Difference between Trek 2300 and 5200 frame?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Billx, Mar 18, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Billx

    Billx Guest

    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?
     
    Tags:


  2. Frank Burke

    Frank Burke Guest

    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?
     
  3. > 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
     
  4. 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! (_)/ (_) |
     
  5. Allan Leedy

    Allan Leedy Guest

    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! (_)/ (_) |
     
  6. 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
     
  7. Billx

    Billx Guest

    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
     
  8. "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
     
  9. > >> 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
    > >
    >
     
  10. "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
     
  11. "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
     
  12. 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
     
  13. "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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...