Road Cycling - trek 5200

just needing some opinions....
trek 2200 (aluminum frame, shimano 105 components) vs. trek 5200 (carbon fiber, ultegra) vs. cannondale silk road (aluminum , ultegra)

this will be my first road bike. should i bite the bullet pay about 900 more and just get the 5200?

The Cannondale Silk Road has a head shok on it. If you want to be a serious roadie I wolud count the Silk Road out. If the 2200 is a 2002 it should have Ultegra on it. The geometries of the 2200 and the 5200 are very similar, there are only a few differences, I they are in the chainstay length. If you've got the 900 extra bucks, plus enough for all the gear you'll need, I say go for the 5200.

after riding the 5200 2200 and silk road, ive come to the conclusion that the carbon fiber 5200 is the best one but i also rode a kestrel 200sci. i am going to pay the extra $$$ and have it down to the 5200 and kestrel. i was told that the kestrel is one molded piece and the 5200 isnt. does this make a big deal. if so why. the kestrel is a 2000 model/ price is 2400 and the trek 5200 is 2499. which is a better way to go? kestrel or trek.
thanks for the help

Well, I can't say which is better. What you should consider is how weel each bike fits you. You will be happy with either bike, as long as it fits you well. If the bike you buy doesn't fit, forget it, you'll hate it forever. Ask the guys at your LBS to help you out with fit, and do several test rides.

I haven't ridden either bike, so I can't say how each feels on the road. However, I understand that Kestrel's monococque [one-piece] molden design provides a great deal more lateral stiffness than Trek's OCLV process. What does this mean? Well, the OCLV Treks are reputed to be a bit noodly in high-speed descents and sprints, while the Kestrels, I'm told have a much snappier response.

You should also note that the Kestrel has a rather diferent geometry; although they have similar seat angles, the Trek has a slacker head angle and a slightly longer wheelbase. My gut feeling is that the Trek, with the laterally stiffer [though vertically equally compliant] frame, shorter wheelbase and steeper head angle would be a much more responsive machine, particularly good for racing, while the Trek would be a very fine long distance machine.

Personally, I don't much like the geometries of either bike, though I might choose the Kestrel if I was in the market for an expensive, CF double-duty-TT bike.

My advice would be to take both bikes for test rides -- and not just around the parking lot.

As a long time aluminum bike rider, even with a carbon fork, I can attest that the ride on a composit bike, will be smoother (less vibration). You should also check out the titanium bikes. I ride 5000+ miles a year and have recently swictched to a Litespeed Classic. There is a world of difference. What a machine! If you shop around you can find one at a bargin. Buy the best compotents you can afford. Certainally give strong consideration to Ultegra or better.

You are the music while the music lasts. Go for it!

Fubar5: How come your name shows up with "Hey Trekaholic?"

Am I being mocked?!

Anyway... don't let anyone scare you about "plastic" frames on the 5200. Tell them to go rent "The Graduate!"

I never had an aluminum frame, but my 42-year-old kiester likes the feel of the 5200's CF damping characteristics. If it is good enough for aircraft wings, it's good enough for me.

I didn't buy it to make me fast. I bought it to make me faster.

Trekaholic

I mirror Trekaholic's feelings. On my test rides I found the Trek more comfortable as a road bike than the Kestrel. I was fortunate and found a Trek y-foil frame that had never been built up. I find the y-foil to be even more comfortable than the 5200. Price is always a concern for each of us, but to me, there is nothing worse than trying to economize on a purchase and then never being totally happy with the product. Buy what your gut directs - you'll be happier.

John