# Trek 2.3 Vs CAAD 9.5 or Trek 5.2 Vs Cannondale Carbon 3



## trekbiking (May 18, 2009)

Hello everyone,

I'm a newbie road biker, for now i've been using my Trek 6000 for trail riding and I am currently looking at buying a real road bike. I got my eyes fixed for aluminum: Trek 2.3($1650) Vs CAAD 9.5($1400) or if I have the mula Trek Madone 5.2 ($3200) Vs Cannondale Carbon 3($2700). I have never ridden any of those because it is hard to find a size 50 on display except a size 52 Madone which was out of tune so i couldn't feel it's greatness. any thought or inputs about those bikes. I am looking for a cost to value comparison thanks


----------



## Lakemichchip (May 19, 2008)

I tested the 2.3 and CAAD 9 earlier this year. The 2.3 seemed to have a little more get up and go as well as better control. TREK also seems to have the best warranty in the business. The CAAD is a sweet frame as well. You will be fine with either one.

IMO!


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

trekbiking said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I'm a newbie road biker, for now i've been using my Trek 6000 for trail riding and I am currently looking at buying a real road bike. I got my eyes fixed for aluminum: Trek 2.3($1650) Vs CAAD 9.5($1400) or if I have the mula Trek Madone 5.2 ($3200) Vs Cannondale Carbon 3($2700). I have never ridden any of those because it is hard to find a size 50 on display except a size 52 Madone which was out of tune so i couldn't feel it's greatness. any thought or inputs about those bikes. I am looking for a cost to value comparison thanks


I don't know what you mean by "out of tune." But really you have to ride them so see what YOU like.

Assuming you like the ride of either the C'dale or the Trek, then some things to consider:
Kindly note that the CAAD9-5 has a standard double crankset as an option (53/39) whereas the Trek 2.3 does not. I am not a big fan of compacts so if that is what you are looking for it is something to consider. If you can get your shop to swap a standard 105 crankset then that is no big deal. But if you had to pay for the swap, then you have to think about that in figuring that the Trek is going to cost even more.

Since both bikes are essentially similarly supplied with 105 and otherwise serviceable outfits, I would think that price would be a strong indicator. The C'dale is just a better option and leaves you money in the bank, or more money left over for accessories, like pedals/shoes. 

Lastly, and if it is aluminum you are looking for, then the C'dale is way to go. The CAAD is one of the most popular road race bikes ever: Please note that I did not qualify that with "aluminum" road race bikes ever.

About the only things that I would be swapping out on either of those two bikes (of course after my saddle) would be the brake calipers. I would go with 105 or Ultegra brakes, even used, over what the bikes come with. I don't have any experience with either the OEM calipers, but strong brakes are good brakes and Shimano makes among the best starting with the 105s and going up.

Anyway, good luck, let us know what you decide.
zac


----------



## trekbiking (May 18, 2009)

Thanks for the input, I'm still looking for the right size, though i was able to test ride a CAAD 9-5, but it was out of tune too (i mean the shifters/derailleurs have hesitation when shifting and noisy.) Looks like trek already stopped production of 2009 2 series so it is really hard for me to compare. Currently considering buying a lower end Trek 2.1T ($1200) and replace the groupo with Ultegra SL(additional $900),,, do you think it is worth it? 

I just wish i could preview the TREK 2010 models' specs for comparison also.


----------



## trekbiking (May 18, 2009)

Another weekend has just passed by and i didn't get a bike. The weather didn't help either. Anyways while i was looking at an LBS in OC i saw a Gary Fisher with the same components as Trek 2.1, again no 50/51 for me to test ride. Trek is already done making the 2009 2/1 series. I was told it 2010 should come out late june or early july. I also saw a 2004 trek 5.9 madone on ebay, any thought on this bike? i was thinking i'd rather get a new 2009 4.5 madone for a couple hundred $$ more before i get that.


----------



## lablover (Sep 18, 2007)

*bike*

Carbon would be more forgiving than aluminum. The caad 9 frames is an awesome bike but is stiff (therefore fast) and gives a harsher ride. I got the Trek 5.2 is 2008 and it's more bike than I deserved as far as experienced rider but is a super sweet bike. I was thinking about the 5.1 at the time but had a few extra bucks to splurge so I upgraded. Try not to think what you can swap out off a new bike to make it good especially if it's a big $ item, it may not be worth it with so many manufacturers offering different groups of components. I have the compact crank and love it but I live in a hilly area. More experinced riders may prefer the standard 53-39 front set up and I can see the benefits on the flats but I don't miss it myself. Fit the bike to you, and then decide which setup would work best in your area by asking everyone you can. Good luck.


