# Trek 2.3 vs CAAD 10-5



## UpHillCrawler (Jul 14, 2004)

Looking for input for these two bikes. I've been able to go for test rides on both and it's coin flip so far.
I really like the CAAD frame, it feels smoother than the Trek.
It's a huge advantage that the 2.3 has a full 105 group including the crank and brake calipers. I also think the Bontrager Race wheels are a big improvement over the Shimano RS10 wheels. I know that the CAAD frame is supposed to be stiffer and more responsive than the Trek but it's hard to tell based upon the inferior components that come standard on the 10-5.
I've already seen and ridden the 2013 CAAD 10-5 and there's no real difference between the 2012 and 2013 models.
The Trek 2.3 is going through a major upgrade for 2013 and I'm probably going to wait until I have a chance to see / ride that before a final decision but I'm very interested to hear any other comments from riders who have looked at these two bikes.
Thanks!


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

I'm a big fan of Cannondale but, like you, I don't like the way they put tectro brakes on everything entry level. Sounds like you're leaning towards Trek. Go out and ask to test ride them, get a real feel for them. I love my 105 gruppo on my TCR. You are a wise person. Good luck.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

Generally, you want to select your frame as first priority, and components second. Go for the best fit and feel. It's hard to beat the CAAD 10 pedigree. It's a hellofa alloy frame. It does however have a shorter head tube than the 2.3. The 2.3 has the shorter wheelbase, and steaper head tube angle. So the frames should handle a little different.

I don't think the componentry of the 10-5 is all that inferior. But if you think so, you could bump up to the CAAD 10-4 (all SRAM Rival), for a couple hundred more.

Bottom line - go with the frame, before the components.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

In the June issue of Road Bike Action magazine they did a test between the Caad 10-4 and the Trek Madone 3.1. They chose the Caad 10 as the winner. So, if they picked the Caad over a carbon Madone, well..........


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

The CAAD's reputation surpasses that of the 2.3 by lightyears.

"Oh hay kewl Trek! Madone rite?"
"...oh. Is that carbon?"
"....but that one is a good bike right?"

vs.

"Dear lord it's a CAAD don't eat me!"
"Ahhh mah leg!!!"


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

UpHillCrawler said:


> It's a huge advantage that the 2.3 has a full 105 group including the crank and brake calipers. I also think the Bontrager Race wheels are a big improvement over the Shimano RS10 wheels.


I seriously doubt 105 brakes and cranks are a "huge advantage" over anything. Also, I doubt those Bontrager race wheels are much better if at all better than the Shimanos.
The day you bring your new bike home (wichever) you will be wanting to upgrade stuff. So, to get some better brakes, cranks and wheels will be on the list anyway. I'd rather start with the better frame.


----------



## vuong05 (Aug 23, 2010)

I agree with those who say that you should start with the frame first, then build around it. But before the frame is considered, fit should take priority. The Caad10 has a slightly more aggressive stance, so the fit will be more aggressive. If you plan on doing some crit's or other type of racing, the Caad is the choice to go between the two.

Regardless, both bikes are awesome and pick whichever fits better to you.

Cheers.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

UpHillCrawler said:


> I really like the CAAD frame, it feels smoother than the Trek.
> nks!


there you go then.


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

CAAD10 is a way better frame IMO. Can't really go wrong there unless it just doesn't fit. Plus you'd get cool points for being on a CAAD10, no such cool points for a Trek alloy frame. I wouldn't worry too much about the wheels and brakes, they'll perform pretty much the same at that level. If you really get serious, you'd probably spring for some better wheels anyway. If it were me, I'd want to go with the CAAD10-4 anyway.


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

caad. friend has one. loves. full ultegra, though, aksiums.


----------



## bike981 (Sep 14, 2010)

I ride a 2012 Trek 2.3 and like it. That said, if you thought the CAAD was the nicer ride for your taste, then get it. Issues with the Tektro brakes, from what I've read, can be cured with a set of Koolstop pads, and I really doubt you'll notice what crank you're riding. BTW, the 2012 2.3 does not have a 105 crank -- it has a Shimano R600, if that makes you feel better that you'll be giving up a 105 crank.


----------



## UpHillCrawler (Jul 14, 2004)

*Thanks!*

Thanks to everyone that has responded I appreciate the input!

Based upon my test rides (which was only 15-20 minutes on each bike) I would say that the crank / brakes / wheels did make a difference because although the CAAD was crazy smooth for an alum frame the 2.3 actually seemed a bit more responsive and the brakes did feel stronger. I attributed this to the differences in components. It's too bad the bikes weren't equipped the same so an equal comparison could be made.

I also felt a little more comfortable on the Trek but I believe that's because I was able to test the right size 2.3 (56) and my LBS only had a 58 10-5.

Since it's so close to the end of the model year it's been hard to find almost any CAAD bikes to ride in my size, and I live in SoCal where you'd think there might be a better supply.

