TREK 5500 VS LITESPEED Veneto

Hello,

I was hoping to get some advice. I have narrowed my bike search down to the
5200/5500 and the litespeed Veneto. I was hoping to get some feed back and pros and cons of each.
They both will be built with Campy Choirs so components are somewhat out of the equation. The
litespeed is more expensive but I have been warned about carbon and life expectancy on the
frame. I currently have a custom steel frame but want something lighter.

Thanks in advance

 

"John R." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
>
> I was hoping to get some advice. I have narrowed my bike search down to
the
> 5200/5500 and the litespeed Veneto. I was hoping to get some feed back and pros and cons of each.
> They both will be built with Campy Choirs so components are somewhat out of the equation. The
> litespeed is more
expensive
> but I have been warned about carbon and life expectancy on the frame. I currently have a custom
> steel frame but want something lighter.

that is a good decision to go with the lighter frame.

If you get a frame that's 25% lighter, you'll go up hills almost 25% faster. You'll be amazed.

good luck,

M. Fattie

 

I got a 5200 back in the mid-90s. It cracked. Trek replaced it with no questions asked. The new one
was noticeably beefed up in the areas where problems had been reported. That was in 1998. Since
then, I haven't ever heard of anyone having any frame issues with OCLV. I had about 60,000 miles on
my last OCLV when I got hit by a car and that was that. Now I have a new 5500. Trek is marvelous
about honoring their warranty and they warrant the OCLV frames for life. You can't get much lighter
and they're highly durable. I ride on very rough tar and gravel roads all the time. There are no
durability issues anymore.

FWIW, Bob C.

"John R." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
>
> I was hoping to get some advice. I have narrowed my bike search down to
the
> 5200/5500 and the litespeed Veneto. I was hoping to get some feed back and pros and cons of each.
> They both will be built with Campy Choirs so components are somewhat out of the equation. The
> litespeed is more
expensive
> but I have been warned about carbon and life expectancy on the frame. I currently have a custom
> steel frame but want something lighter.
>
> Thanks in advance

 

"psycholist" <.net...
> I got a 5200 back in the mid-90s. It cracked. Trek replaced it with no questions asked. The new
> one was noticeably beefed up in the areas where problems had been reported. That was in 1998.
> Since then, I haven't ever heard of anyone having any frame issues with OCLV. I had about 60,000
miles
> on my last OCLV when I got hit by a car and that was that. Now I have a
new
> 5500. Trek is marvelous about honoring their warranty and they warrant
the
> OCLV frames for life. You can't get much lighter and they're highly

Ditto. I cannot say enough about how Trek honors their OCLV warranty. I'm on my 3rd frame since 1996
(in the previous two frames I could NOT see any cracks (frame #1) or delamination (frame #2) -- it
took a carefully trained eye (and machine) to spot the "defect/failure").

-Ken

> durable. I ride on very rough tar and gravel roads all the time. There
are
> no durability issues anymore.
>
> FWIW, Bob C.
>
> "John R." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was hoping to get some advice. I have narrowed my bike search down to
> the
> > 5200/5500 and the litespeed Veneto. I was hoping to get some feed back
and
> > pros and cons of each. They both will be built with Campy Choirs so components are somewhat out
> > of the equation. The litespeed is more
> expensive
> > but I have been warned about carbon and life expectancy on the frame. I currently have a custom
> > steel frame but want something lighter.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
>

 

Rubbish!

Tim McTeague

>
> If you get a frame that's 25% lighter, you'll go up hills almost 25%
faster.
> You'll be amazed.
>
>
>
>
>
> good luck,
>
>
>
> M. Fattie

 

Tim McTeague wrote:
> Rubbish!
>
> Tim McTeague
>

Yes the speed increases by the square doesn't it?

>>
>> If you get a frame that's 25% lighter, you'll go up hills almost 25% faster. You'll be amazed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> good luck,
>>
>>
>>
>> M. Fattie

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

 

Whaaa?? Reducing the weight of the bike 25%, while ignoring rider weight, will not increase your
average speed up hills anywhere near 25%. Try it yourself, get two bikes with the appropriate weight
difference, ride each up a hill and time yourself. It would help to have a heart monitor so you can
keep the effort the same. Check you times and I think you will see they are pretty close.

Tim

"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim McTeague wrote:
> > Rubbish!
> >
> > Tim McTeague
> >
>
> Yes the speed increases by the square doesn't it?
>
> >>
> >> If you get a frame that's 25% lighter, you'll go up hills almost 25% faster. You'll be amazed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> good luck,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> M. Fattie
>
> --
> Perre
>
> You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

 

1lb off your bike is same is 10lbs off your beer gut. Don't you know??

Another Masters racer GK

Tim McTeague <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rubbish!
>
> Tim McTeague
>
> >
> > If you get a frame that's 25% lighter, you'll go up hills almost 25%
> faster.
> > You'll be amazed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > good luck,
> >
> >
> >
> > M. Fattie
> >