Trek 2300 or Cannondale R1000 or other?

[Roger W]

I'm at a loss. I can't decide between the Trek 2300 or
Cannondale R1000. I can get them both for around the same
price(with the brakes upgraded on the Cannondale).

About me.. I generally ride about 3000 mile/year, mostly in
small groups, by myself, or centuries. When I ride alone, I
usually average over 19mph, faster in groups. I have never
raced, but I'm open to the possibility. I'm a larger rider
at 190 pounds. I'm presently riding a 22lb bike with Tiagra
components.

My gut felling is that I like the feel and ride of the
Cannondale, but I'm a skeptical of the CAAD7 frames
durability. This is a lot of money to spend on a bike that
could only last a couple years, or be ruined if someone
brings me down in a pace line. I really like the Kyserium
Elite wheelset.

I don't like the feel of the handlbars on the Trek, the
hoods seem to mount farther forward than is comfortable, but
I suppose this is adjustable. I found the 2300 a less
inspiring ride than the Cannondale... a nice bike, but it
didn't stand out. However, you are getting FULL Ultegra,
carbon seat stays, and post, and what may be a more durable
frame, and a frame that is probably a little heavier than
the Cannondale.

I want a bike that will last me for years, at LEAST 5, if
not longer. On paper, at the same price, the Trek looks like
the better bike, but I still lean toward the Cannondale. If
it weren't for the frame durability question, I probably
wouldn't be asking for advice.

Any thoughts? Or other bikes to add to my confusion....

Thanks....

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

Well, in my totally unbiased opinion (I sell TREK, including
lots of 2300s, but not Cannondale)-

You should check out an article on our website about what
to look for when test-riding road bikes, and how they
should be set up. You might then re-test them and make sure
there were as few unaccounted-for variables (such as tire
pressure) as possible.

You can find this article at
www.ChainReaction.com/roadbiketestrides.htm.

Regarding a couple of specifics though-

#1: The Bontrager Race-Lite wheelset on the 2300 has proven
# to be virtually
bomb-proof. It's also very light, and can use standard
spokes if you ever have a problem. The cassette mechanism
has also been very durable. We sell many hundreds of bikes a
year with these wheels and have been very pleased.

#2: I'm not sure about the Cannondale warranty, but the
# TREK still has a
lifetime warranty on the frameset... and it's not built on
the bleeding-edge of what can be done (in other words, weird
failures are extremely unlikely).

#3: Not sure what the scoop is on the lever position on the
# bars, but
that's adjustable and further, quite possibly has more to do
with the length of stem on the bike than anything else. Stem
length is very easy to adjust.

#3b: The ability of a shop to properly fit the bike to you
#is a *very*
major issue! Even though I have a desire to believe you'll
be happiest with the 2300, if one bike was available from a
really good dealer and the other one from somebody who
really didn't look like they were going to be there for you
if things weren't quite right, or didn't have a clue on how
to fit the bike to you... that could be a bigger issue than
the differences between the two bikes.

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

"Roger W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm at a loss. I can't decide between the Trek 2300 or
> Cannondale R1000. I can get them both for around the same
> price(with the brakes upgraded on the Cannondale).
>
> About me.. I generally ride about 3000 mile/year, mostly
> in small groups, by myself, or centuries. When I ride
> alone, I usually average over 19mph, faster in groups. I
> have never raced, but I'm open to the possibility. I'm a
> larger rider at 190 pounds. I'm presently riding a 22lb
> bike with Tiagra components.
>
> My gut felling is that I like the feel and ride of the
> Cannondale, but I'm a skeptical of the CAAD7 frames
> durability. This is a lot of money to spend on a bike that
> could only last a couple years, or be ruined if someone
> brings me down in a pace line. I really like the Kyserium
> Elite wheelset.
>
> I don't like the feel of the handlbars on the Trek, the
> hoods seem to mount farther forward than is comfortable,
> but I suppose this is adjustable. I found the 2300 a less
> inspiring ride than the Cannondale... a nice bike, but it
> didn't stand out. However, you are getting FULL Ultegra,
> carbon seat stays, and post, and what may be a more
> durable frame, and a frame that is probably a little
> heavier than the Cannondale.
>
> I want a bike that will last me for years, at LEAST 5, if
> not longer. On paper, at the same price, the Trek looks
> like the better bike, but I still lean toward the
> Cannondale. If it weren't for the frame durability
> question, I probably wouldn't be asking for advice.
>
> Any thoughts? Or other bikes to add to my confusion....
>
> Thanks....

