oik01

So I have been looking online for a bargain bike for a while. I had found several options and finally thought I landed a trek 5200 but the seller eventually discovered a crack she missed to tell me about and the deal fell through. I found other bargain bikes with really two prominent choices that I have and was looking for some advice. I know people always talk about fit but the good thing is the bikes are all about the same price and both options are available in 56 and 58 cm frames so I will be able to pick the one that fits me best for either option:

1. Trek 5000/ 5200 ( The 5200 is the USPS version super clean but 56 cm. The 5000 is a 58 cm around the same time). Advantage is that I like the look of those bikes and always find myself going back to them. I was really excited about the one I was about to receive. Ive read that they are smooth rides for their age ( I am on a budget and can't really afford good newer bikes). They have good groupsets. The one concern on old carbon frames is that I miss a crack when examining the frame?

2. Cannondale Slice Ultra SI. I though these were triathlon bikes but the seller says they are road? The bikes are previous store models that were kept in storage and he has all sizes. The main advantage is the bike is super clean and has a more modern look. The frame is very attractive. Its 105 groupset as opposed to slightly higher on the 5200. Probably a bit heavier is my guess but not sure that will make a big difference. I am expecting a less smooth ride?

More about intended use:
I am 162 pounds, 6 feet tall, average fitness. I got into cycling recently and so far only do it on weekends ( I work crazy hours). So far I have been able to do about 2 hours averaging 14 miles/ hour or so. I suspect I can do longer but not so sure about faster hehe. Im hoping to up my speed and also have talked to a friend about joining a local tour with a 50 mile event in may. The goal would be to use the bike for training, have more speed, and use it for the tour. Important are speed, comfort.

My measurements:

YOUR FIT SUMMARY

Fit Style The Eddy Fit The Competitive Fit The French Fit The Eddy Fit
Top Tube Length
56.9 - 57.3 Cm
Seat Tube Range CC
54.3 - 54.8 Cm
Seat Tube Range CT
55.9 - 56.4 Cm
Stem Length
11.1 - 11.7 Cm
BB Saddle Position
69.4 - 71.4 Cm
Saddle Handlebar
57.7 - 58.3 Cm
Saddle Setback
7.1 - 7.5 Cm
Seatpost Type
Setback The French Fit
Top Tube Length
58.1 - 58.5 Cm
Seat Tube Range CC
56 - 56.5 Cm
Seat Tube Range CT
57.6 - 58.1 Cm
Stem Length
11.3 - 11.9 Cm
BB Saddle Position
67.7 - 69.7 Cm
Saddle Handlebar
59.4 - 60 Cm
Saddle Setback
6.6 - 7 Cm
Seatpost Type
Setback
Shop Road Bikes

What are you guys' thoughts? Which would be the better bike to achieve my goals given similar fit?

Also as an aside, below is a pic of the cannondale given my confusion about whether it is a road or triathlon maybe someone can identify this? It looks like a road bike to me but the frame says its a slice which I thought was tri??

bpcyclist

What's your budget? There are potentially a whole lot of other nice options out there to maybe consider.

oik01

400-500$ ... Used market ... Any suggestions?

Btw I figured to reverse image search that bike and it's a Cannondale r600 not a slice at all. So for now leaning towards the old trek carbon unless you suggest something else will be better for me in the same price range?

bampilot06

I have an old Cannondale R1000, purchased for 300 which was what I could afford. The bike rides great and since I have purchased it in October I have put about 1000 miles on it. The CAADs are some of the best aluminum bikes made, and from my understanding are pretty strong. It is considered a race bike but for me it is pretty comfortable. I rode 50 miles yesterday and felt fine. Mine is older than the one you posted, I keep my tires pretty high on the pressure, and the ride is smooth.

My two gripes have been:
A. I got it too small for me. My fault but I am making it work.
B. My knowledge of bikes was limited. I saw ultegra groupset and really didn’t think of anything else. I did not take into account the age, nor how many miles may or may not be on the bike before me. I should have taken it to a bike shop as soon as I bought it to have it looked over. I chose not to do this, and because of this have had to replace some parts, more money than I would have liked.

Both of these said Issues were my fault, and have nothing to do with the bike itself. If the cannondale was storage kept and low miles that you can prove, and your size I don’t see any reason why not to go that route.

bpcyclist

In that price range, I really like Giant for overall excellent value. https://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/contend-3

The above may be a bit over budget, but it really is a ton of bike for the money. It is a 2019 closeout, so that's why pricing is so good. You might check it out and see what you think.

Maelochs

Wow, that Contend is a Super deal.

