# Trek 5900 versus today's frames?



## wallyh3 (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm still riding my 2004 5900 Superlight. This was the last year of the 5900 and the lightest. About 1000 grams. It's got Dura Ace 7800 10 speed so I'm not in much need of a new bike for a drivetrain upgrade. But I'm wondering if this frame gives up much to any of the newer frames. I've considered the 2010 Cannondale SuperSix and 2010 Cervelo R3 SL. I'm starting to wonder why even get a new bike if there's not going to be some noticeable improvement in ride characteristics. My question is how does this light, stiff 5900 frame measure up today? Thanks for any input.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I have the same bike and love it. At 200# +/- it seems to take my weight without much flex. So far I have no lust for a new ride. I cannot say I have riden any of the new frames to compare. I would expect the new frames to be marginally better, but I doubt it they would be night and day better.

I too am curious as to a camparison with new frames.


----------



## rtarh2o (Dec 18, 2009)

I have no idea how your Trek rides, but in my opinion the newer frames may be better for the pro's and strong riders but not for average riders like myself. 
I have a 2001 Look KG281 and a newer Felt Z1, the Felt is noticeably lighter and even though it is a comfort frame (by todays standards) it is still not as anywhere near comfortable as my older Look. 
What you gain in light weight and power transfer you give up in comfort in my opinion. Personally I would rather be comfortably fast than uncomfortably faster. 
My Look is still built up to a 16 lb bike, the Felt is a pound lighter but noisier and stiffer. 
I am sure others will have their opinions though.
Rusty


----------



## pdh777 (Oct 7, 2005)

rtarh2o - the difference in the ride characteristics probably have more to do with the carbon lay up than the year the bikes were made. That being said, the newer bike would probably be more in tune with what the manufacturer wanted to acheive than the older one - due to the advance of the builders knowledge about carbon lay up and fine tuning, from the early part of the decade. Don't know if it makes sense to compare different brands from different eras to say this is how all bikes were then and this is how all bikes are today.

Trek is a good example of the above:
The major difference I have noticed between Trek's carbon bikes in general in the last 6 -7 years is:
The older Treks had a kind of dead feel to them - like you weren't totally connected to the bike and the road, you didn't really feel the bike. I felt this way about several of the trek models pre 2007, including the 5900. The 5900 was also very stiff. 
As a comparison the newer high end Treks provide much more feedback and IMHO more comfortable while retaining good ride characteristics for acceleration and comfort.

To answer the original question - would you realize the difference between something current vs your older bike - probably - usimg the price level of your 5900 in modern terms this becomes a $4,000 question.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

All bikes are basically the same.


----------



## rcnute (Dec 21, 2004)

CleavesF said:


> All bikes are basically the same.


So true.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

If you're already liking how the 5900 feels, I don't see the reason to replace it. Sure, there's something that's probably "better feeling", but what need is there for better if the 5900 has compeltely grown on you?

Performance improvements are negligible. Just love the bike for continuing to stay under you and whatever you've thrown at it.


----------



## alias33 (Sep 15, 2008)

i notice a difference between my 4.5 madone and my 6.9 project one madone. The ride quality and the over all livelyness of the 6.9 is way better and worth the change


----------



## IKnowYouRider (Jul 1, 2003)

Ride quality and handling are of course subjective but I'll throw in my two cents. This year the team I'm on is riding Treks (5.2, the 6 series wouldn't be in till april...). Anyway I was a little apprehensive since the only bike I have ever really hated, was the older Trek 5200, rode like a piece of wood (cliched...I know), and handled like a dump truck. I was pleasantly surprised with the new bike...definitely much more "lively" than the older treks, coming from a 5000 series bike it may seem like it rides a little harsher, but I like to feel the road a little, but the handling of the bike is far and away much better, much quicker handling without feeling unstable/twitchy. Based just on the handling aspects I'd at least give some different bikes a test ride....YMMV

wayne


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

If the 5900 was a terrible riding frame, Trek wouldn't have sold many of them and you would have been sure to hear complaints about flexiness, durability, weight, and such.

But you don't.

The roughly 100gram difference between your 5900 and today's state of the art carbon frames is barely a big gulp from your waterbottle. And I ask you; if you tossed your full waterbottle during a drag race to the top of the hill, would you suddenly vault to the front?

Your Trek is plenty worthy of anything you can throw at it; YOU are the limitation.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I have been riding a Trek 5500 for a long long time. It replaced a 5200 that broke at the BB. Between the two bikes its been probably 17 years.
I like the 5500, it's been comfortable and enjoyable to ride.
Today there are certainly lighter and stiffer bikes out there, but I am not sure they would make me ride significantly faster. Still I lust after new bikes constantly. I did test ride a Time VXR once and was very impressed with that bike. Others I have ridden I was not happy with and many just felt too harsh. So I will keep the 5500 until something better come along and I can afford to spend a big wad of money for minimal gain.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

Actually I was going to ask that question. I have ridden an unfairly large percentage of the high end bikes over the years and the 5900 (yeah, I had 3 of these as well) was a ctually a very nice frame. Not much inferior to the $5-6K frames today. 

