Difference between Trek 2300 and 5200 frame?

The Trek site gives weights for the 2002 frames (2.4 lb for the 5200,
2.71 lb for the 2300, or a difference of 140 g). The site does not appear to give this information
for the 2003 frames, but one might assume they are unchanged from 2002.

BillX said:

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

Quoted message said:

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise

the

Quoted message said:

5200 is $800 more expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the

5200

Quoted message said:

frame is compared to 2300 and whether frame flex is noticably different between the two under load
(such as climbing a steep grade). Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

The 5200 frame is about a quarter pound lighter than the 2300. As for differences in ride, yes, they
feel (and sound) different, but it's up to *you* to decide which you like best. You might want to
check out this article on our website-

chainreaction.comroadbiketestrides.htmOpen ↗

It will give you an idea of what to look for on the test ride and, even more important, how the
bikes should be set up.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

Frank Burke said:

The Trek site gives weights for the 2002 frames (2.4 lb for the 5200,
2.71 lb for the 2300, or a difference of 140 g). The site does not appear to give this information
for the 2003 frames, but one might assume they are unchanged from 2002.

BillX said:

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300

At 140 grams for $800 that is on the order of $7/gm, which is more than half the price of gold.

Quoted message said:

and whether frame flex is

Quoted message said:

noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).

That would be more subjective.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You _`\(,_ | soon find out the
pig likes it! (_)/ (_) |

Actually, I think you pay more for more gold, not less gold.

"David L. Johnson >" <David L. Johnson <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frank Burke said:

The Trek site gives weights for the 2002 frames (2.4 lb for the 5200,
2.71 lb for the 2300, or a difference of 140 g). The site does not appear to give this
information for the 2003 frames, but one might assume they are unchanged from 2002.

BillX said:

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300

At 140 grams for $800 that is on the order of $7/gm, which is more than half the price of gold.

Quoted message said:

and whether frame flex is

Quoted message said:

noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).

That would be more subjective.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...

You

Quoted message said:

_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it! (_)/ (_) |

BillX said:

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only needed to ride a few feet before
I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a doubt in my mind and I
wouldn't have cared if the one I chose weighed more.

I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the same one. They are both very
good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in how they feel on the road. I
don't think price and weight is the deciding factor between them.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

I'm looking for the fastest ride for the $$$ and don't really care much about the "feel". Right now
I own a Trek 1500 from 88 and the all aluminum frame seems to have a lot of sway in the bottom
braket/chain stay during climbing. Never had a "comfort" problem with this bike but rather question
its efficiency given the frame deformity under load. Anyone know if the 2300 suffers from frame
deformity under load and if not why does it differ from my 1500?

Per Elmsäter wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

BillX said:

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only needed

to

Quoted message said:

ride a few feet before I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a
doubt in my mind and I wouldn't have cared if the one I chose weighed more.

I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the

same

Quoted message said:

one. They are both very good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in how
they feel on the road. I don't think price and weight is the deciding factor between them.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

Per Elmsäter said:

I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only needed to ride a few feet
before I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a doubt in my mind
and I wouldn't have cared if the one I chose weighed more.

I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the same one. They are both
very good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in how they feel on the
road. I don't think price and weight is the deciding factor between them.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

Come on! <G> Inquiring minds want to know!

I did the same comparison, and I'd like to see if we came to the same conclusion.

FWIW, I'm 6'1" 220, which may matter.

Which one did you buy? I'll tell if you do.

Thanks, Barry

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

Neither the 2300 or 5200 is going to flex much under load. However, your 14-year-old 1500 didn't
flex as much as most steel frames of that era either. Flex in a frame is primarily a function of
tube diameter, with the material being a lesser factor.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

"BillX" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm looking for the fastest ride for the $$$ and don't really care much about the "feel". Right
now I own a Trek 1500 from 88 and the all

aluminum

Quoted message said:

frame seems to have a lot of sway in the bottom braket/chain stay during climbing. Never had a
"comfort" problem with this bike but rather

question

Quoted message said:

its efficiency given the frame deformity under load. Anyone know if the 2300 suffers from frame
deformity under load and if not why does it differ from my 1500?

Per Elmsäter wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

BillX said:

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only needed

to

Quoted message said:

ride a few feet before I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a
doubt in my mind and I wouldn't have cared if

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one I chose weighed more.

I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the

same

Quoted message said:

one. They are both very good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in
how they feel on the road. I don't think price and weight is the deciding factor between them.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Per Elmsäter said:

I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only

needed to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ride a few feet before I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a
doubt in my mind and I wouldn't have cared if

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one I chose weighed more.

I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the

same

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one. They are both very good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in
how they feel on the road. I don't think price

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weight is the deciding factor between them.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

Come on! <G> Inquiring minds want to know!

I did the same comparison, and I'd like to see if we came to the same conclusion.

FWIW, I'm 6'1" 220, which may matter.

Which one did you buy? I'll tell if you do.

OK, ok, twist my arm 😉

The 5200 of course. I have never felt so comfortable nor been on a bike so responsive. It just felt
right. On the 2300 I actually felt a little uneasy. I'm 6'1" at app 175 lbs. 183 cm 80 kg. Framesize
58 CT. I could have used a 60 CT frame but then I was afraid I'd have a long reach on the toptube
since I have long legs ( 90 cm inseam ) and a short torso. The 58 felt right and the saddle doesn't
feel or look like it's sitting high. Plus I can reach the handlebar 😉

--
Perre

Replace the DOTs to reply

Per Elmsäter said:

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Which one did you buy? I'll tell if you do.

OK, ok, twist my arm 😉

The 5200 of course.

So did I! <G>

HUGE difference in ride quality over the 2300. Mine is also a 58, but with a more set back seatpost
and a slight rise in the stem vs. the out of the box version.

Barry

B a r r y B u r k e J r .' 'keep it in the newsgroup said:

Per Elmsäter said:

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Which one did you buy? I'll tell if you do.

OK, ok, twist my arm 😉

The 5200 of course.

So did I! <G>

HUGE difference in ride quality over the 2300. Mine is also a 58, but with a more set back
seatpost and a slight rise in the stem vs. the out of the box version.

Barry

Why did you want a set back seat post? Do you have long feet or long femurs or something
of the sort.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

Per Elmsäter said:

Why did you want a set back seat post? Do you have long feet or long femurs or something of
the sort.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

Long femurs.

Barry