I studied Contends for a long time before getting a Fuji Sportiv, but I got an amazing deal on the Fuji. That Contend might be an even better deal, seeing as it is the latest Claris, which is supposed to be really good. For an absolute entry-level bike that is a great value. I'd expect it retailed for a couple hundred more when it was fresh on the sales floor.

oik01

This is exactly where I am having trouble. You guys think an entry level aluminum frame with claris components would serve me better than a cheaper but much older high level race bike with your de France pedigry, a fully carbon frame,a ultegra components? If the old bike is well maintained I'm not understanding why the common wisdom seems to be to pay more for the entry level new bike ... Am I missing something?
Im asking because I'm really leaning for the old treks but I don't have the experience others might have just my intuition? I pulled up a graph of say tour de France speeds and it really seems to have plateau'd around year 2000. If the new technology didn't translate to faster times for the pros why would I dish out more money for it but also for the " entry level version" when compared to the older " higher end"

Maelochs

Tour de France pedigree? if the bike was ridden in le Tour it is probably worn out. Otherwise ... lots of companies have built bikes for the Tour .... and also cheap consumer models which wouldn't last for a tour of some cities.

Giant builds bikes which are used by Current World Tour teams ... and the TCR is the model for many current top-tier racing bikes. So what? What exactly, is a "Tour de France pedigree" and how does it translate into an actual rideable bike? The Contend is good in its own right ... regardless of what other bikes Giant has built or currently builds. I didn't recommend it to you because I personally do not like Al forks .... but it is a great deal for that level of frame and componentry.

And that's the issue---and has been stated clearly. An older bike, a lightly used bike, is usually a better value ... but if you cannot tell if it has been lightly used or just cleaned up .... who knows what you are buying? Also ... I don't care what the decal on the down tube says ... if the bike doesn't fit is it not the right bike.

As far as group sets, the name isn't magic. New Claris is probably as good as 12-year-old Ultegra. Shimano has been using what it learns with each new generation of components and adding the best stuff to each next generation. Nine-speed Sora from 2018 is probably as good or better than nine-speed Ultegra from back when. And ... brifters in particular tend to wear out.

The reason people recommend a new bike if you don't know bikes in general is that you could buy a really wrong bike, and either end up spending a lot of money in repairs and upgrades, of find that it doesn't really fit, or both.

When I wanted a new (to me) mountain bike, I never considered new. Prices are ridiculous. I waited and found a barely used 2004 Cannondale Rize 4 that the owner had spent more time modifying cosmetically than riding. But I knew enough about the bike and mountain bikes in general, to know what it was worth, and to look for signs of wear---particularly in the shock seals and pivots, because forks, shocks, and bearings tend to be expensive. I knew what the bike came with and what had been changed because I did my research. I knew how to look for signs of wear---anyone can wash a bike before selling it, but it is hard to hide signs of cables slapping the frame, or scratches under the bottom bracket from high-siding on rocks, etc. I knew how the headset should feel, how the wheels should spin, how the brakes should feel. The "test ride" was around a parking lot and over a few curbs---there is no way to test a full-suspension mountain bike without abusing it. I "tested" that all the controls worked as they should, and that some bouncing up[ and down didn't make any unpleasant noises or squeeze oil past the seals. I knew what I was going to buy before I made an offer.

Someone else could have sold a decade-old MTB that had been abused, but which had been cleaned and polished, which would have cost twice the sales price to get in prime shape---but not to me. But ... maybe to you. Me, if I am buying something about which I know nothing, I want to bring an expert. If i can't, I might pass. I have been a sucker often enough in this life.

This is kind of funny.

You think bikes have not advanced since 2000 because the average speeds at the Tour have no markedly increased? Look at speeds for the Le Mans 24-hour auto race .... speeds don't keep increasing. Have there been no technical developments in cars in the past 50 years? Modern sports cars make a lot more power with a lot less fuel, generate huge aerodynamic downforce, corner and brake vastly more effectively than the old cars ... and they are many times safer as well. They don't hit the same top speeds, and the lap times aren't much different .... but the cars are as different as rickshaws and rocket ships.

Maybe speeds peaked around 2000 in the Tour because that was when the pharmacists really hit their marks .... doping was fine-tuned, and the limit of the human organism was reached.

Since then riders dope less, and ride much lighter, stiffer bikes which have a lot more gear options which allow greater efficiency ... so that people Not doped to the gills can still ride really fast.

And all of that has Zero to do with you or I riding. We aren't racing five hours a day for 21 out of 23 days. We aren't riding in giant pelotons averaging 30 mph. We don't have a fleet of support vehicles. And further, UCI rules mandate that race bikes are relatively heavy. Those bikes could be two pounds lighter, which would make a big difference on climbing stages.

However, people who want reliable riding bikes to just have fun, or to train, or to commute, have completely different needs, which have nothing to do with what pro racers need. People who don't spend all their time training and racing generally need and want to be more comfortable, need to carry more gear (no wheels changes for every flat, no food deliveries roadside.)

People who ride casually, or for the riders with big egos, don't race professionally (some cyclists make a big deal about being "serious" ) aren't generally getting one hundred percent out of their bodies in a daily ride ... racers give a lot more (Classics riders can afford to do one hundred percent---stage racers need to save some and just go all-out on certain parts of certain stages.) but since casual riders aren't going for max performance from their human machines, max performance from their bikes is less of an issue. So basically ... what pro racers do on their bikes is irrelevant.