Only issue is the long and low "pro-fit", which was horrible but took Trek 12 years to replace.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

alias33 said:


> i notice a difference between my 4.5 madone and my 6.9 project one madone. The ride quality and the over all livelyness of the 6.9 is way better and worth the change


 The 6.9 should feel different. It is made of OCLV carbon whereas the 4.5 is TCT carbon


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Ventruck said:


> If you're already liking how the 5900 feels, I don't see the reason to replace it. Sure, there's something that's probably "better feeling", but what need is there for better if the 5900 has compeltely grown on you?
> 
> Performance improvements are negligible. Just love the bike for continuing to stay under you and whatever you've thrown at it.


+1. A 5900 is still a highly regarded bike. If you like it, don't get rid of it. Besides, it may even be a collectible one day. It's 110 OCLV with Dura Ace. I doubt you'll like many of the newer bikes if you like the 5900 and the ones you will like won't really be that much- if at all- any better.


----------



## desmond88 (Feb 19, 2010)

rcnute said:


> So true.


 but the price can have vast difference.


----------



## VBKLINGEN (Jun 2, 2006)

I think the main difference from the early carbon frames to the modern, is that there is a lot less resin i the modern. Ridewise it is still geometry and craftmanship that counts.

I have a C50 and a Master Olympic. I find that my condition and mood has the biggest infuence on how I look back at the ride.


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

*I'm gonna weigh in on this.*

Now I have several carbon bikes including a 2001 Trek 5500 OCLV which I rode this morning. I rode my 2010 Giant TCR Advanced and my Mongoose Bosberg in the previous week. 

They all have their own ride characteristics and strengths. One is not faster or "better" but I do prefer one to the others. I also recently sold my Isaac Impulse which was an almost $3k frameset alone. Fit is the key with any bike and if you Trek fits you well, save your money unless you just want a new bike. But I would hold onto the Trek. 

Of all my bikes, I LOVE the ride of the *Mongoose Bosberg *the best. Go figure. I think a lot of people justify their newer purchases as it is rare to see a lot of people say that their older bikes are better.


----------



## apark (Mar 12, 2007)

Lazyrider said:


>


Lazyrider, love that vintage Trek.


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

apark said:


> Lazyrider, love that vintage Trek.


Thanks,
And to think I almost got rid of it. Instead, I broke down my Isaac which is a nice overpriced chinese made frame and put the components onto my Trek. It really is a classic american frame. Iconic as one person described once. I did dig the look of the Isaac though.


----------



## parkmonster (Mar 23, 2010)

wallyh3 said:


> I'm still riding my 2004 5900 Superlight. This was the last year of the 5900 and the lightest. About 1000 grams. It's got Dura Ace 7800 10 speed so I'm not in much need of a new bike for a drivetrain upgrade. But I'm wondering if this frame gives up much to any of the newer frames. I've considered the 2010 Cannondale SuperSix and 2010 Cervelo R3 SL. I'm starting to wonder why even get a new bike if there's not going to be some noticeable improvement in ride characteristics. My question is how does this light, stiff 5900 frame measure up today? Thanks for any input.


Wallyh3, I have ridden a wide variety of high-end frames from the latest carbon to magnesium to aluminum, etc. (see stable in my sig) - but I'd have to say that the larger differences come in the frame material, wheels, and geometry (of course training), than whether it's a Trek 5900 or new Pinarello Dogma 60.1. As we all know, much more of this debate is a combination of marketing and our desire for new toys than real advantage in speed. The 5900 is a good combination of comfort and weight (definitely not stiff by today's standards, especially in head tube and bottom bracket), and while it's no longer the best technology, I'd say if it was good enough for Lance back in 2000-2003 to win the Tour on, it's good enough for the rest of us.

Still one of my all-time favorites is this one and I would never get rid of it:


----------



## parkmonster (Mar 23, 2010)

Lazyrider said:


> Thanks,
> And to think I almost got rid of it. Instead, I broke down my Isaac which is a nice overpriced chinese made frame and put the components onto my Trek. It really is a classic american frame. Iconic as one person described once. I did dig the look of the Isaac though.


Lazyrider, don't get rid of it. I regret selling mine:


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

parkmonster said:


> Lazyrider, don't get rid of it. I regret selling mine:


Nice set up. I like the mismatched fork. Hmmm, I could save and assload of weight swapping out my Trek fork which is a dog. However, with 09 Rival and those Easton Slx wheels, my Trek is 16lbs 10ounces complete with pedals, cages and computer. Not bad. 

BTW, that white bar tape looks great. Glad I held onto mine.


----------



## parkmonster (Mar 23, 2010)

Lazyrider said:


> Nice set up. I like the mismatched fork. Hmmm, I could save and assload of weight swapping out my Trek fork which is a dog. However, with 09 Rival and those Easton Slx wheels, my Trek is 16lbs 10ounces complete with pedals, cages and computer. Not bad.
> 
> BTW, that white bar tape looks great. Glad I held onto mine.


Thanks - that white frame is classic. Still goes very fast when they come up every once in a while on ebay.

Easton SLX wheels seem like a great choice - never tried them but they're Velomax wheels after Easton purchased, right?