----------



## trekbiking (May 18, 2009)

I finally bought my bike. A 50cm Trek 2.3 compact, i was looking for a triple but ijust couldn't find one. So I tried it around the neighborhood as soon as i got home, which has some uphill and downhill roads, i feel like i am missing some gears on the uphill (i got use to triple i guess), other than that and the saddle the bike is perfect for me. Someday i will definitely upgrade the cassette from 12-25 to 11-27/28 to give me some uphill gears. Dura Ace 11/28 is about $300 so that can wait, the set-up will do for now. If i have more money, i don't mind upgrading this to Ultegra SL or even Dura Ace if I can find a good deal with a grupo. I'll test the bike some more this weekend.

PS: I didn't feel any difference with the ride between the 2.3 and 4.5 madone. Maybe i'm not well verse bikes to tell/feel minute differences with different bikes.


----------



## hendrick81 (Jun 8, 2008)

The only difference in 105 and ultegra is weight, so if you wana spend a whole bunch of extra money to save a few grams, then go ahead, and you should have bought the caad9, the frame is so much better, and the caad9 was cheaper to. oh well, another one bites the dust.................


----------



## djtempo (Feb 22, 2011)

*A note to Hendrick81...*

To Hendrick81... dude... really? This person has spent weeks searching, testing, debating... finally decides on the Trek, and you dismiss that saying the C'Dales are better bikes? I mean... really?

The list of bikes I've owned is probably longer than the list that you've ever test ridden. I presently have a 2009 Cervelo P4 (variety of high end components highlighted by the FSA NeoPro crankset and HED Disc/Tri-spoke combo), 2008 Cervelo S1 (Forte 10-speed grouppo), 2009 Fuji Team (D/A 9-speed), a 1999 Trek 1000 (D/A 9-speed), a 2010 Scattante XRL TT (Ultegra 10-speed), and I'm looking at a Trek 2.3 frame that was just posted on eBay because I need another yellow frame.

The point here is: CONGRATULATIONS to trekbiking on getting a great start in this equipment-sidetracked sport of ours.

To diss his/her purchase is simply a matter of opinion. The nuances of one bike vs. another are what make one bike the "hands-down-absolute-best" to a given rider, and "one of the worst bikes I've ridden" to another. I have 10 years in the bike sales business, and know that can you talk "components", and "manufacturing processes", and "geometry" (all pieces of hard, objective data), but leave the subjective comments to the supposedly "knowledgable" types that are writing magazine articles.

Trekbiking... my license plate border says: "my other car is a Trek", purchased during the couple years that I owned a Trek Team Time Trial that I had to have after seeing the thing with Lance riding it in the Tour that first year he had it built. That started my obsession with time-trialling that has me doing Tri's now, at the age of 44. Of course, subjectively, the P4 I have now would eat that TTT for lunch.

But in the end... it all comes down to the engine. Doesn't it?


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

I have both a 2.3 and a 5.2. My 2.3 is the older frame style so it's a 47cm. The Madone is a post-08 frame with the sloping top bar so it's a 50cm. 

Both are great. I'm keeping both. 

For some uses aluminium is better -- such as in a trainer. But in Summer I just ride the one that strikes my fancy today. I ride the 5.2 about 2/3 of the time because it is stiffer with the larger bottom bracket. I could live with either one as my only bike. BTW, I don't find and discrenable difference between the 105 and Ultegra group sets.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

trekbiking said:


> I also saw a 2004 trek 5.9 madone on ebay, any thought on this bike? i was thinking i'd rather get a new 2009 4.5 madone for a couple hundred $$ more before i get that.


Trek's lifetime frame warranty only runs to the first purchaser. That's a hidden "cost" of a used bike.


----------



## djtempo (Feb 22, 2011)

Whelp... a little update from the other day... I won the eBay auction for a 2010 2.3 frame. It's "new", head tube and bottom bracket are "virgin". So... I'll be doing a fresh build up. I'll let you know how it goes.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

If you like a 2.3 you might want to get one now. My LBS reports a rumor that the 2.3 is eating into the Madone 3 series market and it's unlikely Trek will allow that to continue.


----------



## bwalling (Apr 2, 2011)

Trek2.3 said:


> If you like a 2.3 you might want to get one now. My LBS reports a rumor that the 2.3 is eating into the Madone 3 series market and it's unlikely Trek will allow that to continue.


Too bad. I really like the 2.3 and nearly bought one. In the end, I went with a 4.5 because there is significantly less vibration. But, the 2.3 was really tempting.


----------

