Trek 5200 or 5900 ?

I am looking to buy a carbon fiber bike. I presently own a Colonago steel frame from 1989. The price difference is about $ 1300.00 at my local bike store is the 5900 worth the additional money?

has much is the prize money where you race?

How about going halfway? Did they have a 5500? A very nice bike, I've been very happy with mine.

I've owned both, and if you aren't racing every weekend, don't spend the extra cash. The main difference between the two is about a pound and a half of frame weight and the stiffness of the BB/ overall frame. The 5900 is for a racer. Period. It is designed to ride fast and hard, responding to every bit of input you'll put into it. Chances are, if you aren't putting 20 hours a week or more on a bike, the bike will out perform you (ie: it's too much bike for a casual rider). The 5200 has more forgiving geometry and, as the 5500 is the same frame (OCLV 120) with Dura Ace components, it's also a great choice. I think that you can't go wrong with the 5200. It is a superb bike. Save the cash and buy some ksyriums to replace the race lite stock wheels.

I was looking at the 5200 and the owner of the lbs was steering me toward the 5900 saying that at my weight of 190lbs I needed the stiffness of the 110 carbon. So far though I'm not biting.

Actually, that's straight up BS. If you weigh in at 190 (how tall are you?) there is a good chance that you are over the weight limit for OCLV 110. OCLV may be stiffer, but that is because of the resin process used to bind the carbon fibers. The 110 vs 120 basically means that there is 110 fibers per inch or centimeter or something (110 fibers per x with x being a given measurement). Basically that means the frame is weaker, as stupid as it may sound. The max weight for a given size is lower on the 5900 than on the 5200. This also has to do with the steepness of the head and seat angles on the 5900 frame. The weight distribution on the 5900 puts you basically 100% over the wheels (it is a shorter frame, by a noticeable bit) whereas the 5200 distributes the riders weight over a longer surface area. This makes the bike a little less responsive, but also a whole lot more forgiving, per my previous post.

The geometries of the two frames are the same. Take a look at http://trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/pdf/...eometry_en.pdf , someone was close when they said that the number i.e. 110 vs 120 refers to threads per square inch. I think it's actually mass (or weight forget but we're not that picky) per unit area, but I also think it wasn't including resin nor taking into account layering patterns. I'd actually think that the 5200/5500 frame is stiffer just because it's easier to make a stiffer frame using more material, but I don't know that for a fact. Another big difference between the 5200/5900 is the components 5900 is dura-ace and 5200 is ultegra. If you're not going to race I'd side with ultegra, even if you were take what you save and spend it on faster wheels (or entry fees if you're poor like me).

What a barge load!

This is all STRAIGHT UP BS too. Why don't you guys look aat Treks site?

It's BS.Don't be a sucker and take the bait.