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

parkmonster said:


> Thanks - that white frame is classic. Still goes very fast when they come up every once in a while on ebay.
> 
> Easton SLX wheels seem like a great choice - never tried them but they're Velomax wheels after Easton purchased, right?


Yeah,
Actually on one set I purchased, they sent them with Velomax on the skewers. $ for $ they are great wheels and pretty light (1400 grams or so). You got me thinking of picking up an Easton SLX fork and putting it on the Trek. Maybe I will do that and add a nice King Headset in the near future.


----------



## parkmonster (Mar 23, 2010)

Lazyrider said:


> Yeah,
> Actually on one set I purchased, they sent them with Velomax on the skewers. $ for $ they are great wheels and pretty light (1400 grams or so). You got me thinking of picking up an Easton SLX fork and putting it on the Trek. Maybe I will do that and add a nice King Headset in the near future.


I've heard great things about Easton forks. I think the Bontrager XXX Lite forks are some of the best ever produced (old Klein fork until Trek acquired Klein) -- I like their smaller rake and the straight blade look. A King headset, besides lasting forever, make any frame look higher quality. They have a very nice design.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I am not sure how the 5900 compares to the 5500.
I guess the carbon is higher grade.
I was out riding my 5500 at lunch today with a few coworkers and they were going pretty hard.
The 5500 just feels too soft and mushy when I really push it and hard climbing.
I only weigh 135lbs and do not have all that much power.
If i am just going at an easy to moderate pace its not as noticeable, but makes me want to try something more responsive.


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

jnbrown said:


> I am not sure how the 5900 compares to the 5500.
> I guess the carbon is higher grade.
> I was out riding my 5500 at lunch today with a few coworkers and they were going pretty hard.
> The 5500 just feels too soft and mushy when I really push it and hard climbing.
> ...



"Mushy"????? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBTcfRpnH1A


----------



## wvucyclist (Sep 6, 2007)

Your bike is old and outdated, it will feel like poo compared to new bikes. You should definitely sell it, to me. I will do you a favor, and give you $200 for it, complete, shipped. Since it's so useless, I'll probably recycle it, sell it for scrap, or ride the hell out of it. PM me and I'll give you my shipping address.

Thanks,
Gef


----------



## rtarh2o (Dec 18, 2009)

pdh777 said:


> rtarh2o - the difference in the ride characteristics probably have more to do with the carbon lay up than the year the bikes were made. That being said, the newer bike would probably be more in tune with what the manufacturer wanted to acheive than the older one - due to the advance of the builders knowledge about carbon lay up and fine tuning, from the early part of the decade. Don't know if it makes sense to compare different brands from different eras to say this is how all bikes were then and this is how all bikes are today.


PDH777, good point, I failed to think about that. I guess my main point is the fact that all newer bikes are stiffer and lighter than the ones from several years ago. I have never ridden a Trek but have ridden an older Giant TCR and currently have a Felt Z1. They both ride nice and are comfortable but my old Look is just amazing, no comparison. 
I guess it may come more down to frame construction, or type, lugged or monocoque maybe? I know the C40, Look and Time frames all were extremely comfortable rides and were similar construction but even the newer versions of these are stiffer and lighter and although I have never ridden any of them, I am guessing they are not as comfortable as the older versions. 
I would still love to have any of these newer frames but I am not of the opinion that newer is necessarily better for average riders. 
Rusty


----------



## bycycles (Mar 20, 2010)

Yeah, LA is really wasted megawatts on that "mushy" frame. 

I'm sure a 2010 sub-900g frame is "better' in some ways than an old-school Trek OCLV but most of the improvements are probably irrelevant to 99.9% of real-world cyclists. That said, there's nothing wrong with wanting or getting a new bike. After all, for most of us cycling is a hobby and part of the enjoyment comes from trying out new equipment. Just don't go into it thinking it is going to transform you as a cyclist or significantly change your riding experience in the long-term.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

While you are probably correct, we don't know that back in 1999 Lance was riding some special beefed up version of OCLV and not just a stock frame.
Most other teams at the time were on steel, ti or aluminum frames, Trek was about the only company making carbon.
Also in subsequent years I think the bikes he was riding (like Madone) got stiffer.
I have to say some of the bikes I have test ridden sure feel faster, but it could all be perception and sensation.


----------



## andresmuro (Dec 11, 2007)

parkmonster said:


> Wallyh3, I have ridden a wide variety of high-end frames from the latest carbon to magnesium to aluminum, etc. (see stable in my sig) - but I'd have to say that the larger differences come in the frame material, wheels, and geometry (of course training), than whether it's a Trek 5900 or new Pinarello Dogma 60.1. As we all know, much more of this debate is a combination of marketing and our desire for new toys than real advantage in speed. The 5900 is a good combination of comfort and weight (definitely not stiff by today's standards, especially in head tube and bottom bracket), and while it's no longer the best technology, I'd say if it was good enough for Lance back in 2000-2003 to win the Tour on, it's good enough for the rest of us.
> 
> Still one of my all-time favorites is this one and I would never get rid of it:


BB stiffness of later 2000 bikes is due in part to external BB. I still have square taper on my bike and could care less.