 

[Peter Cole]

"Roger W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm at a loss. I can't decide between the Trek 2300 or
> Cannondale R1000. I can get them both for around the same
> price(with the brakes upgraded on the Cannondale).
>
.
>
> My gut felling is that I like the feel and ride of the
> Cannondale, but I'm a skeptical of the CAAD7 frames
> durability. This is a lot of money to spend on a bike that
> could only last a couple years, or be ruined if someone
> brings me down in a pace line.

Cannondales have a reputation for being extremely durable.
There was a test of frame fatigue strength, 9 frames out of
12 failed, Cannondale was among the 3 that didn't.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.-
htm

 

[Pbwalther]

So, you want a bike that will give you 15,000 miles and you
are looking at the Trek 2300 and Cannondale R1000.

OK, I don't know how long the CAAD 7 will hold up. But over
the years, I have put over 40,000 miles on 3 different
Cannondale frames.

One did fail and it was noncatastrophic - just went clunk.
It really was a stupid thing too. On that frame the
engineers did are really stupid thing. They closed the rear
triangle about 3 cm infront of the hub. The chain stay
projected back to the hub and it was flattened in that area
(obviously making it a bit weaker). To further weaken it
they drilled a hole through the chain stay (and for no
apparant reason). Well the chain stay broke right through
that little hole. And I got a brand new frame for nothing at
all. Since they no longer made that frame, I got a much more
advanced one.

So, if the past track record is any indication, Cannondale
frames should hold up for you. By the way, I am as heavy as
you are and maybe a bit faster - so my experience should be
roughly comparable to yours.

If you have any concern, you might want to check
Cannondale's current frame warrenty.

 

[Curt]

>...I got a much more advanced one...

Not to be a pain in the ****, but frame have had little
advancement over the past many years. I bicycle is a bicycle
pretty much, so the words "much more" certainly wouldn't
apply. The bicycle manufacturers would like you to think
that there has been tons of advancement each year, but in
reality, bicycles are the same now as they were 20 years
ago. They may be less durable however. I ride a 15+ year old
bike that would stack up with most anything out there today.
It was expensive when I bought it and a little heavier, but
by very little.

I would go with the Trek, if those were my choices. I would
probably not buy either if I was going to spend the money
and save and buy a higher end bike.

Curt

 

[T Scanlin]

Wish I could be unbiased, but I can't be. I have a 2003
Trek 2300 that, during the summer, I rode 125-150 miles a
week. I've had zero problems with the bike to date.
However, for the price, I would expect exceptional
reliability. Then again, I've babied the bike to death. No
rain rides, lots of TLC.

I'm very impressed with the "wow" factor I've received on a
boatload of club rides, the standard "what a great looking
bike" comments.

I can't recommend the Trek over the C-Dale but I don't think
you'd be disappointed in the 2300.

"Roger W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm at a loss. I can't decide between the Trek 2300 or
> Cannondale R1000. I can get them both for around the same
> price(with the brakes upgraded on the Cannondale).
>
> About me.. I generally ride about 3000 mile/year, mostly
> in small groups, by myself, or centuries. When I ride
> alone, I usually average over 19mph, faster in groups. I
> have never raced, but I'm open to the possibility. I'm a
> larger rider at 190 pounds. I'm presently riding a 22lb
> bike with Tiagra components.
>
> My gut felling is that I like the feel and ride of the
> Cannondale, but I'm a skeptical of the CAAD7 frames
> durability. This is a lot of money to spend on a bike that
> could only last a couple years, or be ruined if someone
> brings me down in a pace line. I really like the Kyserium
> Elite wheelset.
>
> I don't like the feel of the handlbars on the Trek, the
> hoods seem to mount farther forward than is comfortable,
> but I suppose this is adjustable. I found the 2300 a less
> inspiring ride than the Cannondale... a nice bike, but it
> didn't stand out. However, you are getting FULL Ultegra,
> carbon seat stays, and post, and what may be a more
> durable frame, and a frame that is probably a little
> heavier than the Cannondale.
>
> I want a bike that will last me for years, at LEAST 5, if
> not longer. On paper, at the same price, the Trek looks
> like the better bike, but I still lean toward the
> Cannondale. If it weren't for the frame durability
> question, I probably wouldn't be asking for advice.
>
> Any thoughts? Or other bikes to add to my confusion....
>
> Thanks....

