Trek 2300 vs Cannondale R1000

[celliot2001]

exactly. i was like, "you can't size me here on the bike but you want me to fork over 20% for a delivery of a bike i've never been on." i have a triathlon friend who recently purchased a cyclocross in reston, va and he was in the same situation. he's 6'3" and they (another bike shop) didn't have a cycle in his size and he went ahead and took the plunge on a bike he'd never ridden. i know nova's out of wack economically (hell, they just put in a ferrari dealership two miles from my job) and they have people who will just show up and drop mad loot without a second thought, but i can't commit 20% on something i've never ridden. i'm going back to the shop in my town and ask them if they'll just bring a giro in for me to test ride, no questions asked -- i'll let you know what pans out. i'm going to buy a bike, so they should give me some room to work with. at least that's my hope.

 

[griffin]

I came to the same conclusion. The Cannondale is a great frame for the money, $1450 at SuperGo. After pricing out upgrades, however, the R2000 for $1750 was looking like a good deal:
wheels - Mavic Ksyrium SSC SL, full Ultegra except for Rear Derailleur: Shimano Dura-Ace. Full Dura-Ace on the R3000 at $3000 was more than I wanted to pay.

The shop recommend the double since it shifted much nicer. (?) I didn't notice much of a difference at the time. So far, the shop has been good about sizing the bike properly and swapping out components. This is as important to me as choosing the bike itself.

Originally posted by Scuba Steve
IMO, the Cannondale is a better value although it wasn't completely spec'ed w/ full Ultegra, the frame was much better. Upgrading the front der, brakes and B/B would be easy, fairly cheap and you could do it at your own pace.
Scuba Steve