----------



## thegock (May 16, 2006)

*C50 comparison*



parkmonster said:


> I've heard great things about Easton forks. I think the Bontrager XXX Lite forks are some of the best ever produced (old Klein fork until Trek acquired Klein) -- I like their smaller rake and the straight blade look. A King headset, besides lasting forever, make any frame look higher quality. They have a very nice design.


Parkmonster,

How do you compare the C-50 to the other members of the stable. Just curious because I have had my nag for a couple of years and enjoy the ride.


----------



## bycycles (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't doubt that some modern bikes are _marginally _ better (stiffer, lighter, more aero etc.) than a Trek 5900. I just don't think the difference matters when it comes to _performance_ for an enthusiast, rec. rider, or even a Cat 3 racer. Of course, performance is only one aspect of the total subjective cycling experience. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have the lightest, stiffest ride in the neighborhood if that is what turns you on. I just wonder how many people would admit to dropping $5000+ on a new bike thinking that it was somehow going to transform them as a rider only to find out that the new rig isn't that much different from their perfectly good old one. Or worse, that the old bike was actually better and more fun to ride?


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

jnbrown said:


> While you are probably correct, we don't know that back in 1999 Lance was riding some special beefed up version of OCLV and not just a stock frame.
> Most other teams at the time were on steel, ti or aluminum frames, Trek was about the only company making carbon.
> Also in subsequent years I think the bikes he was riding (like Madone) got stiffer.
> I have to say some of the bikes I have test ridden sure feel faster, but it could all be perception and sensation.


The whole Postal Team rode stock frames then. My white Postal frame is exact one team rode to win the TDF. Trek evolved as Lance kept winning and they came up with the 5900 with him in mind and made that available to the public. 

But in 1999-2000, they were off the rack bikes. As you can see from my previous posts, I own new carbon frames and can tell you first hand that the Trek holds its own against the newer frames. It feels different, but so do all my new bikes based on their geometry and carbon lay up etc. The Trek feels more muted but not "mushy". In fact it is pretty stiff in the bb.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

jnbrown said:


> While you are probably correct, we don't know that back in 1999 Lance was riding some special beefed up version of OCLV and not just a stock frame.
> Most other teams at the time were on steel, ti or aluminum frames, Trek was about the only company making carbon.
> Also in subsequent years I think the bikes he was riding (like Madone) got stiffer.
> I have to say some of the bikes I have test ridden sure feel faster, but it could all be perception and sensation.


Postal including Armstrong were on stock OCLV's and Trek made a big thing about this in their advertising. It was only with the 5900 that they started to give the team frames first and then release them in the autumn with the next model year's bikes. I can remember testing a 5900 when we first got them in the Trek dealer I worked for. Light and stiff but no feel to it. Compared to the VXR I bought a few years later it was wooden. The Time was introduced only a year or two after the 5900 but was completely different. Take a Dedacciai EOM16.5 frame and put it on an epic diet without losing any of the positive attributes and you'll end up with a VXR. 

As far as Postal being the first to be on carbon you might want to check your facts. Tony Rominger and Clas-Mapei were on the first C40's in 1993. before that Look supplied Lemond & Hinault in the 1980's and both Peugeot and Kas were on Vitus Carbon 9's.


----------



## bycycles (Mar 20, 2010)

Lazyrider said:


> The whole Postal Team rode stock frames then. My white Postal frame is exact one team rode to win the TDF. Trek evolved as Lance kept winning and they came up with the 5900 with him in mind and made that available to the public.
> 
> But in 1999-2000, they were off the rack bikes. As you can see from my previous posts, I own new carbon frames and can tell you first hand that the Trek holds its own against the newer frames. It feels different, but so do all my new bikes based on their geometry and carbon lay up etc. The Trek feels more muted but not "mushy". In fact it is pretty stiff in the bb.


IIRC, the 5900 that LA first rode was actually even lighter than the bikes used in more recent Tours due to the fact that the UCI had yet to introduce the minimum weight limit. It was, and is, way more bike than any of us needs (from a performance standpoint).


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

bycycles said:


> IIRC, the 5900 that LA first rode was actually even lighter than the bikes used in more recent Tours due to the fact that the UCI had yet to introduce the minimum weight limit. It was, and is, way more bike than any of us needs (from a performance standpoint).



True,
In fact, my Trek's frame weight is close to that of my 2010 Giant TCR Advanced. It is the fork on this bike that is a heavy dog, but it matches. Here's a better picture of my resurrected Trek. Swapping the Rival over (replaced 9 speed Dura Ace) lightened it up and with the Easton Slxs wheels, this is 16lb 10 oz complete with pedals, cages and computer. Not bad even by today's standards.


----------



## parkmonster (Mar 23, 2010)

Lazyrider said:


> True,
> In fact, my Trek's frame weight is close to that of my 2010 Giant TCR Advanced. It is the fork on this bike that is a heavy dog, but it matches. Here's a better picture of my resurrected Trek. Swapping the Rival over (replaced 9 speed Dura Ace) lightened it up and with the Easton Slxs wheels, this is 16lb 10 oz complete with pedals, cages and computer. Not bad even by today's standards.