 

[B A R R Y]

Anyone considering a Trek 2300 should also give the 5000 a
look. The 5000 is very close in price, with slightly lesser
componentry than the 2300, but with a OCLV frame.

Barry

 

[waterboy420]

Originally posted by Peter Cole


Cannondales have a reputation for being extremely durable.
There was a test of frame fatigue strength, 9 frames out of
12 failed, Cannondale was among the 3 that didn't.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.-
htm

I ride a CAAD5 frame C'Dale and weigh in at 190. I have been EXTREMELY happy wth the ride. I have been happy with the bike and put 30-50 effortless miles on per day and many hours on the trainer since I have had it. I looked into the Trek lines and just didn't "feel the love" from the bike. It just didn't fit quite right.

The Trek 2300 does offer the carbon seat stays, and I will say that I added a set of carb bars and a carbon seatpost to my ride to lighten the load and absorb some shock. The component set on the C'Dale 100 is not a bad mix, and I did the same thing that you had suggested and picked up a nice pair of Dura Ace brakes.

Either way I think you'll be happy. Just ride them both, and make the sales guy at the LBS work for his $$$ and get both fit to your liking before you take them out for a ride. If a bike is expected to last you 5+ years, as most of mine have, then make sure you ride the bikes more than around the parking lot after getting a good fit.

Good luck.

 

[Roger W]

I'm still stuck... My gut instict is in favor of the C'dale,
but the same gut.. or maybe my brain.. tells me that the
2300 is better built and more reliable.

I rode the 2300 again today, as well as a Lemond Titanium
and Trek 5200. I REALLY liked the Trek 5200, but it's out of
my price range. I did not get a chance to try the Cannondale
again, I'll try tomorrow.

As I said before, the Trek looks better on paper, I get the
feeling that it's a more durable frame. Trek lists it as
Racing and Light Touring, C'dale does NOT reccomend
touring.. not that I'll do any touring... and I swear with
the C'dale that I can get some play by just squeezing the
top bar of the C'dale.

That being said, I loved the ride of the C'dale. While I
really like the Trek, It doesn't leave me with the excitment
of purchase that the C'dale does. Now, I did like the
5200... which has the same geometry and components, just
fiber vs Al. So maybe there is something up with the way the
bike was setup?

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:02:43 GMT, "curt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >...I got a much more advanced one...
>
>Not to be a pain in the ****, but frame have had little
>advancement over the past many years. I bicycle is a
>bicycle pretty much, so the words "much

Nearly anything that doesn't fit this description:
>>They closed the rear triangle about 3 cm infront of the
>>hub. The chain stay projected back to the hub and it was
>>flattened in that area (obviously making it a bit weaker).
>>To further weaken it they drilled a hole through the chain
>>stay (and for no apparant reason).
is almost definitely "advanced".
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> I rode the 2300 again today, as well as a Lemond Titanium
> and Trek 5200. I REALLY liked the Trek 5200, but it's out
> of my price range. I did not get a chance to try the
> Cannondale again, I'll try tomorrow.

As another poster pointed out, TREK has a new 5000 model,
with the same frame as the 5200, for about $2000. What makes
it $500 cheaper than a 5200?

* Slightly-heavier wheels & less-expensive tires
* '105 front derailleur & brakes (instead of Ultegra)
* Less-expensive (but still carbon) seatpost
* Slightly-heavier imported fork

> As I said before, the Trek looks better on paper, I get
> the feeling that it's a more durable frame. Trek lists it
> as Racing and Light Touring, C'dale does NOT reccomend
> touring.. not that I'll do any touring... and I swear with
> the C'dale that I can get some play by just squeezing the
> top bar of the C'dale.

Both bikes are probably suitable for "credit-card touring"
but neither should be used for fully-loaded touring (where
you're carrying a tent & sleeping bag). Other types of bikes
would be far more appropriate for that.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

"Roger W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm still stuck... My gut instict is in favor of the
> C'dale, but the same gut.. or maybe my brain.. tells me
> that the 2300 is better built and more reliable.
>
> I rode the 2300 again today, as well as a Lemond Titanium
> and Trek 5200. I REALLY liked the Trek 5200, but it's out
> of my price range. I did not get a chance to try the
> Cannondale again, I'll try tomorrow.
>
> As I said before, the Trek looks better on paper, I get
> the feeling that it's a more durable frame. Trek lists it
> as Racing and Light Touring, C'dale does NOT reccomend
> touring.. not that I'll do any touring... and I swear with
> the C'dale that I can get some play by just squeezing the
> top bar of the C'dale.
>
> That being said, I loved the ride of the C'dale. While I
> really like the Trek, It doesn't leave me with the
> excitment of purchase that the C'dale does. Now, I did
> like the 5200... which has the same geometry and
> components, just fiber vs Al. So maybe there is something
> up with the way the bike was setup?

