# Old Trek 2300 w/Carbon Tubes?



## rpiontek (Feb 10, 2005)

I'm looking at picking up a late '80s early '90s Trek 2300 with carbon tubes. Condition looks good, but I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts about it or if there was anything I should beware of?


----------



## botto (Jul 22, 2005)

by most accounts it's a 'noodly' ride, and i'd personally be a bit concerned about whether the bonding of the tubes to lugs still worked.

IMO it's a collectors item, not a bike to be taken out on the road.




rpiontek said:


> I'm looking at picking up a late '80s early '90s Trek 2300 with carbon tubes. Condition looks good, but I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts about it or if there was anything I should beware of?


----------



## spin150 (May 24, 2005)

*I have one*

Haven't used it on the road for a couple of years but it is still going strong on the trainer. There is some corrosion at the carbon/aluminum joints but it still works. Probaly some 15000 road miles on it before I got another bike. If it looks good and it fits go for it - one of the early ventures in carbon bikes.


----------



## tube_ee (Aug 25, 2003)

*Great frames.*

Bonded carbon bikes got a bad rap because of some early european frames, particularly the Vitus / Peugeot frames. Companies that had been doing bonded aluminum frames simply substituted carbon tubes for aluminum, without changing glues, or accounting for the fact that you now had dissimilar materials being joined. The frames failed at the joints with grim regularity. Unfortunately, the technique got the bad rap, not just those particular frames.

Trek, on the other hand, did it right. I worked at a shop that used to be a Trek dealer. We still honored their free tune-up policy, and I saw a lot of bonded Treks, both Al and CF. I've never seen or heard of a joint failure in a bonded Trek frame. Our senior wrench had worked there since 1987, he'd never heard of it either. Also, Trek's current carbon frames are glued. Carbon tubes to carbon lugs. They don't fail either.

If you've ever flown in an airplane, you've trusted your life to mixed-material bonded joints. It can be done right. Trek does it right.

The old 2300 frames are not light by modern standards, at around 3.5 pounds for the bare frame. But they ride nice, handle well, are super strong, and deserve to be ridden. About the only thing wrong with them is the early-90s paint jobs. And no, they're not noodly. Frame stiffness doesn't matter anyway, but even if it did, the 2300 is stiff enough

--Shannon.

--Shannon


----------



## The Carlster (Sep 16, 2005)

I agree w/ shannon - if you can get one cheap - ride it, it'll be fine


----------



## jakebud (Jan 5, 2006)

*Trek 2300/2100*

I have a 91 model Trek 2100, a 105 equipped machine with the same frame as the 2300. The bike has over 25,000 miles on it, rides great, and well, I love it! I see no end to its useful life anytime soon. Its not my primary ride anymore, but it still gets plenty of use.

SPIKE


----------



## fbagatelleblack (Mar 31, 2005)

rpiontek said:


> I'm looking at picking up a late '80s early '90s Trek 2300 with carbon tubes. Condition looks good, but I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts about it or if there was anything I should beware of?


If it's cheap, buy it and ride the [email protected] out of it. In the unlikely event of a bond failure, the frame will give you plenty of notice before anything catastrophic happens. 

You can ride an old, bonded-style Trek frame with the tubes and lugs assembled without any epoxy. Yes, it would probably feel a bit funny, but it won't collapse on you.

One other thing. PAINT THE FRAME to avoid damage to the CF from UV radiation (sunlight).

- FBB


----------



## EDBEWON (Apr 25, 2006)

I have owned a TREK 2300 composite frame for 15 years and it is still a good ride.....I use it now mainly as a back up bike. That bike has to have atleast 50,000 miles on it and still climbs and cruises just fine.........


----------



## BugMan (Feb 16, 2004)

I had a 1993 model - it was my first real road bike, equipped with Shimano 600 (which eventually became Ultegra), but was stolen after just 2 years. I loved the bike but bought something else to replace it because the carbon/aluminum bonds had started to 'creak'. I don't know if this translated to any loss of performance or structural integrity, but it swayed me (at the time) towards monocoque carbon construction.

Take it for a test spin if you can - if it doesn't creak it should be fine.

I still see a couple of guys around here riding them.


----------



## godspeed (Jan 31, 2006)

I have seen a couple that the bonding has come undone at the lug and they were given warrenty without question. Check the lugs. Other than that a buddy uses a 2150, the same frame, as a winter commuter in Chicago and it is still going strong.


----------



## sxr-racer (Dec 22, 2007)

I have one that a friend basically gave me, not sure of the year, full Dura-Ace with down tube shifters, trying to decide if I should try and get it rideable or just go ahead and get new bike, Chip could come back and ask for it back, would hate to dump money in it and then loose it..


----------



## PseuZQ (Mar 27, 2002)

I've got a 2200; same frame with 105 parts plus some upgrades. Yes, it was noodly until I replaced the al fork with CF with less rake. 

It's my commuter/backup now. Great bike.


----------



## dmar836 (Nov 17, 2007)

I have a 2200 and did the MS150 on it last year. Rode great. Mine happened to flex a bit only as I would really get on it as in a sprint up hill. That's an assumption from the way it would skip out of gear but it could have been other things. Not the lightest at 23lbs but with the components from my newer bikes, it could be built down to under 20lbs. JMO
I bought it used from my GF's friend and it was my first real road bike. I liked it!
My GF's father has a 2300 and was hit by a MBZ in a 30mph descent. Tubes did separate at the lug but so did he and that wasn't the frame's fault!