Gorgeous. Even by tomorrow's standards....


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

andresmuro said:


> BB stiffness of later 2000 bikes is due in part to external BB. I still have square taper on my bike and could care less.


Do you ever ride that?


----------



## parkmonster (Mar 23, 2010)

thegock said:


> Parkmonster,
> 
> How do you compare the C-50 to the other members of the stable. Just curious because I have had my nag for a couple of years and enjoy the ride.


Hey thegock, missed your question before -- the C-50 is just a beautiful all-rounder. Love the classic geometry, the lugged design makes the ride super smooth. It is not as solid as the Dogmas but just as responsive. The only 2 bikes I could be blindfolded and tell exactly what I'm riding (all other things like wheels being equal) would be my C50 and the magnesium Dogma. Therefore, those are the 2 I can't see myself getting rid of.

I believe that if you base your attachment to a bike on the latest technology, you'll quickly get sick of it and want the newest technology. If you base it on ride quality, emotion, aesthetics, and history, you will always be happy. And if you're happy, you can ride faster.


----------



## parkmonster (Mar 23, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> Do you ever ride that?


Ultimobici - I think you're referring to my 5900. That particular one in the photo, no since it is hanging on my wall -- but I do have an identical frame that I've beaten and crashed over the years (luckily no structural damage) and plan to send to cyclart soon to get restored. It has been stripped of parts recently in preparation. Those frames are impossible to come by in brand new condition.


----------



## jrob1775 (Jan 21, 2010)

wallyh3 said:


> I'm still riding my 2004 5900 Superlight. This was the last year of the 5900 and the lightest. About 1000 grams. It's got Dura Ace 7800 10 speed so I'm not in much need of a new bike for a drivetrain upgrade. But I'm wondering if this frame gives up much to any of the newer frames. I've considered the 2010 Cannondale SuperSix and 2010 Cervelo R3 SL. I'm starting to wonder why even get a new bike if there's not going to be some noticeable improvement in ride characteristics. My question is how does this light, stiff 5900 frame measure up today? Thanks for any input.



I have owned a few of the bikes you are considering, so I can give you my opinion. My first carbon bike was a 2003 Trek 5900 which I loved and rode for almost 5 years. I was coming off of a Cannondale aluminum so the difference was night and day.

I now work at a bike shop so I have the opportunity to ride a new high end bike every year. After the Trek, I had a 08 Cannondale Super six, 09 Cervelo R3, and currently ride a 2010 Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL3. All of which are a substantial step up from the 03 Trek 5900.

They are all lighter frames, but that is not the big difference. Over the years carbon has gotten stiffer, tube shapes have gotten bigger, and fraes are made of less parts. All these factors make a huge difference in ride quality. The newer bikes are going to climb, accelerate, and corner signifigantly quicker than you 04 Trek (as longer as you are comparing top of the line models).

The question is are you willing to spring for the $3000 to $4000 price tag for the latest and greatest frames. I would encourage you to go to your local dealers and ride some bikes to see for yourself. Bikes get better every year and there is a lot of improvement when you are talking six years.


----------



## kkapoun (Sep 1, 2009)

i'm sure i'll sound silly for saying this but, 
until now i didn't know that mongoose made bikes without pegs or oversized shocks; i always thought it was a department store brand.

regardless of my past experience with the mongoose brand, that bike looks great!


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

jrob1775 said:


> I have owned a few of the bikes you are considering, so I can give you my opinion. My first carbon bike was a 2003 Trek 5900 which I loved and rode for almost 5 years. I was coming off of a Cannondale aluminum so the difference was night and day.
> 
> I now work at a bike shop so I have the opportunity to ride a new high end bike every year. After the Trek, I had a 08 Cannondale Super six, 09 Cervelo R3, and currently ride a 2010 Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL3. All of which are a substantial step up from the 03 Trek 5900.
> 
> ...


This has some fact to it in terms of how the frames are built but as a consumer who rides bikes as much as most avid riders, I can surely say that your experience on road bikes is arbitrary. Sure bikes have gotten better in terms of build quality, stiffness, etc., but the question is will he actually notice any significant difference at all? The newest bikes don't strike me as being that much better. 

I'm not even a Trek fan, but it's hard to convince me that any of the bikes you are talking about are significantly better than a 5900. OCLV 110 was an still is exceptional. I used to own a 2004 Trek 5200- which had a heavy fork and it rode well. Compared to the carbon bikes I have( two Felts (one '08 one '09) and my '08 Specialized bike) I have- which are of the same caliber- I notice a small difference between all of them. The 5900 had a different feel than the 5200 IMO. In fact my buddies 2004 5900 feels similar to the 07 Felt F1 I used to ride before I purchased my '09 F1 Sprint. What concerns me is even if the bike feels more responsive, is it really more responsive? All the of these bikes have different frame geometries so they should rid edifferently. The older OCLVs had a somewhat dead feel at times but they did respond exceptionally well. They just lacked the feedback to the rider that newer bikes exhibit. Still they performed just as well. 

