# Difference between Madone 5.2 and 5000



## soccerismylife (Jul 1, 2004)

I am looking to upgrade to a new all carbon bike. Other than the components and wheels, is there a difference in the frame? Does they ride any different? Thanks.


----------



## Trek_envy (Jun 15, 2004)

*My family's experienes.*

My wife rides a 5000, and her father rides a 5200 - same size.

They have switched bikes in the past, and neither can tell a difference in ride. They are essentially the same bike. The only real differene is the weight, and its a minimal one at that. I'd say ~0.5 lbs at most. Really, its difficult to feel it when you pick up the two bikes. That being said, these are both last years models, so I cant compare the 2005s.


----------



## soccerismylife (Jul 1, 2004)

Thanks for the reply. That's how it looked to me also from reading the website, but I haven't been able to test them yet. Wouldn't there be a differencve between the wheels and other components?


----------



## dcp (Feb 17, 2005)

*Frame is different*

The Madone frame is different. The tubes are shaped and the joint at the head tube is formed as a single piece which is supposed to make it stiffer. The tube shapes are supposed to make the frame stiffer and more aero.

The Madone 5.2 replaces the 5200. The 5000 uses the same frameset as the 5200, but with lower grades of components (but still seemingly good stuff). Your will get 9 speed instead of the latest thing, 10 speed, and heavier stuff all around. The current version of the Madone 5.2 is still, curiously, using 9 speed anyway.

I have never had this particular frame, but my wife has a 5200 and thinks it is wonderful.

EDITED because I screwed up.



soccerismylife said:


> I am looking to upgrade to a new all carbon bike. Other than the components and wheels, is there a difference in the frame? Does they ride any different? Thanks.


----------



## emv3003 (Feb 9, 2005)

*5000 vs 5.2*

I have the Trek 5000 from 2005. It is a great bike and I just couldn't justify buying anything more expensive for the type of recreational riding that I do. The 5000 is great at the price point.

The frame on the bikes are slightly different as is stated above. One of the big differences are the rear seat stays. The 5.2 uses an A configuration while the 5000 has a single post before breaking into the rear seat stays. The A frame is supposed to be stiffer and stronger. The other notable difference is the aero package which gives the 5.2 a more non-traditional look compared to the 5000. Components may vary as well depending on the LBS and the set up they have at the store on an already built bike. Both bikes use the OCLV 120 so weight of the frames will be almost identicle. The different components may weigh slightly more or less depending on which ones they use.

If I was going to choose something other than the 5000 from Trek I would step up and purchase one of the higher end frames. There was not enough of a difference in the frame technology between the 5000 and 5.2 to make me choose the 5.2.

Good Luck


----------



## Trek_envy (Jun 15, 2004)

*morning - no - coffee - fog*

Sorry about that.... In my morning fog yesterday, I read 5200. duh.

Yeah - the 5.2 is not the same bike at all. The tubeset on the 5.2 is made in a completely different way.

The 5000/5200/5500/5900 have all joints lugged, with glued tubes, and a mono-stay rear end.

The Madone series uses a single piece top and head tube assembly. The rest of the joints are lugged. The rear end is also an A-frame design. From what I've read, this family of bikes is by design stiffer than the the 5000 series. I also think that the one peice head/top tube makes for a lighter frame. The seat tube on the non-SL Madones is supposed to be a bit more rigid as well.

Don't take to much from this though. The 5000 is still a helluva bike. For the money, I think it's unbeatable.

As for component differences:

In 2005, they use a Bontrager crank, with outboard bearings; like the Ultegra 10. From what I've read, its a great crank, and weighs about the same as Ultegra.

The Bonty Race wheels are a solid wheelset, using the same rims as the 2004 Race-lites, with a different hub.

I'm not sure about the fork. I think its a bit heavier, but not too much.

All in all, its a great bike. I was considering buying one this year, but then my christmas bonus was bigger than expected, so I went for the Madone 5.2.


----------



## soccerismylife (Jul 1, 2004)

Thanks to everyone. I'm finally going to get to test ride the Treks and will ride bothe the Madone and 5000 to see if I can notice a difference.


----------



## dcp (Feb 17, 2005)

*Trek 5000 Frames in Paris-Roubaix*

I thought you might find this somewhat encouraging:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/apr05/roubaix05/tech/?id=/tech/2005/features/hincapie_bike

Trek used the 5000 frame as the basis for its 2005 Paris-Roubaix bike with an "Elasto-cel spring compound" as a shock absorber in the seat stay. The design would not have worked with the Madone seat stay, which is why Trek picked it over the Madone which it wants to more heavily promote. It still demonstrates that Trek considers the 5000 frame very tough and raceworthy. And why not? The frame has an incredible race history.

I found it interesting, however, that Trek built the frames out of 120 carbon instead of 110. It might be stonger or offer a smoother ride, but it is heavier and less stiff which are characteristics racers care about (far more than I do). I don't know.



soccerismylife said:


> Thanks to everyone. I'm finally going to get to test ride the Treks and will ride bothe the Madone and 5000 to see if I can notice a difference.


----------



## JP (Feb 8, 2005)

*My 5000*

is a 2005. I do like it as a good value. Oddly, it has a 110 fork. I can really tell the difference versus the 120.


----------

