Need help from experienced riders. new vs old quality

It sounds like you're a little more attached to the 5200 and it is a classic so I'd go with that especially if your other bikes are more like the Emonda.

Sell...a bicycle?

That's crazy talk.

I too would stay with the 2002 Trek, in today's world you would have to spend a great deal more money to get a hand made carbon bike made in the USA. Instead of spending money on a new bike use that money to upgrade to get what you want out of a new bike from the old bike, especially in the wheel department by going aero. After all the upgrades are done you'll have a lot of money left over!

In the years since 2002, have to believe the advances in CF manufacturing would mean the new frame is stronger/stiffer and lighter. If you're going to ride the bike any distance, I'd put my trust and miles into the new one.

Of course you should also keep the old one as a collectors item, just like I keep my 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport. It's hand-made in England, and I can see and feel the beautiful quality of the vintage British workmanship whenever I take it out.

My other two bikes are hand-made as well. One was made locally, hand-welded aluminum and hand-bonded CF. The other was welded and assembled loosely less than 100 miles away, with the final adjustments and torque of all fasteners done in my garage. I think bikes built close to home always have the best ride quality; they just seem more in harmony with their surroundings from day one.

It is true that advances have been made but that particular 2002 Trek frame has been virtually bulletproof for carbon fiber, since 2002 the race has been on to develop CF to be as light as possible and as such they are not as resistant to certain types of damage. People thing because something is stiffer it therefore has to be stronger and this is not the case at all, the stiffness came about due to science evolving on how to layer up the CF in certain directions and added a bit more fiber over high flex areas to stiffen those areas up while taking away layers in low and no flex areas to reduce weight.

Also your 2002 Trek did not use aluminum bonding to CF tubes which had issues with the clue coming apart, the OCLV with the slightly heavier (thicker) CF fabric held up a lot better. Keep in mind, this is the same bike that Lance Armstrong raced to victory in 2002! That is no shabby frame. A new bike will only lose at the most 1/4th of a pound at the price range you're looking at, that's nothing.

You asked if you would buy a new bike or keep the old therefore all the answers are opinions, thus my opinion stands on what I said earlier, save the money and update whatever parts are having issues. If you really want a nicer bike, then save what you have and keep saving for another few years and step way up the ladder, but if you're not racing or in fast riding groups (which a new bike won't help much anyways as much as getting a stronger engine will) then you're wasting money on a new bike.

I forgot to mention something, I use to race Cat 3 back in the day when steel bikes were the only thing available. In 1984 I bought a brand new main racing bike on which I also trained (didn't have a backup due to finances), I later in 87 bought a brand new backup steel bike in case I crashed the main bike. In 1988 I quit racing but I still kept riding, in fact I road that main bike I got in 84 up until 2013 (having put on over 160,000 miles) when I finally got a brand new bike. Yes I still have the backup bike that has very little miles on it, and as few others that I bought used over the years. The point is that since I wasn't racing any more there was no need for a brand new bike for a very long time, in fact I could have easily not even bought a new bike since I still had the bike I got in 87 with very few miles on it, but you know how the story goes, I'm older and have more disposable income so I wanted to try something more modern and different type of frame. But for most people, like yourself who doesn't race, a bike like what you have, and even lesser expensive ones will do just fine for a long time, you could easily ride that 2002 Trek for at least another 20 years.

If you have a credit card bill, and or a car loan, why not pay one or both of those down, especially a credit card bill, before spending your money on a new bike? I know, that sounds really weird to pay off debt.

hmmm . . . . it sounds to me like neither one of these is the bike to sell. IF you are going to part with one (and I get it - I can't part with bikes) part with something that either you don't ride or that doesn't have any sentimental value. . . .

In my opinion Keep the new one (Emonda ALR6) - Cycling Tours France

The 9-speed Ultegra drivetrain on the 5200 has to be getting tired and finding replacements will be difficult unless you're willing to go the whole upgrade route. Also, there's no telling how much life is left in 12 year-old OCLV carbon. I vote for keeping the Emonda, which is not shabby at all as far as aluminum frames go. Not to mention the new 11-speed drivetrain and modern wide wheels.

But whatever you decide, I'll understand. They're both sweet bikes.

actually Aluminum has the potential to have less life left in it then carbon fiber, UNLESS that CF bike has been crashed and the damage is hidden inside the tubing.

lightspeed84 said:

Both bikes have under 200 miles on them!

Just a WAG here, but unless the 5200 was stored outside in the Sonoran Desert both bikes have years of life left in them.

The drive line on the 5200 is no where close to broken in.
The aluminum molecules in the Emonda haven't even been fully stress relieved yet.

Both bikes appear 'as new' condition in the OP's pictures.

The USPS is only a semi-collectible right now, but 'may' appreciate a little as the years go by and it may appreciate a lot (odds are slim).

The Emonda, despite that tank wheels, will make a good daily driver and would be worthy of a wheel upgrade. I am somewhat surprised the OP rates the Emonda the better climber. Is the compact crankset and 28T cassette the reason?

We are roadies. We have rules.

Rule 12:
The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.

While the minimum number of bikes one should own is three, the correct number is n+1, where n is the number of bikes currently owned. This equation may also be re-written as s-1, where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in separation from your partner.

I'm skeptical of any bikes becoming a collector item in any real degree aside from its sentimental value to the original owner. Unlike a car, there is always a fit issue with any other owner, and then there is the problem with leaving it original versus upgrading it to make it more enjoyable to ride.