There fore .... there is no reason to get CF. I own steel, aluminum, and CF bikes. I have bikes which weigh about 16 lbs showroom-stripped, and bikes which weight ten pounds more. I have bikes which are basically race bikes (though not high-end) and bikes which are Clydesdales ... work horse, draft animals, set up to carry big loads for long distances. However, having spent decades riding the old tech (when it was new, even) I definitely appreciate the developments ... 11-speed cassettes, reliable brifters, better brakes, easier adjustment, CF forks ... a lot of good stuff.

There is no reason to get "The Latest" unless that specifically is your thing (just like some folks like Classic & Vintage ... some folks have to have whatever was just introduced.) But this idea that there has been no progress in bikes in the past two decades because TdF speeds have not increased .... that just shows that you really know nothing about bikes ... which is Why people recommend that if you buy used, you get a knowledgeable mentor.

In particular, CF tech in bikes has come a long way. A 20-year-old CF frame ... I wouldn't buy one. Too many chances for too many little problems, and while it is a long shot that you would get a frame with hidden damage which failed while you were riding it .... the risk is too easily avoidable.

As I said early on, if you want to buy used, BePatient. Wait for that Garage Queen, that Dentist's Special. However, if you are impatient, go ahead and buy a 20-year-old bike. Or even a ten-year-old bike. Hopefully the brifters don't break, but there are guys online who will repair older Shimano brifters for $50 apiece or so .... but only up until about 8-speed 105. After that, Shimano made the parts too small and too plasticky to be repaired. I am sure they can be, but not for a price which matches the cost of new brifters .... But maybe you'll get lucky.

If the bottom bracket bearings fail, likely you can just replace them, or if it is a square-taper, just replace the whole thing ... you have the tools and the know-how right? Plenty of YouTube videos and tools are cheap. You would have no problem replacing a headset if it was a little notchy, right? And you could tell if it was? And you know where to look for signs that a bike has had a long life of much use, right?

These are some of the reasons why I would suggest that a new rider get a new bike ... not as cheap as that Contend, but look in the $1000 range. But ... if you are insistent on buying used (and there are plenty of good reasons to go used) Be Patient. I would never buy a 20-year-old bike unless it had a metal frame ... but I would buy a ten-year-old or five-year-old bike if it was in excellent shape, really looked like low mileage, and I felt a good vibe about the seller.

What I would not do, is be Eager. I wouldn't buy a used bike in a hurry, unless the first listing was a three-year-old bike, barely ridden, for one-third of its list price. Think of it like buying an old muscle car. if the car looks like it was used as a daily driver, likely the owners have run it hard and done so frequently ... so if you are looking to do an expensive and time-consuming renovation, great, but if you want a daily driver yourself .....

Having said all that ... you might find the Perfect Bike for you, tomorrow, and it might be a 20-year-old CF frame bike with a lot of miles ... but it might just feel right to you, and you might ride it for a few years with great pleasure and satisfaction...... I assume you have lived long enough to make decisions about stuff like this ... and there is no more specific information I can give.

Keep us posted, buy what speaks to you, and whatever, post pics and ride reports. I hope everything goes exactly as it should. I really don't have an agenda here besides not wanting to prevent people from enjoying cycling. So .... buy and ride and smile, please.

oik01

Thanks for the help everyone. I honestly get where you guys are coming from and complete get the reasoning but none of the entry level bikes spoke to me. It just had the feeling of " not much different than my current bike" even if I knew that the geometry and science and testing behind the bikes from better respected brands would make the bike better than my vilano Forza 3.0 even w similar components. It was just a heart thing.

So long story short I did end up getting an old trek 5000. There's some scratches on the fork and the paint is a bit chipped in several locations but no cracks that I can tell ( did the tap test, passed a piece of cotton along the frame, and visual inspection though I will be the first to admit I am no expert but I did do my best). The seat post is updated to an aero CF seat post. The wheels were true. Bike felt like a perfect fit honestly. I changed the pedals for my clipless, did a quick tune for the shifting, washed the bike, and took it for a medium ride today at a park next to my home. I already got a personal best time and I can say my lap times are improved by way more than I expected ( though it was a little less windy than last time so that may have contributed but it's still an all time personal best for me). The shifting was crisp and brakes super responsive. The ride was comfortable for me even though the park's road is far from smooth and has tons of bumps, pebbles, random fallen branches ECT.

Final judgement: not sure ... I'm keeping the old vilano for commuting. My feeling is the trek should be able to handle the once a week ride from this 160 pound human for now. If it ends up failing on me or needing repairs then I will have lost. If there is any consolation for me I think it would be in the fact that I can take off the oval tubeless wheel, aero CF seat post, derailleurs or whatever and sell online as a worst case scenario to get my money back. And if it's 400$ thrown down the drain then I'll just make do with the Vilano and appreciate the learning experience. ( I got this bike knowing that if the 400$ where lost for nothing I would have to accept that and I do)