To the OP, your 5900 is just as good a bike as the newer ones. It's just a matter of if you want to buy a newer bike because you want to or want a different feel. Nothing wrong with that but if you're looking for better overall performance and you own a 5900, you really won't find that much of an improvement for what you're willing to spend on a newer bike, IMO.


----------



## jrob1775 (Jan 21, 2010)

terbennett said:


> This has some fact to it in terms of how the frames are built but as a consumer who rides bikes as much as most avid riders, I can surely say that your experience on road bikes is arbitrary. Sure bikes have gotten better in terms of build quality, stiffness, etc., but the question is will he actually notice any significant difference at all? The newest bikes don't strike me as being that much better.
> 
> I'm not even a Trek fan, but it's hard to convince me that any of the bikes you are talking about are significantly better than a 5900. OCLV 110 was an still is exceptional. I used to own a 2004 Trek 5200- which had a heavy fork and it rode well. Compared to the carbon bikes I have( two Felts (one '08 one '09) and my '08 Specialized bike) I have- which are of the same caliber- I notice a small difference between all of them. The 5900 had a different feel than the 5200 IMO. In fact my buddies 2004 5900 feels similar to the 07 Felt F1 I used to ride before I purchased my '09 F1 Sprint. What concerns me is even if the bike feels more responsive, is it really more responsive? All the of these bikes have different frame geometries so they should rid edifferently. The older OCLVs had a somewhat dead feel at times but they did respond exceptionally well. They just lacked the feedback to the rider that newer bikes exhibit. Still they performed just as well.
> 
> To the OP, your 5900 is just as good a bike as the newer ones. It's just a matter of if you want to buy a newer bike because you want to or want a different feel. Nothing wrong with that but if you're looking for better overall performance and you own a 5900, you really won't find that much of an improvement for what you're willing to spend on a newer bike, IMO.



"This has some fact to it in terms of how the frames are built but as a consumer who rides bikes as much as most avid riders, I can surely say that your experience on road bikes is arbitrary."

I am curious to hear why you think my expirience on road bikes is arbitrary? I have ridden road bikes for over 20 years and currently race Cat 3 on the road, not to mention that I work in the industry. *I have also owned the bike the OP has and have owned two of the bikes he is considering buying.* I would think that my opinion would be quite relevant. Your post is full of comparissons that have no relevance to the question the OP was asking. If you are currently riding a top of the line bike with six year old technology, a new top of the line bike will sprint, corner, climb, and descend quite different. Think about all the advancement in the past six years.

1. Stiffer carbon which can produce a lighter and stiffer frame
2. Improver carbon lay up schedule
3. Outboard bearings
4. BB30
5. Seamless bottom bracket, down tube, seat tube, chain stay juncture
7. Larger tube diameters
8. 1.5" lower head set bearings
9. One piece carbon fork / steerer tube

Do you honestly think that these advancements add up to only a marginal difference? If so, why are you riding a 09 Felt F1 Sprint? You should have saved your money and kept the 04 Trek 5200.

It is up to the person with the money in hand to make the descision if the cost is worth the benefit. That is why I suggested that the OP test ride the bikes so he can see first hand.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

jrob1775 said:


> If you are currently riding a top of the line bike with six year old technology, a new top of the line bike will sprint, corner, climb, and descend quite different. Think about all the advancement in the past six years.
> 
> 1. Stiffer carbon which can produce a lighter and stiffer frame Fair comment
> 2. Improver carbon lay up schedule Fair comment
> ...


While I agree with your suggestion that the OP test the bikes, your assertion that a 6 year old frame is significantly inferior to a current frame is misguided. 

I have a 2008 Time VXRS having had an OCLV in 2002 or so. They aren't massively different. The ride on the VXRS is smoother at the same time as giving proper feel of the road. But it's not light years different.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> While I agree with your suggestion that the OP test the bikes, your assertion that a 6 year old frame is significantly inferior to a current frame is misguided.
> 
> I have a 2008 Time VXRS having had an OCLV in 2002 or so. They aren't massively different. The ride on the VXRS is smoother at the same time as giving proper feel of the road. But it's not light years different.


Wow, I have a Trek 5500 and a 5200 before that total of 15 years on OCLV.
I test rode a Time VXR for about 30 minutes and couldn't believe the difference.
It did everything better, especially climbing. It felt much stiffer and efficient than my Trek.
I will agree with you on proper road feel, while Trek has a dead albeit smooth and comfortable ride, the Time was lively. I would say the difference is significant but its hard to quantify how much is just feel and perception and how much is actual increase in speed.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> While I agree with your suggestion that the OP test the bikes, your assertion that a 6 year old frame is significantly inferior to a current frame is misguided.
> 
> I have a 2008 Time VXRS having had an OCLV in 2002 or so. They aren't massively different. The ride on the VXRS is smoother at the same time as giving proper feel of the road. But it's not light years different.