----------



## dmar836 (Nov 17, 2007)

BTW, one of my Trek System3 stems (chromoly) developed a crack on the clamp so watch that closely - as with any stem really. Blue Michelins match well huh? On one descent on the MS150, it developed a smooth loose weave and I thought the frame had finally separated at the BB ................. just a flat.


----------



## cat4rider (Nov 10, 2006)

I had the Halloween model, (orange and yellow graphics) as my first "real" road bike. I put 10000 miles on it, sold it cheap to a friend's son who rides the snot out of it as a cross trainer from his college cross country team. 
Great beginner bike.


----------



## lousylegs (Jul 15, 2005)

*About the only negative thing that i have heard about them*

is the chance of corrosion at the lug/tube area. There is a specific name for it, I think it is Galvanic corrosion, but if the frame is clean, buy it and ride it. 

I knew a guy who had an old Speciliazed Epic that was a lugged aluminum/carbon frame from the early 90s and he rode the h#ll out of that frame before finally replacing it this summer. This frame obviously could take the punishment as this guy was probably 6'2" and at least 220.


----------



## JaeP (Mar 12, 2002)

*Go Retro.*



The Carlster said:


> I agree w/ shannon - if you can get one cheap - ride it, it'll be fine


Yes, but don't forget your neon (fill in the blank). There's a local bike shop that still has neon yellow handlebar tape.


----------



## BenR (Dec 14, 2001)

*had a 1995 2100*

with the same blue/nude paint job as demonstrated by dmar836. Very nice looking bike in person. There was also a gorgeous green and red of the same vintage. Some of the earlier ones were indeed hideous.

Mine came apart at the bb/seat tube lug after about 4 years. Don't remember what sort of mileage. I'd have to say that if you find one that's already been well-used, at this point it's probably not going to come apart. I'd get it cheap and accept the small risk. Shannon has been exposed to far more Treks than I have, but I know 2 other people who also had lugs come apart on theirs - both were somewhere on the seatpost lug. So, maybe this was a freak occurance, but there's at least some truth to the Trek bonded frames being a problem at some point during production. The bonded frames were no longer being produced when mine broke, and I was pretty adamant about not winding up with an aluminum replacement (they weren't that great at the time), so Trek gave me an OCLV with no argument. Can't complain about that!

The frame itself had a very nice ride. Handling was balanced and neutral. I prefer much more nervous frames, even for stage racing and general riding, but the Trek seemed like a nice compromise for doing pretty much anything. But, I disagree with what Shannon said about stiffness (other than the fact that it isn't necessarily faster). Part of the reason for the nice ride was the frame was a noodle and the aluminum fork was a pogo stick. If you want a similar frame that is stiffer and much more nervous, a Specialized Epic of same vintage would be another option. Of course it is heavier and rougher riding. Both are nice, strong frames if the bonding is done correctly.

I've been riding a Specialized Epic as grocery hauler/rain/roubaix/questionable crit course/time trial bike for 5 years now and the thing has been indestructable.


----------



## mark4501 (Jul 27, 2007)

If the bike fits you and the price is right, go for it.

I've got a 1992 model w/ Shimano 105. it's my secondary bike now, but it's still in great shape. mine weighs 23 lbs as shown. never felt any noodly feeling. I've enjoyed the bike as my primary for 15 years. lost track of how many miles it's got - thousands for sure.

note to DMAR836...if you're skipping out of gear, it could be a wear and tear issue and you need a new rear cassette and chain. when I would really bear down, my chain would slip into another gear. once I put on a new cassette and chain it cleared it up. :thumbsup:


----------



## 607 (Mar 17, 2006)

I got mine for free. I rode it for a 2 years stock with upgraded wheels. I raced it a few times and I get a newer bike. My Shimano 600 shifters had worn out so I bought a ENO hub and turned her into a fixed gear. She gets ridden every day. I bought a carbon fork too, the performance brand works great. No problems at all. I don;t know how old it is though. Dark grey and carbon.


----------



## pyrtwist (Feb 5, 2008)

I have a 1994 2200, the only year Trek had the balls to sell a Campy bike. No issues in the frame at all. Comfortable, fast and climbs well and descends like a demon. I purchased a 2100 from a friend last year just because I love the frame and if you do not want the 2300 I'd take it. BTW, I met someone who's 1994 2200 had a a bad joint and she exchanged it for a Madone frame free of charge.

The bike still looks new despite countless miles. Saddly I purchased a Lemond Versailles this month to replace the 2200 as top bike in my fleet.


----------



## jhibb (May 24, 2008)

*trek 2300*



rpiontek said:


> I'm looking at picking up a late '80s early '90s Trek 2300 with carbon tubes. Condition looks good, but I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts about it or if there was anything I should beware of?


How much is being asked for it?
I own one and could maybe give a better deal.
I could email you pictures of it.


----------



## bwana (Feb 4, 2005)

jhibb said:


> How much is being asked for it?
> I own one and could maybe give a better deal.
> I could email you pictures of it.


You do realize that you are a couple years late on this, right?


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Early carbon frames with aluminum lugs supposedly had an issue with coming apart at the lugs, but I have owned a 2200 in the past and know many others who still ride them from the Trek 2100 and Giant 980c to the old school Specialized Allez (not to be confused with the newer Allez that are aluminum). None of them ever had any problems and the bikes ride nicely.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

botto said:


> by most accounts it's a 'noodly' ride, and i'd personally be a bit concerned about whether the bonding of the tubes to lugs still worked.
> 
> IMO it's a collectors item, not a bike to be taken out on the road.


Right... because the epoxy holding the tubes to the lugs will randomly fail. 

Remember, if there's anything, the CF tubes will randomly explode! Not the bonds.


----------

