Trek 5900 or 5500

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by bikemonk
I'm thinking about buying a Trek 5500 or a 5900, 2004 model. The 5900 is marketed as a "climbing bike". Can anyone please tell me what is the difference between the two, apart the lighter frame of the 5900 (110 OCLV instead of 120)?

It's marketing. Geometry is the same. Read the specs. A few grams lighter in the frame and lighter more delicate wheels. Is a $900 in list price woth it? If you don't have the motor, all the light in the world is just a waste.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
It's marketing. Geometry is the same. Read the specs. A few grams lighter in the frame and lighter more delicate wheels. Is a $900 in list price woth it? If you don't have the motor, all the light in the world is just a waste.

The only differences are in the, fork, frame, wheels, seatpost, stem, saddle. The OCLV110 is about 6-7 ounces lighter for the frame than the OCLV120, and then maybe a few more ounces with all the rest.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
It's marketing. Geometry is the same. Read the specs. A few grams lighter in the frame and lighter more delicate wheels. Is a $900 in list price woth it? If you don't have the motor, all the light in the world is just a waste.

Agree, but you've got to love the marketing departments push for the high-profit sales. In fact, seems to me the carbon-stay 2300 or 5200 or the best buys in the Trek line up now. I can't see how moving from Ultegra to DA is worth over $1000....

Dan

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by bikemonk
I'm thinking about buying a Trek 5500 or a 5900, 2004 model. The 5900 is marketed as a "climbing bike". Can anyone please tell me what is the difference between the two, apart the lighter frame of the 5900 (110 OCLV instead of 120)?

😄

I recently purchased a 2004 Trek 5900 and I definetly do not have any regrets! The differences in the equipment and the weight savings is well worth the money. The bike is awesome! It is a rocket! I had an older 5200, it was a great bike, but this one blows it away. There is no comparison. Hopefully I responded in time. I hope this helps!

If your considering these two bikes then surely the Madone 5.9 comes into your price range, and is being marketed as Trek's top end all rounder, the bike which LA will reputedly ride more for stages in the 2004 TdF, lighter than the 5500 stiffer and more areodynamic than the 5900, just a thought

The most recent issue of "Bicycling" magazine included a review on the Trek Madone. The review said that Armstrong actually rode the Madone in the early stages of the 2003 Tour but switched back to his trusted 5900 for the later stages. Apparently Armstrong isn't 100% sold on the Madone.

The reviewer's opinion was that if you value speed over comfort the Madone might be for you but if you wanted a more comfortable ride, you ought to stick with the 5500 or 5900.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by meehs
The most recent issue of "Bicycling" magazine included a review on the Trek Madone. The review said that Armstrong actually rode the Madone in the early stages of the 2003 Tour but switched back to his trusted 5900 for the later stages. Apparently Armstrong isn't 100% sold on the Madone.

The reviewer's opinion was that if you value speed over comfort the Madone might be for you but if you wanted a more comfortable ride, you ought to stick with the 5500 or 5900.

OUCH!

I have read and sorry but cant find the link to the comments, that the Madone that will be in the shops and that LA rides next year has recieved some minor tweaks to the frame, to address that to stiff issue, he switched to the 5900 for the high peaks and rode 4 different types of frame if you inc. the TT bike.