Difference between Trek 2300 and 5200 frame?

[Billx]

I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade). Does
anyone have stats on these parameters?

 

[Frank Burke]

The Trek site gives weights for the 2002 frames (2.4 lb for the 5200,
2.71 lb for the 2300, or a difference of 140 g). The site does not appear to give this information
for the 2003 frames, but one might assume they are unchanged from 2002.

BillX wrote:
>
> I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
> expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
> frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
> Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise
the
> 5200 is $800 more expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the
5200
> frame is compared to 2300 and whether frame flex is noticably different between the two under load
> (such as climbing a steep grade). Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

The 5200 frame is about a quarter pound lighter than the 2300. As for differences in ride, yes, they
feel (and sound) different, but it's up to *you* to decide which you like best. You might want to
check out this article on our website-

http://www.ChainReaction.com/roadbiketestrides.htm

It will give you an idea of what to look for on the test ride and, even more important, how the
bikes should be set up.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:02:28 -0500, Frank Burke wrote:

> The Trek site gives weights for the 2002 frames (2.4 lb for the 5200,
> 2.71 lb for the 2300, or a difference of 140 g). The site does not appear to give this information
> for the 2003 frames, but one might assume they are unchanged from 2002.
>
> BillX wrote:
>>
>> I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
>> expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300

At 140 grams for $800 that is on the order of $7/gm, which is more than half the price of gold.

> and whether frame flex is
>> noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).

That would be more subjective.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You _`\(,_ | soon find out the
pig likes it! (_)/ (_) |

 

[Allan Leedy]

Actually, I think you pay more for more gold, not less gold.

"David L. Johnson >" <David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:02:28 -0500, Frank Burke wrote:
>
> > The Trek site gives weights for the 2002 frames (2.4 lb for the 5200,
> > 2.71 lb for the 2300, or a difference of 140 g). The site does not appear to give this
> > information for the 2003 frames, but one might assume they are unchanged from 2002.
> >
> > BillX wrote:
> >>
> >> I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
> >> expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300
>
> At 140 grams for $800 that is on the order of $7/gm, which is more than half the price of gold.
>
> > and whether frame flex is
> >> noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
>
> That would be more subjective.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> __o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You
> _`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it! (_)/ (_) |

 

[Per ElmsäTer]

BillX wrote:
> I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
> expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
> frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
> Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only needed to ride a few feet before
I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a doubt in my mind and I
wouldn't have cared if the one I chose weighed more.

I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the same one. They are both very
good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in how they feel on the road. I
don't think price and weight is the deciding factor between them.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

 

[Billx]

I'm looking for the fastest ride for the $$$ and don't really care much about the "feel". Right now
I own a Trek 1500 from 88 and the all aluminum frame seems to have a lot of sway in the bottom
braket/chain stay during climbing. Never had a "comfort" problem with this bike but rather question
its efficiency given the frame deformity under load. Anyone know if the 2300 suffers from frame
deformity under load and if not why does it differ from my 1500?

Per Elmsäter wrote in message ...
>BillX wrote:
>> I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
>> expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
>> frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
>> Does anyone have stats on these parameters?
>
>I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only needed
to
>ride a few feet before I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a
>doubt in my mind and I wouldn't have cared if the one I chose weighed more.
>
>I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the
same
>one. They are both very good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in how
>they feel on the road. I don't think price and weight is the deciding factor between them.
>
>--
>Perre
>
>Remove the DOTs to reply

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

"Per Elmsäter" wrote:
>
>
> I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only needed to ride a few feet
> before I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a doubt in my mind
> and I wouldn't have cared if the one I chose weighed more.
>
> I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the same one. They are both
> very good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in how they feel on the
> road. I don't think price and weight is the deciding factor between them.
>
> --
> Perre
>
> Remove the DOTs to reply

Come on! <G> Inquiring minds want to know!

I did the same comparison, and I'd like to see if we came to the same conclusion.

FWIW, I'm 6'1" 220, which may matter.

Which one did you buy? I'll tell if you do.

