Re: '92 Trek 2300

[Bruce Gilbert]

"Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My brother-in-law gave me a '92 Trek 2300, and I'm kind of going over
it
> before I give it to give to my nephew who doesn't have a road bike, I
> already have 3. Are there any issues with this bike? It has a Shimano
600
> 8 speed on it. What's the threading on the BB, what BB's work in these?
I
> noticed a potential problem with how it locks the seatpost in, using the
> frame, instead of a collar, like today's bikes. But I don't see any
cracks.
> I assume where it isn't carbon, it's aluminum. The seat stays look kind
of
> skinny, in comparison to today's aluminum bikes. Then it has the
notorious
> buzz machine, an aluminum fork, that looks a little skinny too. Any
issues
> with these?
>
>

I believe the real issue with these frames was the carbon tubes separating
from the aluminum lugs. one of my friends had one let go at the joint
between the seat tube and BB lug. My daughter had a seat clamp lug break. I
believe it was a problem on the 1400 frame as well. She still has a '97 2300
in the house which gets used a lot.

With that said, the 2300 was an awesome handling bike. Once you add a carbon
fork it is pretty terrific. My daughter would use her 2300 for crit racing
over her factory team 5500 quite often. She rides a 47 frame, which may have
made a difference. From what I understand, they killed the 2300 because it
was a lot cheaper to make the 5500 and related series. I think it was around
'97 when Trek offered the final 2300, with a carbon fork.

Bruce

 

[Callistus Valerius]

>
> I believe the real issue with these frames was the carbon tubes separating
> from the aluminum lugs. one of my friends had one let go at the joint
> between the seat tube and BB lug. My daughter had a seat clamp lug break.
I
> believe it was a problem on the 1400 frame as well. She still has a '97
2300
> in the house which gets used a lot.
>
> With that said, the 2300 was an awesome handling bike. Once you add a
carbon
> fork it is pretty terrific. My daughter would use her 2300 for crit racing
> over her factory team 5500 quite often. She rides a 47 frame, which may
have
> made a difference. From what I understand, they killed the 2300 because it
> was a lot cheaper to make the 5500 and related series. I think it was
around
> '97 when Trek offered the final 2300, with a carbon fork.
>
> Bruce
>
---------
When the seat clamp lug broke, did that kill the frame?

 

[Bruce Gilbert]

"Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I believe the real issue with these frames was the carbon tubes
separating
> > from the aluminum lugs. one of my friends had one let go at the joint
> > between the seat tube and BB lug. My daughter had a seat clamp lug
break.
> I
> > believe it was a problem on the 1400 frame as well. She still has a '97
> 2300
> > in the house which gets used a lot.
> >
> > With that said, the 2300 was an awesome handling bike. Once you add a
> carbon
> > fork it is pretty terrific. My daughter would use her 2300 for crit
racing
> > over her factory team 5500 quite often. She rides a 47 frame, which may
> have
> > made a difference. From what I understand, they killed the 2300 because
it
> > was a lot cheaper to make the 5500 and related series. I think it was
> around
> > '97 when Trek offered the final 2300, with a carbon fork.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> ---------
> When the seat clamp lug broke, did that kill the frame?
>
Sure did. We sent it back to Trek. I think they gave her a new frame. It is
a really involved fix, best to just replace and be done with it. The one
thing that Trek does better than most any other companies is service. I have
smashed, broke or otherwise pulled apart my share of the 5500 series frames.
When it came to warranty issues, Trek always came through for us. We are not
a Trek dealer. With all of the criticism about, the company still excels at
a few things...

Bruce