 

[Trg]

Roger W wrote:
> I'm still stuck... My gut instict is in favor of the
> C'dale, but the same gut.. or maybe my brain.. tells me
> that the 2300 is better built and more reliable.
>
> I rode the 2300 again today, as well as a Lemond Titanium
> and Trek 5200. I REALLY liked the Trek 5200, but it's out
> of my price range. I did not get a chance to try the
> Cannondale again, I'll try tomorrow.
>
How about a used 5200/5500? You could pick one up for the
price of a new 2300. I did that and am quite happy with my
Record equipped 5500...

This will give you an idea of what has been sold recently on
ebay- http://search-
completed.ebay.com/ws/search/SaleSearch?catref=C5&ht=1&from-
=R1 4&soincludewords=trek+5200&sosearchwordscombine=1&sapri-
celo=&sapricehi=&saca tegory=7294&sotextsearched=2&soitemst-
atus=2&soexcludewords=&socolumnlayout=& sosortproperty=1%26-
sosortorder%3D1&sorecordsperpage=50&solocationselector=1&
saregion=0&saavailabletocountry=1&salocatedincountry=1&sacu-
rrency=&submit=+S earch+

 

[Matt O'Toole]

trg wrote:

> Roger W wrote:

>> I'm still stuck... My gut instict is in favor of the
>> C'dale, but the same gut.. or maybe my brain.. tells me
>> that the 2300 is better built and more reliable.
>>
>> I rode the 2300 again today, as well as a Lemond Titanium
>> and Trek 5200. I REALLY liked the Trek 5200, but it's out
>> of my price range. I did not get a chance to try the
>> Cannondale again, I'll try tomorrow.
>>
> How about a used 5200/5500? You could pick one up for the
> price of a new 2300. I did that and am quite happy with my
> Record equipped 5500...

If you buy new you get a warranty, and a bike shop to go to
bat for you. In favor of the Trek -- word is they have the
best warranty service in the biz. In my experience that's
true. I had a couple of problems with my Klein mountain bike
a few years back, and they overnight-shipped me a new wheel,
plus some other stuff.

I'm sure I'd be happy with either bike, but I'd be most
comfortable buying a Trek. Maybe some Cannondale advocates
could comment.

Matt O.

 

[Roger W]

I rode the Cannondale again. I don't know what it is, but it
just works well to me. It feels right, and just wants to GO!
It may not be as smooth of a ride as the 5200, but to me, it
has more life.

The 2300 makes me say "Nice bike, but I can wait until late
season closeouts", the R1000 makes want the bike NOW.

Thanks to all for your help/advice.

 

[Bfd]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> trg wrote:
>
> > Roger W wrote:
>
> >> I'm still stuck... My gut instict is in favor of the
> >> C'dale, but the same gut.. or maybe my brain.. tells me
> >> that the 2300 is better built and more reliable.
> >>
> >> I rode the 2300 again today, as well as a Lemond
> >> Titanium and Trek 5200. I REALLY liked the Trek 5200,
> >> but it's out of my price range. I did not get a chance
> >> to try the Cannondale again, I'll try tomorrow.
> >>
> > How about a used 5200/5500? You could pick one up for
> > the price of a new 2300. I did that and am quite happy
> > with my Record equipped 5500...
>
> If you buy new you get a warranty, and a bike shop to go
> to bat for you.
In
> favor of the Trek -- word is they have the best warranty
> service in the
biz. In
> my experience that's true. I had a couple of problems with
> my Klein
mountain
> bike a few years back, and they overnight-shipped me a new
> wheel, plus
some
> other stuff.
>
> I'm sure I'd be happy with either bike, but I'd be most
> comfortable buying
a
> Trek. Maybe some Cannondale advocates could comment.
>
This is so true, if you buy a USED carbon fiber frame, make
sure its cheap as it probably won't have a warranty. Trek
does have one of the best warranties in the business, but
you need to BUY NEW. For carbon, its definitely worth it....