Thanks, Barry

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> >> I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
> >> expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
> >> frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
> >> Does anyone have stats on these parameters?

Neither the 2300 or 5200 is going to flex much under load. However, your 14-year-old 1500 didn't
flex as much as most steel frames of that era either. Flex in a frame is primarily a function of
tube diameter, with the material being a lesser factor.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"BillX" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I'm looking for the fastest ride for the $$$ and don't really care much about the "feel". Right
> now I own a Trek 1500 from 88 and the all
aluminum
> frame seems to have a lot of sway in the bottom braket/chain stay during climbing. Never had a
> "comfort" problem with this bike but rather
question
> its efficiency given the frame deformity under load. Anyone know if the 2300 suffers from frame
> deformity under load and if not why does it differ from my 1500?
>
> Per Elmsäter wrote in message ...
> >BillX wrote:
> >> I know that the 2300 is Aluminum and the 5200 carbon and that price wise the 5200 is $800 more
> >> expensive. What I don't know is how much lighter the 5200 frame is compared to 2300 and whether
> >> frame flex is noticably different between the two under load (such as climbing a steep grade).
> >> Does anyone have stats on these parameters?
> >
> >I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only needed
> to
> >ride a few feet before I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a
> >doubt in my mind and I wouldn't have cared if
the
> >one I chose weighed more.
> >
> >I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the
> same
> >one. They are both very good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in
> >how they feel on the road. I don't think price and weight is the deciding factor between them.
> >
> >--
> >Perre
> >
> >Remove the DOTs to reply
> >
>

 

[Per ElmsäTer]

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Per Elmsäter" wrote:
> >
> >
> > I tested both bikes with identical size frame and settings. I only
needed to
> > ride a few feet before I felt the difference in how the bikes felt and handled. There was not a
> > doubt in my mind and I wouldn't have cared if
the
> > one I chose weighed more.
> >
> > I don't need to tell you which one I choose as you might not choose the
same
> > one. They are both very good bikes with very similar geometry but a very distinct difference in
> > how they feel on the road. I don't think price
and
> > weight is the deciding factor between them.
> >
> > --
> > Perre
> >
> > Remove the DOTs to reply
>
>
>
> Come on! <G> Inquiring minds want to know!
>
> I did the same comparison, and I'd like to see if we came to the same conclusion.
>
> FWIW, I'm 6'1" 220, which may matter.
>
> Which one did you buy? I'll tell if you do.
>

OK, ok, twist my arm

The 5200 of course. I have never felt so comfortable nor been on a bike so responsive. It just felt
right. On the 2300 I actually felt a little uneasy. I'm 6'1" at app 175 lbs. 183 cm 80 kg. Framesize
58 CT. I could have used a 60 CT frame but then I was afraid I'd have a long reach on the toptube
since I have long legs ( 90 cm inseam ) and a short torso. The 58 felt right and the saddle doesn't
feel or look like it's sitting high. Plus I can reach the handlebar

--
Perre

Replace the DOTs to reply

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

"Per Elmsäter" wrote:
>
> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Which one did you buy? I'll tell if you do.
> >
>
> OK, ok, twist my arm
>
> The 5200 of course.

So did I! <G>

HUGE difference in ride quality over the 2300. Mine is also a 58, but with a more set back seatpost
and a slight rise in the stem vs. the out of the box version.

Barry

 

[Per ElmsäTer]

B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup wrote:
> "Per Elmsäter" wrote:
>>
>> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Which one did you buy? I'll tell if you do.
>>>
>>
>> OK, ok, twist my arm
>>
>> The 5200 of course.
>
> So did I! <G>
>
> HUGE difference in ride quality over the 2300. Mine is also a 58, but with a more set back
> seatpost and a slight rise in the stem vs. the out of the box version.
>
> Barry

Why did you want a set back seat post? Do you have long feet or long femurs or something
of the sort.

--
Perre

Remove the DOTs to reply

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

"Per Elmsäter" wrote:
>
> Why did you want a set back seat post? Do you have long feet or long femurs or something of
> the sort.
>
> --
> Perre
>
> Remove the DOTs to reply

Long femurs.

Barry