If they are not massively different, why didn't you just keep the OCLV?
Why spend all that money on the Time? They certainly are not cheap.
Only asking because I am considering a Time.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

jrob1775 said:


> "This has some fact to it in terms of how the frames are built but as a consumer who rides bikes as much as most avid riders, I can surely say that your experience on road bikes is arbitrary."
> 
> I am curious to hear why you think my expirience on road bikes is arbitrary? I have ridden road bikes for over 20 years and currently race Cat 3 on the road, not to mention that I work in the industry. *I have also owned the bike the OP has and have owned two of the bikes he is considering buying.* I would think that my opinion would be quite relevant. Your post is full of comparissons that have no relevance to the question the OP was asking. If you are currently riding a top of the line bike with six year old technology, a new top of the line bike will sprint, corner, climb, and descend quite different. Think about all the advancement in the past six years.
> 
> ...


The reason I say this is because it is different for the average rider. If you race, then the difference may be noticeable, but for an enthusiast cyclist, what you are stating isn't really that significant unless reliability is largely improved. All of the things you've stated are indeed changes. The question is will it really benefit a rider that averages under 25 miles per hour? When shops and manufaturers promote bikes, they speak to buyers like the buyers will suddenly up there game with these bikes and reach pro level. Sadly, many buyers picture themselves as such at purchase time. Kudos to the LBS for the sale but reality sinks in shortly after. That's why so many good bikes become "wall ornaments."

I used to race back in the the late 80's early 90's. I know that doesn't sound significant but even then, I noticed the difference in advancements. Unless you race, you can't really tell the difference between a lugged and monocoque frame. Heck, most racers probably can't tell the difference. However, most of the improvements you mentioned won't make a person a better cyclist. There are cyclists that out there who understand this and are creaming people on 20 year old technology. Since you've owned a 5900, I'm sure that outside of helping to promote the hype, you understand what I'm talking about. The newer technology is better in terms of many things (mainly reliabilty) but some upgrades to a 5900 could make the OPs bike equal in most respects to a modern highend racer. He likes the bike. It's a good bike. He doesn't race so why tell him that it will be a better experience of ownership? That's what a shop will do. From my understanding, the 5900 is a pretty darn reliable bike.

BTW, I own a Felt F1 Sprint because I've always liked how responsive good aluminum bikes were and Felts are the only bikes that fit me right out of the box. Unfortunately, most companies have delegated anything above 105 to carbon bikes. If you've ridden an F1 Sprint, then you'll notice the stiffer- than- most carbon ride that it has. It can actually be jarring at times over rough patches of road, but so is a Corvette. The thing jumps like a good aluminum frame ( a Cannondale CAAD comes to mind) does at a touch of the pedals. Yeah it's raw. but I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## tindrum (Mar 5, 2008)

for what it's worth, a man who looked at least 65 smoked me on a trek 5900 today, left my 27 year old self and my specialized in the dust


----------



## jrob1775 (Jan 21, 2010)

terbennett said:


> The reason I say this is because it is different for the average rider. If you race, then the difference may be noticeable, but for an enthusiast cyclist, what you are stating isn't really that significant unless reliability is largely improved. All of the things you've stated are indeed changes. The question is will it really benefit a rider that averages under 25 miles per hour? When shops and manufaturers promote bikes, they speak to buyers like the buyers will suddenly up there game with these bikes and reach pro level. Sadly, many buyers picture themselves as such at purchase time. Kudos to the LBS for the sale but reality sinks in shortly after. That's why so many good bikes become "wall ornaments."
> 
> I used to race back in the the late 80's early 90's. I know that doesn't sound significant but even then, I noticed the difference in advancements. Unless you race, you can't really tell the difference between a lugged and monocoque frame. Heck, most racers probably can't tell the difference. However, most of the improvements you mentioned won't make a person a better cyclist. There are cyclists that out there who understand this and are creaming people on 20 year old technology. Since you've owned a 5900, I'm sure that outside of helping to promote the hype, you understand what I'm talking about. The newer technology is better in terms of many things (mainly reliabilty) but some upgrades to a 5900 could make the OPs bike equal in most respects to a modern highend racer. He likes the bike. It's a good bike. He doesn't race so why tell him that it will be a better experience of ownership? That's what a shop will do. From my understanding, the 5900 is a pretty darn reliable bike.
> 
> BTW, I own a Felt F1 Sprint because I've always liked how responsive good aluminum bikes were and Felts are the only bikes that fit me right out of the box. Unfortunately, most companies have delegated anything above 105 to carbon bikes. If you've ridden an F1 Sprint, then you'll notice the stiffer- than- most carbon ride that it has. It can actually be jarring at times over rough patches of road, but so is a Corvette. The thing jumps like a good aluminum frame ( a Cannondale CAAD comes to mind) does at a touch of the pedals. Yeah it's raw. but I wouldn't have it any other way.



Maybe you need to go back and read the OP's original question. He never stated what type of rider he was. What he did say is that he owns an older race bike and wants to know if he would notice the difference between his bike and two current race bikes. If those bikes are raced or ridden hard then you will notice the difference. If you are riding around the neighborhood at 10mph, then you probably won't. Although not many riders will drop the amount of money to get a top end race bike and ride it casually. If you are, then you are throwing away your money since you are not using the bike for it's intended use. The average rider does not buy a $5000 - $8000 race bike in the first place.