I think I might have to wait a couple weeks until more of the 2013 CAAD's start coming in as well as the 2013 2.3 with the new frame. I know that upgrades are par for the course with new bikes but I'd like to be able to ride the bike for at least a couple of months before I need to do anything and based from what I've seen and heard I'm probably looking at a 10-4 or 10-3.

Thanks again!


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

You won't "need" to upgrade anything. IMO you are making too big of a deal about some small parts. 
Get the bike you like. Not the bike with the brakes you like.
This is almost like people who are looking at houses to buy and focus on things like paint color or the drapes. 
These things can easily be changed.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

I sold my project one 5 series Madone for a CAAD 10 a year ago and I'm still surprised how much better the CAAD performs.


----------



## bhi (Feb 17, 2010)

I ride a 2.3 and have no complaints.I did test a caad 10-5 and I don't know if maybe it was just tire pressure or what but I felt every bump and crack in the road. Then again it was a cracked and bumpy road.


----------



## MoreCowbell82 (Jan 14, 2011)

Shimano 105 calipers? Those will not make you faster... and Bontrager wheels generally suck, aside from the truly high-end stuff.

For the love of god, get the Cannondale. It's a stunning, pro level bike. The Trek... no.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

The CAAD will be the better bike. Throw some $25 Kool Stop pads on it and call it a day. The Bontrager Race wheels are total crap..... in fact, they are crappy enough that I would put them more on par with the lower level Shimano R500s rather than the RS10s even if the RS10s aren't that good.


----------



## UpHillCrawler (Jul 14, 2004)

*Thanks!*

I wanted to thank everyone that responded and I realize that I should have indicated that I was really interested in comments from people that have actually ridden both bikes.
The Cannondale fanboys (Cannboys?) are a passionate bunch and they tend to immediately rally to support the big 'C' in any comparison (and they really seem to hate any Trek product!) Before anyone gets upset I should say that in the last 25+ years I've owned 5 Cannondales and I've enjoyed them all and they're one of my favorite brands as well...
That being said where I'm at right now is;
Still looking for a LBS that has a CAAD in 56, I'm just under 5'11" and after riding the 58 I thinking that's probably my size. I'm also waiting for a LBS to get in one of the 2013 Trek 2.3's with the new frame so I can do a apples to apples comparison. I will buy the bike that feels better and that I enjoy riding more. FWIW I've also owned several Trek's and in all honesty they may not have the same panache as Cannondale but I've been pretty happy with them as well.
One last thing as far as components go, I'm a big believer in what makes up a bike is the frame (as long as it fits!) the wheels / tires and then the component group. Maybe it was just the setup but in my test rides the 105 / Bontrager group on the Trek was an upgrade from the group on the 10-5. I know there are a lot of guys that buy a bike and immediately start the upgrades and that's great and probably a lot of fun (and expensive), but I'm not one of those guys. It's especially true that brakes don't make you faster, but since I live in SoCal and frequently ride in the Santa Monica mountains they sure provide a lot of value when you're coming downhill after a long climb...
Finally, if anyone else who has actually ridden both bikes has additional comments I'd love to hear them!
Thanks again,


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

UpHillCrawler said:


> I wanted to thank everyone that responded and I realize that I should have indicated that I was really interested in comments from people that have actually ridden both bikes.
> The Cannondale fanboys (Cannboys?) are a passionate bunch and they tend to immediately rally to support the big 'C' in any comparison (and they really seem to hate any Trek product!) Before anyone gets upset I should say that in the last 25+ years I've owned 5 Cannondales and I've enjoyed them all and they're one of my favorite brands as well...
> That being said where I'm at right now is;
> Still looking for a LBS that has a CAAD in 56, I'm just under 5'11" and after riding the 58 I thinking that's probably my size. I'm also waiting for a LBS to get in one of the 2013 Trek 2.3's with the new frame so I can do a apples to apples comparison. I will buy the bike that feels better and that I enjoy riding more. FWIW I've also owned several Trek's and in all honesty they may not have the same panache as Cannondale but I've been pretty happy with them as well.
> ...


I don't know whether your user name is tongue in cheek, or whether you really are a slow climber, but----if you crawl uphill, the 50/34 crank and 12-30 cassette on the Trek is one good reason to choose that over the CAAD, especially if the one you rode was a 53/39 with a 12-27 cassette.


----------



## CAADEL (Jul 23, 2011)

UpHillCrawler said:


> Finally, if anyone else who has actually ridden both bikes has additional comments I'd love to hear them!
> Thanks again,


Before buying my CAAD10 I rode a demo trek 2 (both 56 and 2011's) and all I know is I didn't like it at all. 
Compared to the CAAD10 the ride of the Trek was harsh and unrefined and the high stack and short reach made me feel "squeezed". 
The power transfer didn't feel as responsive as the CAAD10. 
Over very rough roads there is absolutely no comparison at all. The CAAD10 is so smooth. The trek 2 made me feel really uncomfortable and the fork didn't absorb bumps as well as the CAAD fork.

