My 5200 is my 4th Trek. It cost $2,500 which is just under what I care to spend on a bike - I can't see spending over $3,000 for a bike. What does it do better than my '93 Trek 2100? Pretty much everything. It's far more comfortable, much better components all around, stiffer, lighter, and handles well.

Oh and Cypress, this may be the one thing we disagree on.....Treks, other than the $6k and up models, aren't really priced much differently than MOST of their competitors. Also, factor in that the OCLV's are actually made here in the US versus many other companies, and they are actually not too bad of a deal. Would I pay $10k for the "Lance special"? Only if I won Powerball and had nothing else to spend my money on.....and even then, I don't know if I would....but that's what those bikes are geared towards. Your average Joe Schmoe isn't going to buy one. It's going to be the uber rich guy who "has to have it". Probably won't hardly ever ride it.....much like many do with exotic cars. A friend of mine has a Porsche Carrera GT (but he actually drives it). Costs $450,000. The funny part is, I can go buy a $9,000 Suzuki GSX-R750 and match him in acceleration times (although that car would probably kick the bikes' ass on a twisty race course). Is the Porsche a waste of money? Perhaps. But to some, it isn't. Hell, you can get a friggin' watercooled Volkswagen to click off a quarter mile as fast as the above Porsche with about $20-30k invested.

Carry on, kids.