Trek 2003 5200 versus Cannondale R2000

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden].

The Cannondale will beat you up obn a long ride. I'd try the Lemond Ti or hi end steel for lightness
AND comfort.

Jkpoulos7 said:

The Cannondale will beat you up obn a long ride. I'd try the Lemond Ti or hi end steel for
lightness AND comfort.

The 5200 _is_ light and comfortable. <G>

Barry

I have 3100 miles on my Trek 5200 (2002) with Bontrager Race light wheels and have not needed to
even adjust spoke tension. As true as the day I got them. I had the same concern when I
purchased the bike. I could not be happier, this is one fast comfortable bike. And it climbs
hills like no other.

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

Quoted message said:

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 Maviv 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 [email hidden].

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

Much thanks, Dario

I am 73 and am going with a 'Gary V' built out of modern light weight steel, carbon fork, and all
Ultegra componets for 'less' than $2000. Try this web site. gvhbikes.comgvhbikes.comOpen ↗ First look at
the "Land Shark" as its a custom made steel frame by a noted builder and its also under $2000. These
are comfortable bikes that will perform with a triple ring. The wheels are Mavic Open Pro clincher
rims hand built on Ultegra hubs with Wheelsmith stainless spokes. Look at his overall frame
inventory and he can build any of them. He is 62 and takes his time to do it right.

Tom

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- newsfeeds.comnewsfeeds.comOpen ↗ - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

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

Quoted message said:

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 Maviv 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 [email hidden].

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

Much thanks, Dario

Ride both, pick the one that fits/feels the best. You're not going to go wrong with either bike
mentioned. Make sure that you get fit as closely as you can before going on the test ride, wear the
same thing you're planning on riding in, and go with it.

You can always upgrade parts after you wear out the original equipment.

Mike

Dario Wolfish said:

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 Maviv 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 [email hidden].

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

Much thanks, Dario

I don't think that you'll have any problems with Cannondale's service. I just had a frame replaced.
And (around here) Cannondale's rep is good.

But, wheels and DRs are easily replaced -- in fact, you can probably negotiate a low cost upgrade
during the sale (that's what I do). If you can't, it's time to find a bike shop that'll work with
you because I usually find that their after sale service and support will be just as limited.

I'd go for the more comfortable one.

David

IMO, it's toss-up. While I like carbon frames in general, I doubt there's any real advantage to the
Trek being full carbon, as opposed to the Aluminum frame/carbon fork of the Cannondale. I haven't
ridden the 5200 and R2000 in a side-by-side comparison, but I'd bet, assuming they both fit your
body reasonably the same, their ride quality is more similar than different...whatever differences
you do feel could be a result of assembly, or what you have been told by friends, salespeople, or
marketing.

If I were you, I'd buy the one _you_ think is better overall, and more importantly (speaking as a
mechanic) make sure that the shop you buy from has a _professional_ service staff that will build
your bike perfectly, as opposed to merely adequately.

Russell

Have you considered the Trek 2300? It's identical to the 5200 except the frame is an aluminum alloy
and from what I was told is actually lighter than the 5200 carbon frame. I'm 47 and bought this
bike two months ago and am very pleased with it. Unless you are riding over very rough roads you
won't miss the carbon frame's dampening. Another consideration is the 2300 is $800 cheaper and the
frame is much more resistant to damage. Punch one hole in a carbon tube and you'll need to buy a
new frame.

Russell Yim wrote in message <[email hidden]>... IMO,
it's toss-up. While I like carbon frames in general, I doubt there's any real advantage to the Trek
being full carbon, as opposed to the Aluminum frame/carbon fork of the Cannondale. I haven't ridden
the 5200 and R2000 in a side-by-side comparison, but I'd bet, assuming they both fit your body
reasonably the same, their ride quality is more similar than different...whatever differences you do
feel could be a result of assembly, or what you have been told by friends, salespeople, or
marketing.

If I were you, I'd buy the one _you_ think is better overall, and more importantly (speaking as a
mechanic) make sure that the shop you buy from has a _professional_ service staff that will build
your bike perfectly, as opposed to merely adequately.

Russell

BillX said:

Punch one hole

Quoted message said:

in a carbon tube and you'll need to buy a new frame.

???? <G>

The same force that would punch a hole in a carbon tube would seriously dent an aluminum tube. Both
materials would be seriously damaged.

Barry

Well I bought the Trek 5200 and I LOVVVVVVVVVVVVE it. The clincher was that this bike fit better
than the Cannondale. The Trek seemed to handle the bumps better also.

So what pedals and shoes should I get?