Trek 2003 5200 versus Cannondale R2000

[Dario Wolfish]

I am purchasing a road bicycle, and I am undecided whether to get the Trek 5200 or the Cannondale
R2000. Both of these bikes are 2003 models with triple chaining.

The known advantages and disadvantages and disadvantages of each model is the following:

Trek 5200

Advantages:
1) Full Carbon Frame
2) More comfortable ride
3) Great Customer Service

Disadvantages:
4) This bike has the Race Lite wheels while the Cannondale has Mavic Ksyrium Wheels
5) The Trek is Ultegra and the Cannondale has a Dura Ace rear derailer.
6) The Trek frame is a little heavier than the Cannondale CAAD7

Cannondale R2000

Advantages
7) Better wheels
8) Better rear derailer
9) Lighter

Disadvantages

10) Company filed bankruptcy. Might affect customer service?
11) Warranty has more restrictions
12) Frame is not carbon
13) Ride is not as comfortable?
14) Trek has a better reputation?

I am in my 40s and am primarily interested in cycling long distances and being able to handle
difficult climbing since there are many hills and mountains in the Bay Area (Woohoo) and I would
like a bike that is best (easier) for climbing.

I would appreciate your input about these bikes as well as your recommendations of which I should
buy. Please either post your suggestions here or email me at [email protected].

Please respond soon as I plan to buy the bike soon.

Much thanks, Dario

 

[Garyg]

Not a direct comparison, but I replaced my C-dale R500, with a Trek 5200 a couple of years ago, and
I've been very happy. I don't think I'll ever go back to an aluminum frame.

I'm similar in age, and riding goals. This will be my third year in a row to participate in a
week-long tour in the Colorado Rockies, and the 5200 has gotten me up and down a lot of mountains.
As for making the hills "easier"...they're never easy .

GG

"Dario Wolfish" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am purchasing a road bicycle, and I am undecided whether to get the Trek 5200 or the Cannondale
> R2000. Both of these bikes are 2003 models with triple chaining.
>
> The known advantages and disadvantages and disadvantages of each model is the following:
>
> Trek 5200
>
> Advantages:
> 1) Full Carbon Frame
> 2) More comfortable ride
> 3) Great Customer Service
>
> Disadvantages:
> 1) This bike has the Race Lite wheels while the Cannondale has Mavic Ksyrium Wheels
> 2) The Trek is Ultegra and the Cannondale has a Dura Ace rear derailer.
> 3) The Trek frame is a little heavier than the Cannondale CAAD7
>
> Cannondale R2000
>
> Advantages
> 1) Better wheels
> 2) Better rear derailer
> 3) Lighter
>
> Disadvantages
>
> 1) Company filed bankruptcy. Might affect customer service?
> 2) Warranty has more restrictions
> 3) Frame is not carbon
> 4) Ride is not as comfortable?
> 5) Trek has a better reputation?
>
> I am in my 40s and am primarily interested in cycling long distances and being able to handle
> difficult climbing since there are many hills and mountains in the Bay Area (Woohoo) and I would
> like a bike that is best (easier) for climbing.
>
> I would appreciate your input about these bikes as well as your recommendations of which I should
> buy. Please either post your suggestions here or email me at [email protected].
>
> Please respond soon as I plan to buy the bike soon.
>
> Much thanks, Dario

 

[John]

I'm no expert but I tried a lot of bikes before buying one. For me, the Cannondale was, by far, the
best ride. The bike has since been banged up, overloaded (much of that decades of unused calories),
and maintained on a sporatic basis. Yet for three years it has kept on going with style and grace!

Choose the one that feels the best when you ride it. After all, you don't ride a spec sheet.

John

"Dario Wolfish" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am purchasing a road bicycle, and I am undecided whether to get the Trek 5200 or the Cannondale
> R2000. Both of these bikes are 2003 models with triple chaining.
>
> The known advantages and disadvantages and disadvantages of each model is the following:
>
> Trek 5200
>
> Advantages:
> 1) Full Carbon Frame
> 2) More comfortable ride
> 3) Great Customer Service
>
> Disadvantages:
> 1) This bike has the Race Lite wheels while the Cannondale has Mavic Ksyrium Wheels
> 2) The Trek is Ultegra and the Cannondale has a Dura Ace rear derailer.
> 3) The Trek frame is a little heavier than the Cannondale CAAD7
>
> Cannondale R2000
>
> Advantages
> 1) Better wheels
> 2) Better rear derailer
> 3) Lighter
>
> Disadvantages
>
> 1) Company filed bankruptcy. Might affect customer service?
> 2) Warranty has more restrictions
> 3) Frame is not carbon
> 4) Ride is not as comfortable?
> 5) Trek has a better reputation?
>
> I am in my 40s and am primarily interested in cycling long distances and being able to handle
> difficult climbing since there are many hills and mountains in the Bay Area (Woohoo) and I would
> like a bike that is best (easier) for climbing.
>
> I would appreciate your input about these bikes as well as your recommendations of which I should
> buy. Please either post your suggestions here or email me at [email protected].
>
> Please respond soon as I plan to buy the bike soon.
>
> Much thanks, Dario