Oh, and by the way, your example of the cyclist creaming riders on 20 year old technology is a mute point. If you put that same rider on current technology he would be faster. That is a fact. What you are hung up on is whether the rider NEEDS the faster bike or not. That is for the OP to decide.


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

jrob1775 said:


> "This has some fact to it in terms of how the frames are built but as a consumer who rides bikes as much as most avid riders, I can surely say that your experience on road bikes is arbitrary."
> 
> I am curious to hear why you think my expirience on road bikes is arbitrary? I have ridden road bikes for over 20 years and currently race Cat 3 on the road, not to mention that I work in the industry. *I have also owned the bike the OP has and have owned two of the bikes he is considering buying.* I would think that my opinion would be quite relevant. Your post is full of comparissons that have no relevance to the question the OP was asking. If you are currently riding a top of the line bike with six year old technology, a new top of the line bike will sprint, corner, climb, and descend quite different. Think about all the advancement in the past six years.
> 
> ...



On paper, you make a good argument, but the performance improvements you speak are all attributes on my 2010 Giant TCR Advanced. It is "better" in certain respects, but my Trek has attributes that I prefer as well (more stable ride). By no means am I faster on the GIant and the 2 bikes are 10 years apart but less than a pound difference in weight. 

My Mongoose believe it or not is the best riding frame I own or ever owned. Beat the crap out of my Isaac which frame retailed for $3k. Go figure.


----------



## Lazyrider (Sep 15, 2004)

kkapoun said:


> i'm sure i'll sound silly for saying this but,
> until now i didn't know that mongoose made bikes without pegs or oversized shocks; i always thought it was a department store brand.
> 
> regardless of my past experience with the mongoose brand, that bike looks great!


Well, Mongoose didn't actually make the frame. It is a Kinesis KR-810 that the Kinesis pro team has been riding for past 3 years. Amazing frame that rides as well as any Cervelo, Giant, Trek etc. I must say that with carbon fiber manufacturing process, frames from good companies are more alike than different IMO. Kind of like DVD players, you just don't need to spend that much to get a good one.


----------



## brewster (Jun 15, 2004)

no thread comment here, just thought I'd share one of my past bikes. Sold it about 5 years ago and am now riding both my 20 year old lugged Italian steels....Rossin and Tommasini.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

jrob1775 said:


> Maybe you need to go back and read the OP's original question. He never stated what type of rider he was. What he did say is that he owns an older race bike and wants to know if he would notice the difference between his bike and two current race bikes. If those bikes are raced or ridden hard then you will notice the difference. If you are riding around the neighborhood at 10mph, then you probably won't. Although not many riders will drop the amount of money to get a top end race bike and ride it casually. If you are, then you are throwing away your money since you are not using the bike for it's intended use. The average rider does not buy a $5000 - $8000 race bike in the first place.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, your example of the cyclist creaming riders on 20 year old technology is a mute point. If you put that same rider on current technology he would be faster. That is a fact. What you are hung up on is whether the rider NEEDS the faster bike or not. That is for the OP to decide.


I have to agree with you on that. I don't know if the OP is a racer and I am hung up on whether or not the OP needs a new bike. It is his choice and his dollar However, it's hard for me to believe that a racer would ride a 2004 5900 and still like it. My main point is that a 2004 5900 is more advanced in many ways but his current steed is a great bike. many times people think that there is going to be a significant change and there is but they won't notice it because they don't use it to their advantage. Also, the average rider might not buy a 5,000-8,000 race bike but many average riding cyclists will because they can afford it. I live in Orange County, California and you couldn't believe how many people that average under 20 mph, that wear full kits and ride $5,000 + Treks, Specialized, Colnagos, Pinarellos, etc. simply because they can afford them. That's why I stopped riding with the riding club I used to ride with. Many of the people that can afford those bikes are all show and no go. Anyway, I just want to apologize for getting a bit irate about the entire subject.


----------



## Matty-T (Aug 16, 2010)

*difference in wheels - handmade v prebuilt - advice please*



parkmonster said:


> ... but I'd have to say that the larger differences come in the frame material, wheels, and geometry (of course training),


RE the wheels making a difference to ride.

I have a set of handmade tubular race wheels circa 1989: Mavic Mach2 CD2 and Mavic Hubs with Swiss DT Double Butted spokes (32 in each wheel). The spec is identical to that which Greg Lemond rode in the 1989 TdF. 
Back in the 1990's they were used as my racing wheels and when I put them on for races, their stiffness turned my easy going 653 framed bike into smething radically different (skipping over bumps, much greater power to the road and generally feeling faster and stiffer with a 'nice' kind of reduced road feel on the steel frame).

I was out of the sport for a few years and missed the pre-built wheel revolution. I have never owned nor ridden pre-made wheels (i.e. Mavic Ksryium or Cosmic) but still have the old Mavics' back home. These days I ride a carbon lugged Look KG281. I was thinking of rebuilding the rear wheel Mavic with a new hub and running it on my Look...but then I wondered if I'd be better with a pre-build wheel. 

What's the difference between pre-bult wheels and good quality handmade wheels and what difference would each make to overall ride of a lugged carbon frame?


----------

