As someone pretty new to all this, I am looking at various bikes to help me determine what I really want. I see a CL ad for a bike that looks really good to me, but I’m no expert. So, I’m wondering if someone can help me determine if this is a pretty good deal, as long as it is in the condition stated. If so, I want to check it out to see if it is something that could be on the short list for a second bike. My husband has a Trek 5200 that in the same size, which I find comfortable.

Thank you on advance for any assistance!

Here is the description:

Trek 5000 OCLV Carbon 120 58cm - $475

Condition: Excellent

Frame- OCLV 120 Carbon
Fork- Bontrager Race
Size- 58cm
Wheels- Bontrager Race
Tires- Bontrager Race Lite
Shifter/Rear Derailleur- Shimano Ultegra
Front Derailleur- Shimano 105
Crank- Bontager Race Lite
Cassette- Sram 97012-26, 9 speed
Saddle-Bontrager race Luxe
Seatpost-Bontrager Race X lite, carbon
Stem-Bontrager Race 31.8
Headset- Cane creek C-1 sealed
Brakeset-Shimano 105 w/STI levers
*includes pump, water cage and cateye

Assist:

https://sacramento.craigslist.org/bi...929489270.html

I think the model year is quite important-- Trek made the 5000 for like 15 years. Tough to make any judgement both sight unseen, and not knowing the age.

Also just a side observation, but y'all must be pretty tall-- my Cervelo is a 58, and I'm 6'2".

2004 maybe?

https://archive.trekbikes.com/us/en/...k/5000/details

If it is indeed a 2004-- and it appears to be-- the asking price is really, really high. Bicycle Blue Book has $341 for best possible condition for that year bike.

Boom..... Is it yours bg? It's gotta be the same ride.

No, was just being nice. I used to live in Sac, I'm in the midwest now. Wouldn't mind being back, tho...

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate the input. I hadn’t logged enough posts to post a URL, so I decided to give enough info to hopefully lead someone to the listing. I appreciate the assist in posting it. I also appreciate the feedback on the year. I just chatted with the seller. He wasn’t sure of the year and said maybe 2009. However, it doesn’t appear trek made the 5000 in 2009. Also, he mentioned it’s mostly been sitting around for the past ten years in the garage. That is never a good sign to me. Based on all your feedback plus the seller details from our chat, I think I will pass.

Laurie, a bike hanging in a garage for a decade wouldn't scare me, but we all have our comfort zones. Most likely it will need a refresh and consumables - bar tape, cables and housing, tires and tubes, that kind of thing...but it wouldn't necessarily be that expensive to bring it up to speed. Assuming no major mechanical issues, I wouldn't exclude it.

This is actually good to know. I’m more familiar with the concept of cars that have been sitting around too long and all that can go into dealing with the possibilities there. It can be a lot of work and cost. It sounds like this isn’t such a major issue with bikes.

I will try to keep an open mind, but would also want to get him down in price if I did change my mind. I do not mind paying a bit above BB value if something has been well loved and upgraded. There are times when some extra dollars are warranted for something you feel is the right thing for you.

Also, I noticed you used to live in Sac, but are now in the Midwest. I spent 10 years in Omaha. I actually liked it there a lot once I got used to the cold winters.

I am somewhat tall for a woman, but not 6’2”. My husband is 6’2”. Despite our height difference, we are about the same in the inseam, so I can do fine with the bigger sizes.. Most of my height seems to be below my waist. I’m short up top lol.

It's likely pre-2004 or 2005. I believe that's about when Shimano came out with 10 speed drive trains, and the bike listed is 9 speed which pre-dates that (you might want to verify that, but I think it's true)

There's nothing wrong with 9 speed. In fact, 8 speed is just fine imho. I still run a Shimano Ultegra 9 speed group that's been on 3 different bikes since I bought it used in around 2003 or so. Good stuff, and plenty of gears.

