Trek OCLV vs. Kestrel Talon

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Rudy, Oct 15, 2003.

  1. Rudy

    Rudy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was just curious if anyone has gotten a chance to ride both frames and do a comparisons.

    My thoughts are that both are stiff, light and shock absorbent. But the Kestrel would probably have a more lively ride than the Trek.
     
    Tags:


  2. daveornee

    daveornee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have ridden both and think that they are close enough in ride characteristics that the tires and tire inflation would mask any differences. I used the same saddle and pedals when I rode them, and they are both equipped with Ultegra. The bars were different and that also created a different feel.
    I have had OCLV frames for many years and 10,000 of miles per year or more. Trek provides warranty support for their frames when they develope cracks. The Kestrel I rode is a friends.
    I would make sure that you buy through a reputable dealer that will support you with future warranty issues.
     
  3. dhk

    dhk New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've only owned/ridden steel (Reynolds 531) bikes, but will offer an impression anyway. I test rode them both recently also. I thought the Trek 5200 had the smoother, plusher ride, but that the Talon did feel livelier and stiffer; more of a pure race bike.

    As David says, tires and inflation make a difference; believe the wheelset does also. On the 5200, the tires were inflated to 100 psi, which is what I requested. On the Kestrel, they were 110.

    Despite all that, my impression is that the Talon is Kestrel's TT or race bike. The 200, which looks more like the Trek frame, is described in the Kestrel brochure as having the great ride.

    I also test road the new 2300 Trek; AL with carbon seat stay, and actually preferred that ride. It felt "plush" over the course road surfaces, but seemed a bit livelier than the all carbon Trek. Being new to carbon, I was amazed at the smooth ride damping of the Treks, and also surprised that the Talon felt harsh...about like my current 531 frame/fork.

    Again, these are quick impressions based on 5 minute test rides. As much as I liked the 2300 ride, have decided to go with a Al/carbon rear frame from a local builder for the new bike.

    Agree local warranty support is important. However, note that Trek's written warranty does exclude "wear and tear", ie fatigue damage, just like Cannondales and the other big manufacturers. Of course, this is realistic....no sub-3 lb frame is going to last forever for a high-mileage rider or racer.

    Dan
     
  4. Rudy

    Rudy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well...I actually have a '98 Litespeed Catalyst which is a very plush and lively ride. However, even at only 160 lbs, when pedaling hard and fast, I felt it was a bit bouncy. I'm not sure if it's titanium charestics or the flexing of the bottom bracket.

    My only experience with carbon frame was when I test rode the 5200 before I purchased my litespeed. And frankly, I thought it has that "dead" ride characteristic that people often blame on carbon frames. I later on heard from some others that Kestrel suppose to offer a more lively ride for carbon frames.

    I noticed that Litespeed came out with the 2004 Tuscany which offers a beefy down tube which should makes it much more stiff IMO. Just a thought really...I would need to begin saving for another frame or get a second job ...hehe
     
  5. Petri

    Petri New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
Loading...
Loading...