For example, I am always watching Ebay and other sites lusting after a late 70's early 80s Masi GC--hankering back to those of us older folks who caught the bug watching "Breaking Away." I have a friend with an old steel Pinarello that I am always admiring and threatening to steel from his garage for a spin. You can still buy and restore a bike pretty cheaply. I haven't seen anything go for a crazy price.

For a nice US guideline, The Seven Eleven bikes of the 80s also have a particular appeal to folks of a certain age. For example, Frankie Andreu's '89 7-11 team bike was listed for sale at around $6500--pricey--but it is not going to make anyone rich.

Given the doping history of Postal, I doubt that the '02 Postal version Trek is going to be particularly valuable. If it was ridden by an actual team member, then it might be of interest to certain collectors, but even then, there just isn't a big market.

If you like riding them, then ride the [censored] out of them and have fun. If they have less than 200 miles on both of them, particularly a 2002 USPS bike, then you are doing something wrong. My guideline is one season. If I haven't ridden a bike with any frequency for more than a season, than its just taking up space. Unless you are Robin Williams and your estate is auctioning bikes off for charity, they are just taking up space. As far as I'm concerned, it you really have less than 200 miles on both of them, you've already answered your question, there must be something you like riding a whole lot more and I'd sell or donate both of them. If I really do "love" a bike, I'm riding it more than 200 miles within a few weeks of owning it.

I am a big fan of the N + 1 philosophy of bikes. The proper amount of bikes should be the bikes you own and ride regularly, plus one bike you don't own that you lust after to ride. If you really love to ride. . . as opposed to collect, then you already need to own a road bike, a beater road bike for crappy weather, a cyclocross bike, a full suspension mountain bike, a fixed gear, a hardtail mt bike, and a city (beach) cruiser. My plus one is currently a fat bike. That's seven bikes plus one, which means, I don't have the luxury of keeping another two road bikes I rarely ride. I'd also like to buy a tri or time trial bike soon for duatholons in the spring, so I'm really down 2 from the optimum. And I would like to have a 29er and maybe an e-bike just for [censored] and giggles.If I own anyone of them for more than a few months and don't put a few hundred miles on them, then I'm getting rid of it, and I wouldn't say that I "love" it.

CAMPYBOB said:

We are roadies. We have rules.

Rule 12:
The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.

While the minimum number of bikes one should own is three, the correct number is n+1, where n is the number of bikes currently owned. This equation may also be re-written as s-1, where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in separation from your partner.

Missed your post when I wrote mine, but same idea. I also think we can add the equation that "200miles = no love" I would not endure any marital stress for the s-1 equation for a bike I've ridden less than 200 miles. No offense to the prudish, but given a choice between riding my significant other regularly, and keeping a bike I rarely ride which is going to reduce the significant other's interest in "riding," this isn't even a tough equation.

kopride said:

lusting after a late 70's early 80s Masi GC

<Dr. FeelGood>If you got the money, honey, I got your disease!

Psssst! Hey kid...yeah you! You wanna little taste of some uncut Cinelli? Maybe need a little Montello?

Jay Leno and his wonderful garage I'm not. Still, storage has never been a problem. Buy another house or build another pole building.

Sell a bike?
That's crazy talk!

CAMPYBOB said:

<Dr. FeelGood>If you got the money, honey, I got your disease!

Psssst! Hey kid...yeah you! You wanna little taste of some uncut Cinelli? Maybe need a little Montello?

Jay Leno and his wonderful garage I'm not. Still, storage has never been a problem. Buy another house or build another pole building.

Sell a bike?
That's crazy talk!

That is pretty sweet! The local king of our little peleton had a red Masi when I started riding in the 80s. Man I lusted after it, even if I did beat him occasionally on my $400 Cannondale. I still want a red one with yellow tape.

If Bikes are your only addiction, then you have the right idea. I have cars, surf/paddle boards, kayaks, and I just sold a storage shed full of dirt bikes and accessories. My exercise room has a spin bike, my trainer, the wife's elliptical whatever, weights, rings, stall bars, and other implements of fitness. And I still like to run 5ks and go to yoga and adult gymnastics class occasionally. A man needs balance in his wants and desires.

[QUOTE="CAMPYBOB, That's crazy talk![/QUOTE]

I've been thinking about this option: NOS Cinelli: http://www.adrenalinebikes.com/store.cfm?do=DetailProduct&productid=139237

Nice! The Cinelli rebuild would not look 'right' with new 11-speed stuff and carbon everything hung off it, but it sure would be a sweet ride.

Supposedly, if a man believes the story and yeah, I actually talked to the 'man'...a batch of gray market Cinelli's came into the States in a 747 air cargo container filling the air space around a Ferrari Testa Rosa (also gray market to have the smog equipment installed, new lights, etc.). The Testa Rosa was a hot model back in the day.

I believed the seller's story. Guy sounded legit...who knows. Cinelli verified the S/N and the factory packaging looked good to go.

Orange/Red metallic...

Sold your dirt bikes? I'm sad!

I still have a bunch of antique and newer road motorcycles. Kept the sports cars. I also collect tractors and farm implements, things that make loud noises...all kinds of different interests. The one bug I'm glad I dodged was flying. My father was into it and the price and associated costs climbed faster than a sport plane did!