 

[Dan]

I hung on to my old steel RB-1 bridgestone for a long time because they supposedly gave the best
ride. My cannondale caad5 frame is more comfortable than that, though-very comfortable. (haven't
ridden late model treks so can't compare for you)

For the OP: a dura-ace rear derailleur is $60 on sale at performance, but the ultegra will work just
fine too. Cheap to change if it bugs you.

I wouldn't let the bankruptcy thing bug you-they invested too much in motorsports, but the bike end
of the business is still doing well.

I'd go with the one that fits you better, and the one that tugs at you more.

Dan

John wrote:
> I'm no expert but I tried a lot of bikes before buying one. For me, the Cannondale was, by far,
> the best ride. The bike has since been banged up, overloaded (much of that decades of unused
> calories), and maintained on a sporatic basis. Yet for three years it has kept on going with style
> and grace!
>
> Choose the one that feels the best when you ride it. After all, you don't ride a spec sheet.
>
> John

 

[Dario Wolfish]

Well I bought the Trek 5200 and I LOVVVVVVVVVVVVE it. The clincher was that this bike fit better
than the Cannondale. The Trek seemed to handle the bumps better also.

So what pedals and shoes should I get?

 

[Garyg]

"Dario Wolfish" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well I bought the Trek 5200 and I LOVVVVVVVVVVVVE it. The clincher was that this bike fit better
> than the Cannondale. The Trek seemed to handle the bumps better also.
>
> So what pedals and shoes should I get?

Congratulations!

As for pedals/shoes, I'm using Ritchey single-sided SPD-style road pedals, paired with Shimano mt.
bike shoes. The Ritchey's are very light, and the
mt. bike shoes mean I can walk normally when off the bike.

But, I'm sure you'll get lots of other opinions on this subject....

GG

 

[Peter Cole]

"GaryG" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>
> As for pedals/shoes, I'm using Ritchey single-sided SPD-style road pedals, paired with Shimano mt.
> bike shoes. The Ritchey's are very light, and the
> mt. bike shoes mean I can walk normally when off the bike.

I've used both single & double sided SPD's. My vote is for double. Flipping the pedal around to clip
in is a hassle, especially in the dark or frequent stop & go traffic. I've also had a few pedal
mechanisms fail, the double-sided are redundant.

The recommendation for Sidi Mega Dominators is good for the width, but they are very expensive ~$190
(US). I have a pair, and they're very nice, but the soles are very hard, and not very good for
walking, although better than most road-style shoes, where you're either walking on the cleat or
hard plastic "pontoons". I'm not sure they will accommodate your width, but for less money, Diadora
has more styles, and they do run wide.

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

Peter Cole wrote:
>
> "GaryG" <gary_g@charter_NOSPAMX_.net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > As for pedals/shoes, I'm using Ritchey single-sided SPD-style road pedals, paired with Shimano
> > mt. bike shoes. The Ritchey's are very light, and the
> > mt. bike shoes mean I can walk normally when off the bike.
>
> I've used both single & double sided SPD's. My vote is for double. Flipping the pedal around to
> clip in is a hassle, especially in the dark or frequent stop & go traffic. I've also had a few
> pedal mechanisms fail, the double-sided are redundant.

My vote is for Speedplay X series. Our entire shop switched one-by-one after trying them. They
aren't walkable, but that's what the bike is for. <G> Speedplay sells plastic covers for the cleats
for those who desire to stand around at Starbucks leaning on the bike.

Barry

 

[Mike Latondress]

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <"keep it in the newsgroup "@thankyou.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Speedplay sells plastic covers for the cleats for those who desire to stand around at Starbucks
> leaning on the bike.
>
> Barry
>
There you go Fab, are you listening.