peabrook

Does anyone know about this bike from the mid 90'?. How does it ride compared to steel?
Obviously it didn't become an industry prototype but is it a reliable ride?

Thanks, PB

iowarose

I've got a 94 model, full Ultegra, that I'm still riding. I'm very happy with it. It's light (for that period - ca. 21lbs or so - I'm not a weight weenie), handles well, and is very comfortable for long distance riding. I can't tell you how many centuries, etc. I've done on it. I don't plan to replace it for a while. No problems other than regular maintenance.

TandemGeek

There was a short thread on the 2300's a while back: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...highlight=2300

In general, the carbon tubeset bonded to the aluminum lugs with the aluminum fork made for a light and laterally stiff frame. However, road feel was pretty non-descript; not great and not awful but overall you could ride it all day. It would be interesting to ride one with a carbon fork to see how that might change the feel as I think the aluminum fork was the weak spot in the design.

The only thing to be watchful for on these frames is debonding between the carbon tubes and the aluminum bottom bracket lug. It seemed to be more prevailent on the 2300's ridden by larger / power riders where it would show up early in the frame's life, and on frames ridden by folks who were prone to heavy sweating that left the sweaty residue collect at the joints. Being a middleweight at 150lbs who doesn't sweat a lot, mine was in great shape when I sold it to a gal here in Atlanta about 3 years ago with no signs of fatigue at the joints. In fact, in retrospect, I wish I had kept the frame around as a piece of wall art. It was really in great shape and about the only "defect" was the missing chain hanger that broke off early in the bike's life.

The same vintage aluminum frames that had aluminum main tubes bonded to the same aluminum lugset would eventually grow cracks in the paint on top of the joints that gave owners the willies thinking that they were cracks in the tube instead of stress cracks in the paint.

JustsayMo

Excellent frames, usually inexpensive these days too. Mine (1993) gets HARD use as a rain bike and spends time on the trainer. No problems with it at all, still looks great after a wash.

I'd discribe the ride quality as neutral. Not quick not slow. They make excellent Century bikes too.

sydney

Thewe was nothing laterally stiff about mine,and I'm no Super Mario. It's long gone and no regrets.

TandemGeek

Compared to steel or to other frame materials?

sydney

Not compared to anything. It was simply limp . The lowest end steel I have is better in the laterally stiff department.

peabrook

So the laterally stiff aspect if I recall is related to sprinting response for example.
I do 'sport' touring with beaucoup climbing (and descent). Would that effect me considerably?

sydney

I'm no sprinter either,and it bothered the snot out of me.IMO, a limp bike does not climb well either. YMMV.

TandemGeek

Let's quantify a few things to help peabrook appreciate why you found the 2300 wimpy and limp and I found it on par with steel frames.

Size Matters: If I recall from previous postings, you're something like 6'1" and ride 58cm - 60cm frames? Me, I'm 5'8" @ 150lbs and ride 53cm - 54cm frames. So, frankly, there are a lot of frames that seem fine to me but are probably not nearly stiff enough for you.

Second, was your frame new or someone's second hand ride? While it's quite possible that you found a box-stock new 2300 wimpy, as already mentioned, the 2300s were not necessarily durable frames under larger riders and would begin to disbond at the bottom bracket which, when coupled with what was truly a wimpy rear triangle, would certainly make the whole bike feel like a wet noodle. It was the somewhat stiffer front triangle that off-set the wimpy rear stays to give the bike its all-day in the saddle ridability and put it in the middle of the pack when compared to steel bikes at the same price point.

The 2300 was a $1200 mid-range bike. If you tried to compare it to a Serotta or some other high-end steel, aluminum, or Ti racing bike, it would definitely come up short in the stiffness department. If you compared it to other steel or Ti bikes in the same price range, e.g., Specialized, Centurion, Trek, etc... it would be in the same stiffness range.

So, to peabrook, I guess to put this to bed let me suggest that unless you are a smaller rider and this is a smaller example of the 2300 that saw very little use, I'd pass on it if you're doing a lot of climbing because there are better frames available for that type of riding. Not to mention, there is a finite life span on the bonding process used for those frames. I have two friends who were original owners of 2300s who have recently sent them back to Trek for warranty-repair on the disbonds. They were given a nice credit towards the purchase of a new Trek bike. I don't recall if Trek's warranties are transferrable so any future problem with the bonding may or may not be something Trek will be able to help you with.

Finally, as Sydney notes, a stiff frame climbs and sprints better than a one that is less stiff. In fact, test riding on steep grades is a great way to verify how stiff a frame and it's major components are as a package (e.g., frames, fork, wheels) as a stiff frame will feel like it climbs with less effort than one that isn't as stiff.

peabrook

Thank you both TandemGeek and Sidney this has been real informative and since it's got a 600 group I've found that makes it a 6 or 7spd which may be difficult to upgrade. I'm looking elsewhere. What do you guys think of an aluminum Specialize 8 spd Dura Ace w/ a carbon fork?

sydney

600 means literally nothing. if it's from the mid 90s it's 8 speed....I would not put my money in 8 speed DA either, it's history.The shifters and RD are unique to DA and not easy to come by and expensive when you do. Spend your money on at least 9 speed.

sydney

Actually, I'm shorter,relatively lightweight,it was a 56 and it wasn't disbonding.........As for the stiffness comparison. Leave the ti out and the steel comparison is barnyard waste,IMO.

TandemGeek

Well then I guess we agree to disagree.

For s--ts and giggles, I did check the Web to see if there was any data on the stiffness of the 2300 in comparison to other bikes and Damon Rinard included one in his deflection tests: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard_frametest.html

You could probably conclude anything you want from how it compared with the other bikes he measured; more deflection than some and less than others. The data did bear out that the rear stays were the weaker part of the frame which was my recollection.

Regardless, I wouldn't buy one at this point except to look at.

TandemGeek

Shimano's 600 group also showed up on 8 speed bikes: in fact, my '92 had the 8 speed 600 group on it. Again, I would agree with Sydney on looking for something with at least 9 speed components. I think this thread's divergent viewpoints on perceptions regarding how good or bad a given frame performed bears out the problem with defining what's good or bad about one frame material or design vs. another, never mind how the wheels and tires factor into the equation. Expectations have a lot to do with as do past experience... never mind fading memories. I last rode my 2300 in 1998 and the bikes it replaced were all lugged steel Ralieghs produced in the mid-80's. The Trek was replaced by an Erickson custom steel bike made out of Deddaccia tubing with a carbon fork and a Dean Ti Castanza with a carbon fork.

In short, if you're looking to buy used and aren't looking for a specific bike or frame, try to shop locally so you can test ride a few bikes. If nothing else, you may be able to narrow your search down to a certain type of material or brand that appealed to you on a test ride where the owner was asking a bit too much and then look for an example of that bike in the classifieds, Ebay, etc...

boazmoss

With all due respect, considering the inherited stiffness of Alu and/or carbon ,Is there a chance that 'limp' means a lack of momentum ?