BUT - it warns me that your seller is either purposefully deceiving you on the date, or just doesn't know. It is probably 15 years old. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, if it's been used little and/or used and maintained properly. Frankly, most people only ride a few hundred miles per year and this level of Shimano components should last many, many thousands. The frame needs to be very carefully inspected too to make sure there's no damage beyond superficial scuffs and scrapes. Quick glance at the pictures looks like used very little - no scuffs on crank or derailleurs and everything seems almost like new.

The other factor is fit - but you seem to think you have a handle on it. Some people (me included) like frames on the "large" side of acceptable so the handlebars are easier to get up even with the saddle. But you have to be sure about that.

I'd point out to the guy that the bike is at least 14-15 years old because that's when Shimano came out with 10 speed gearing; since this bike is 9 speed, it's older than that. Then take a look at it and if everything works, offer $300 at the most. Unless you're a do-it-yourselfer, it will probably cost you more than $100 for a tune up and new wear parts (handlebar tape, chain, tires and tubes) if they're needed. If the parts are in little-used condition and you do the tuneup and soft parts replacement, you'll have a very nice bike. IF IT FITS. If you can get into it for $400 or less all tuned up with new or good tires, chain, bar tape, etc. I'd feel that an excellent 9 speed bike is probably worth that.

I think I would rather get a bike that has been in the garage 10 years than a garage sale find from a flipper, but I wonder how Mr/Ms bike in storage arrived at the asking price?

I see lots of Trek 5000/5200 on CL so they must hold up pretty well. Make an offer, wave a couple Benjamins and it might be yours (obviously after checking it out. See if the condition is consistent with a bike that's been sitting around - tires with cracks in the sidewall, dried out chain, etc.)

scott s.
.

Per the Trek specs, the 2004 was a 9 speed.

That looks like a nice bike and you said a 58 would fit you. Here’s the thing though, that bike isn’t excellent condition it has scratches and scuffs all over it. It is in good condition. Excellent to me is a bike that only needs maybe new tires, everything else should look like it was on the showroom. I wouldn’t go more then 300 for that bike. Also where you live matters, bikes will fetch more money in some places over others.

These bikes were the absolute $h1t when I worked in a Trek shop in the mid-1990's. I'm still tempted to pick one up, just because they seemed unattainable to me as a younger person.

I'll see if I can match the frame color to a year.

According to this list, this bike shouldn't exist. I did look at the 2005 Trek 5000 WSD, but it's not a match. But it's also not a match for any of the '90's decal schemes.

Trek Bike Models by Year and Color



I'd definitely place this in the early 2000's, based on the decal scheme.

I found it. It's a 2004.

https://archive.trekbikes.com/us/en/...k/5000/details

My wife and I are the same size from the waist down. She's shorter in the torso. I ride a 58 cm frame with (generally) a 685-690 mm combined top tube length plus stem reach and a considerable saddle-to-bar drop. She, on the other hand, fits on a 54cm frame with a shorter stem plus top tube length (~630), and an even saddle-to-bar height.

Bottom Line: Leg length does not determine frame fit. Without overcomplicating the discussion, top tube length is a bit more important. You'd likely fit on something smaller than a 56 cm frame, unless your riding position is very aggressive and aerodynamic, in which case the 56 might work. 58? I don't think so.

I went back and tried my husband’s bike, only this time more than just checking for clearance while straddling the top tube. What you say makes total sense in terms of the result. My position while riding is not good. I highly suspect the length of the top tube based on how I had to position myself to reach the handlebars. While his bike rides wonderfully, and I would enjoy a bike that rides like this for longer rides, you are right: the size is wrong. Since I’m new to the ins and outs of this and have a lot to learn, I think it would be good for me to go to one of my local bike shops (we have several around here) and get properly fitted. I want my purchase to be something that is really right for me that I can enjoy for a long time.

Thank you again to everyone on the excellent, helpful feedback I’ve received.

See post #4 .........looks to have had some components replaced