, if you'll pardon the expression.
Unfortunately, for most everything else, the thing rode like a daggoned jackhammer and was like sitting on a big sail in crosswinds, which are bad out here in CO. Compounding this was constant saddle soreness due to choosing a 52 because the 50 was way, way too small (massive overlap issues). The 52 was too long in the TT, and the combination of stiffness and overly stretched out = ow!
I went to the 2300 from an old Giant Cadex, couldn't afford the 5200 at the time. There's no comparison in ride, IMO. The 2300 was so uncomfortable in the end, that I sold it in favor of racing my Redline 'cross bike. I have a Colnago frame now - just waiting for the build kit to arrive :)
The 2300 would be an awesome inexpensive crit/TT secondary bike, if you could afford to keep a bike just for TTs and crits only.