buying 2006 trek 2200



mattjf

New Member
Jul 31, 2005
175
0
0
I think I've decided to go with the 2006 Trek 2200. I road a bunch of different bikes and I seem to like this one the best. I considered the 2005 Trek 2300, but I don't think the price difference is worth it. My only concern is Trek for some reason decided to go with 9 speed Ultegra instead of 10 speed. Anyone know why?

This is mostly for exercise, but I plan on doing some racing next spring and summer. I figure if I need to, I can upgrade to 10 speed later on. I also plan on upgrading to the Bontrager Race X Lite wheels.

The 2200 looks to be Trek's top alloy for 2006. It does have some carbon parts. I can't afford full carbon right now.

My second choice would probably be the Felt F65, but it just didn't feel as comfortable. The Felt seems really nice though.

Here are the specs:
http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2006/road/2200.html#

Anyone have any thoughts?

-Matt
 
mattjf said:
I think I've decided to go with the 2006 Trek 2200. I road a bunch of different bikes and I seem to like this one the best. I considered the 2005 Trek 2300, but I don't think the price difference is worth it. My only concern is Trek for some reason decided to go with 9 speed Ultegra instead of 10 speed. Anyone know why?

This is mostly for exercise, but I plan on doing some racing next spring and summer. I figure if I need to, I can upgrade to 10 speed later on. I also plan on upgrading to the Bontrager Race X Lite wheels.

The 2200 looks to be Trek's top alloy for 2006. It does have some carbon parts. I can't afford full carbon right now.

My second choice would probably be the Felt F65, but it just didn't feel as comfortable. The Felt seems really nice though.

Here are the specs:
http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2006/road/2200.html#

Anyone have any thoughts?

-Matt
Matt:

I'm not an expert, but I do have some thoughts based upon experience riding and working in a bike shop:

Full carbon may not be necessary if you want to race, especially if you'll be doing crits. I've raced both a TREK OCLV and a Cannondale CAAD8 both with full Ultegra and like the C'dale much better; it responds better when I step on it.

If the Felt didn't feel "right" realize that the saddle fore/aft position; saddle height, stem length, and stem height all play a role in how that bike will feel. Any good LBS will swap out a stem to help you feel more comfortable. On the test ride, make sure your shop will do that for you. Pick the bike with the best wheels and components since they will have the greatest influence on your perception of your ride. The frame materials and geometry of road frames all have advantages and disadvantages and people could debate forever on cabon vs. aluminum vs. titanium vs. some combo. But not many people will argue about getting the best wheels and components you can (also a good, comfortable saddle is key). If you compare different brands at the same price, some will have carbon forks, while others will put that money towards better shifters/front derailleurs. Try to look at the value of the whole package.

Don't want to make it more confusing, but I'd check out the Cannondale R1000 as well: http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/05/cusa/model-5RR1D.html

In the end, you really can't go wrong with either the Trek, the Felt, or the C'dale, it comes down to what you get for your money.

Hope this helps
 
HAve you tried looking at Specialized or Giant bikes? My friend buys wholesale trek bikes for a touring company and he said the 2006 models have jumped massivley in price. What price are they offering you?
 
TKOS said:
HAve you tried looking at Specialized or Giant bikes? My friend buys wholesale trek bikes for a touring company and he said the 2006 models have jumped massivley in price. What price are they offering you?
I upgraded the FD to Ultegra, so everything is Ultegra except the crank set, which is Bontrager Race. I think the final cost was $1440. Seemed pretty reasonable based on comparable models of other brands, and the 2005 Treks.

-Matt
 
Matt,
I rode a 2004 Trek 2200 for a year and bought the 2005 Trek 5000 in January. There's no way I'd go back to a metal frame. The carbon is just light years ahead, compliant and with great feel. The 5000 is priced higher than the 2200, but, for me it's worth it. BTW I ride about 10K a year and race cat.4.
 
I'm very new at all this (I start all my replies this way! ;) ) But I just bought a 2004 2100, which is very similiar to the 2005 2200 except for the shifters I think.

I like it. I was looking originally looking at the 1500, but I figured getting the better frame was a great choice because other things can be upgraded. So far I like it alot. I don't have anything to compare it to but it feels good to me.

I'm wondering if I should have gone for the 2300 or the 5000 for almost the same price increase (full Ultegra or all carbon) but I think for a first bike and me being very much a newbie I made a good choice.

Don't know if that helps you out at all or not.
 
Thanks for the replies. I ended up buying the 2200 about 2 weeks ago. I love it so far. This wasn't my first bike (I rode a while ago, just getting back into it), so I spent a little more for the 2200. I test rode the 2100 and I liked that one a lot also. I think in all honesty, you won't notice a difference between the 2100 and the 2200.

As for full carbon, I have more to lose on the midsection than the weight difference between full carbon and not :).

-Matt
 

Similar threads