I really hope the 2013 Trek 2 is totally revamped because life is to short to ride sh!t bikes...


----------



## bhi (Feb 17, 2010)

Have you considered the specialized allez.it's had great reviews also and all three bikes are around the same price.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

The CAAD 10-5 is available with a compact option. And, frankly, you would never choose a frame based on the gear ratio it comes with. For a new complete bike purchase, that's something the LBS should be able to work with you on. If not, you go to another shop.


----------



## forge55b (Jan 30, 2011)

The only reason why I think that you felt the Trek "felt" better was that the Caad probably wasn't set up optimally while the Trek was. It could be as simple as adjusting the barrel adjusters to make the Caad feel like the Trek. As far as componentry feel, they should feel relatively the same.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

You can't reasonably compare the frames if one is a proper fit, and the other is not. The fact that you feel the CAAD 10 is "crazy smooth" says it all. Given a proper fit on the CAAD 10, it's gotta be the winner. The caveat being that the higher head tube of the Trek might be what's giving you the more comfortable position on the bike. You need to see if the LBS can duplicate the fit on the CAAD. A creative fitter should be able to.

P.S. The better frame is worth waiting for. Don't compromise on the frame because the money is burning a hole in your pocket today. The LBS wants to sell you what they have in stock, but I'll bet they could get the CAAD 10 in a 56cm if they really wanted to. Flip the stem up, if that gets you close to the geo of the Trek. If after that the Trek wins out, so be it. You won't have any buyer's remorse later on down the road.


----------



## USPSA Shooter (Jun 28, 2012)

My disclaimer: I'm a noobie and in no way an expert. Nor am I a racer or do I want to be.

I road both bikes 15-20 minutes each twice. Both on the same type of streets. Both were the same size.
The CAAD 5 seemed really racy, I liked that about the bike. I could feel a tweek in my lower back, no matter how we adjusted. 
2.3 clearly fit me better so that what I got. I'm real happy with it. The only change I've made so far is the sadle. No I didn't change the tires or brake pads, I'll do that when they ware out. Kind like the last truck I bought. At this point I don't think I could tell the difference in the components anyway. 
I noticed that when comparing bikes there is alot of Ford vs Chevy. Make a list of your needs and wants then compare it to the bikes your looking at.


----------



## Michael Weston (Jul 19, 2012)

There are some frames that say they are like the CAAD-10 but are much cheaper. Why is that? I am a noob wanting to ride a nice street bike and conflicted by price vs long term needs.


----------



## kg1 (Apr 17, 2002)

*CAAD 10-5 Owner*

Don't worry about the cranks or the calipers on the C'dale. My other bike has new Ultegra 10 and the bits on the CAAD 10-5 work just as well. If I didn't know which group I was riding, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference -- they both work great. I had been riding Ultegra 9 and I thought that was great until I got the new 105/Ultegra stuff. It works wonderfully well. 

Sorry, but I haven't ridden the Trek.

Thanks.

kg1


----------



## bikejrff (Jul 24, 2012)

ghost6 said:


> I sold my project one 5 series Madone for a CAAD 10 a year ago and I'm still surprised how much better the CAAD performs.


I am this guy, 'cept I kept my Project One. My 2011 CAAD is every bit the bike that my 2011 Trek Madone Project One (6 series) is. I also ride a 2011 Madone 3.1.

This...............For the love of god, get the Cannondale. It's a stunning, pro level bike. The Trek... no.


----------



## UpHillCrawler (Jul 14, 2004)

*CAAD 10 it is!!!*

I was able to get a 2012 CAAD 10-5 in my size at my LBS and they gave me such a sick deal I upgraded the brakes (to Ultegra) and the crank (to the FSA SLK carbon) at much less than the MSRP of the bike... (I also upgraded the wheels to Ultegra 6700 tubeless)

I only have around 100 miles on the bike but so far but I'm very impressed. As an FYI I'm around 6' and 210 so I'm not a small guy, and my other bike is a Giant TCR Advanced. 

The CAAD 10 is a pleasure to pedal, and while not quite a glass smooth as my TCR it feels amazingly smooth for an Alum bike. It's incredibly stiff and it has the rare quality of being quick handling but very stable and it corners like it's on rails. 

The Ultegra brakes were a big upgrade and I have to comment on the 6700 wheelset. As I said before I'm not a small guy and I lift weights 2-3 times a week and I think the wheels are plenty stiff for a guy like me (I leg press 280+ so most people should be OK) I haven't tried tubeless yet but it's nice that I can...

So far I couldn't be happier with the CAAD 10!!!


----------

