rory

OK, I have posted a couple of posts recently about getting a trek 2300. I had ridden one, liked it, and compared to some other bikes, 'feels' pretty decent to me.
I had looked at the 5200, but this will be a first road bike for me (I ride MTB - have a Gary Fisher Sugar 3 ) yet looking for something to do road training, riding also.

So I see in a bike shop, that they have the Trek 5200 for $2399 - Advertised retail is $2799....... this is $800 more than what I can get the 2300 for, and I have not ridden the 5200 (yet) since it was pretty much out of my price range.

The only diff I can see in the specs from Trek is the frame (duh) and the Headset - otherwise, ALL components are identical - so it really is the frame....

So,
What is the big difference between carbon and aluminum from a standpoint of ride?

I hate to ask a stupid sounding question, although I am fairly comfortable with bike gear and whatnot, this is just the first time I've encountered this potential opportunity.....

thoughts?

thanks

djgustashaw

i have a 5200, and it is incredible.

THE main difference you will find between the aluminum and the carbon is ride quality. if you didn't have any qualms with how the 2300 felt over bumps and such you may not really care about this much, but there's no doubt that the OCLV bikes give a pretty smooth ride. maybe not as magic-carpet smooth as a good ti or steel bike, but it's still pretty damn good. i put in 136 miles in one day last week and wasn't jarred or anything by the end. you can really ride it all day without any discomfort, assuming that you have a good saddle, of course.

the second difference you'll notice is stiffness. now i've never ridden a ZR9000 aluminum alloy bike by trek, but i'm assuming that the OCLV will still have the edge here. not really a big deal unless you're a crank-breaking sprinter.

third difference is lightness. i'm not sure exactly how light the 5200 is, but i'd assume my 56cm is right at 18.0lbs with all the stock components. very light. however, the lightness doesn't really come where it counts when you upgrade from 2300 to 5200; you have the same wheels and cranks, so everything that is rotating (rotating stuff is most important when it comes to weight savings) weighs the same. but nonetheless, the 5200 does weigh less.

the fouth difference is the lance factor, and this is bad. yes, people are going to scoff at you for riding "lance's bike". oh well. the simple fact is that, regardless of which pros ride it, the OCLV bikes are great values and great performers. but some people just can't get over the fact that lance rides it and that it is very common at organized centuries.

i use my 5200 for mostly training and club rides. sure, it is a "racing" bike, but i don't care. it's a great bike for ANY application, so don't worry about riding such a bike if you don't plan on racing. just put in the miles and you'll have more than justified it. especially when you pull away from the punks at club rides

no matter which way you go, you're not making a bad choice. they're both great bikes. but MAKE SURE that the 5200 is your size if you decide to go that route. don't compromise fit for a lighter bike.

talkdj

That was a great answer...in fact, after reading that, I wanna go out and buy one too! Seriously, you made some excellent points.

-Wynn

kneighbour

An interesting discussion. I am looking at buying a new bike myself - and was looking seriously at the 2300. It rode very well when I did a few blocks around the LBS. It seemed a lot quicker off the mark than the 5500 which I also tried. In fact, it felt a lot better than the 5500 (which is similar to the 5200). More "lively", I guess. the bike shop guy said that the 5500 was faster - it probably just "felt" slower as it was so much more comfortable. He could be right, I guess.

The thing is, I only rode it for a few minutes, and only on flat local roads. It would be nice to take a test ride on a 50km "normal" ride, with all the bumps etc that you normally encounter. But I do not see any bike shop allowing that...

And the 5500 was certainly heavier than the 2300 - and I think they were about the same size (58cm).

On the day, I would certainly have chosen the 2300 over the 5500 - especially as the 5500 is double the price of the 2300 (at AUD$7,000). A bit out of my price range! But the 2300 also felt a faster bike.

One thing that has stopped me with the 2300 is a rather silly thing - I do not seem to be able to get it with triple chain-rings, which I really do want. Since Trek do supply triples, it is a bit puzzling to me why none seem to be imported into Australia. Perhaps "real" bike riders do not use triples?

sunsetnkc

I am just curious how carbon can be stiffer than aluminum but ride better?

djgustashaw

well, i can't give you the exact technical reasons why this could be so (i'm not 100% sure OCLV is stiffer than the aluminum, but it most likely would be).

however, the ride quality of a frame tends to come from the material it is made out of, and little can be done on the engineer's part to change the ride quality of a certain material. carbon has natural vibration-dampening characteristics, whereas aluminum is infamous for transmitting every little bump and jarr straight to your saddle. perhaps this is because aluminum is a very resonant metal, and you just can't get around that; it's something we can't really change in the design process.

as for stiffness, this is something that can be engineered into a frame. regardless of material used, stiffness can be adjusted by experimenting with tube shape, butting methods, and other variables.

so to answer your question, ride quality tends to be something predetermined by material due to unchanging characteristics of raw materials (but there are some exceptions). but stiffness can be adjusted and dialed in during the design process by experimenting with many variables.

Chi

If you do pick the 5200, don't forget that you can customize a paint scheme with Project One.

Flea77

I too just tested bikes including the 2300 and 5200, and went home with the 5200 and no doubt at all with my decision.

The 5200 sprinted and climbed far better than the 2300, and the ride was unquestionably smoother. As for weight, I cant believe that the 2300 weighs less than a 5500, there is at least a pound weight savings in the Dura Ace components alone, not to mention carbon is lighter than alum any day of the week. The 5200 I bought felt lighter than the 2300 I rode.

There was no way I would spend the extra cash if I didnt see obvious benefits, and I did. I did not however see $500 difference between the 5200 and 5500, especially since I have heard that Ultegra components last longer than Dura Ace, but weigh more. Your experiences may differ but for me I had no problem paying the extra for the carbon, SWEET!

Allan

Chi

I've heard that if a component costs more than $1 per gram, it isn't worth it.