 

[B A R R Y]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:18:55 GMT, "bfd" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>This is so true, if you buy a USED carbon fiber frame,
>make sure its cheap as it probably won't have a warranty.
>Trek does have one of the best warranties in the
>business, but you need to BUY NEW. For carbon, its
>definitely worth it....

Really?

For the few times we've ever had someone walk in with an
OCLV problem, I don't recall anyone ever asking if they
bought it new.

Barry

 

[Matt O'Toole]

B a r r y wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:18:55 GMT, "bfd"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> This is so true, if you buy a USED carbon fiber frame,
>> make sure its cheap as it probably won't have a warranty.
>> Trek does have one of the best warranties in the
>> business, but you need to BUY NEW. For carbon, its
>> definitely worth it....
>
> Really?
>
> For the few times we've ever had someone walk in with an
> OCLV problem, I don't recall anyone ever asking if they
> bought it new.

I was thinking more along the lines of a dead STI unit, or
problems with today's underspoked wheels...

Matt O.

 

[Trg]

bfd wrote:
> "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> trg wrote:
>>
>>> Roger W wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm still stuck... My gut instict is in favor of the
>>>> C'dale, but the same gut.. or maybe my brain.. tells me
>>>> that the 2300 is better built and more reliable.
>>>>
>>>> I rode the 2300 again today, as well as a Lemond
>>>> Titanium and Trek 5200. I REALLY liked the Trek 5200,
>>>> but it's out of my price range. I did not get a chance
>>>> to try the Cannondale again, I'll try tomorrow.
>>>>
>>> How about a used 5200/5500? You could pick one up for
>>> the price of a new 2300. I did that and am quite happy
>>> with my Record equipped 5500...
>>
>> If you buy new you get a warranty, and a bike shop to go
>> to bat for you. In favor of the Trek -- word is they have
>> the best warranty service in the biz. In my experience
>> that's true. I had a couple of problems with my Klein
>> mountain bike a few years back, and they overnight-
>> shipped me a new wheel, plus some other stuff.
>>
>> I'm sure I'd be happy with either bike, but I'd be most
>> comfortable buying a Trek. Maybe some Cannondale
>> advocates could comment.
>>
> This is so true, if you buy a USED carbon fiber frame,
> make sure its cheap as it probably won't have a warranty.
> Trek does have one of the best warranties in the
> business, but you need to BUY NEW. For carbon, its
> definitely worth it....

The rate of failure of recent OCLV frames is VERY low (why
do you think they give lifetime warranties?). You can tell
if the frame's in good shape or has been abused. I wouldn't
buy a bike that's been repainted. Buying one in good shape
with an original Trek paintjob, IMO is not a huge risk. I
have bought two used Treks and haven't looked back.

There are so many OCLVs floating around out there (Thanks
Lance), people that wanted to be like Lance but found out
about the suffering part, that it's not too hard to find a
good one used.

 

[Not The Karl Or]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Dan Birchall) wrote:

> [email protected] (Roger W) wrote:
> > I rode the Cannondale again. I don't know what it is,
> > but it just works well to me. It feels right, and just
> > wants to GO!
>
> LOL! I had a 1988 entry-level Cannondale roadie for a
> decade - this was back when you got 105 on entry-level
> bikes! It was my first

hmm, I bought a SR300 in 1989 and can tell you there was no
105 on my bike!

 

[Roger W]

Picked up the C'dale R1000 today. I was only able to
take my short
10.5 mile loop.

Ride notes:

- I didn't do as well early on hills as I expected, but I
hadn't wamed up. The bike FLIES uphill, and is 5lbs
lighter... but the riding position is off enough that my
muscles needed to adjust.

- I was delayed by traffic(which is unusual for this ride)
which delayed me at least 20 seconds with a slow to stop.

- I still topped my time by 30 seconds.. and if it weren't
for traffic, it would have been by close to 1 minute.

I can't wait to take her on a longer ride, but I think I'll
have to tilt the seat forward a bit. The ride was too short
to really notice, but I can "tell" that it's a bit off.

Also, does it take a while for the gears/chain to wear in?
There were a few CLUNKS when changing gears. My other bike
had a similar issues until I road it for a while. Or is this
a needed adjustment to the read deraileur?