# Scott CR1 pro vs. Trek 5200



## 1gunner

First time poster here. looking to move up from an older Trek 5200 to somthing a little newer. The '06 Felt F2 is also a consideration but not a frontrunner due to the fact that the felt dealer is 35 miles away.Thanks in advance.


----------



## merckx56

As different as night and day...
You really cannot even compare the two they are so different!


----------



## 1gunner

How so? Quality of construction? Ride quality? Power transfer?


----------



## Max-Q

To me the obvious choice is the Scott CR-1. It is the best bike I've ever ridden. I've been on a Trek 5200 but it was a few years back and it really didn't impress me. 

The Scott is phenomenal. It is stiff, lively and comfortable. It has quick cornering and just flies when you jump out of the saddle. 

Try one. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## merckx56

Scott is a superlite, super stiff monocoque construction while the OCLV is still using the old school tech from the first generation that Trek ever produced. Granted, the Treks have gotten better and are lighter now, but they still are kind of dead riding and won't be nearly as stiff as the Scott. Not hating on Trek for all of you Trek dorks, just stating facts. And yes, I've ridden both extensively, so don't ask the question or make the stupid comment... 

If my Ridley breaks again, I'm getting a Scott....


----------



## kevinmcdade

I test rode the Trek 5200 in the parking lot of the LBS and was immediately ready to take it back. I own a Scott CR1 Pro which shows which bike I preferred. The Felt F2C was a close second. Another bike in this same price range to consider is the Specialized Tarmac Expert. It is a great looking bike and rides GREAT.


----------



## omniviper

i test rode the cr1 and it was really lively. unfortunately ive never tried trek's 5200... maybe the stickers and decals on the cr1 does the trick?


----------



## olr1

I've got a 5200, and I love it, but it is an old design, and hopefully well beaten by most newer top end bikes. 

So quit yer trolling...


----------



## merckx56

Yeah, stickers make the ride...  

What is shocking to me is the diehard Trek dorks haven't chimed in with, "It's the best bike ever...Lance rides one...!"


----------



## peterpen

merckx56 said:


> Scott is a superlite, super stiff monocoque construction ...


ummm, don't think the Scott is monocoque. Tubes, wrapped and glued at the joints. 

The Scott is certainly nice-looking and light - personally I'd wan't a replaceable derailleur hanger on a bike that expensive...


----------



## Max-Q

peterpen said:


> ummm, don't think the Scott is monocoque. Tubes, wrapped and glued at the joints.
> 
> The Scott is certainly nice-looking and light - personally I'd wan't a replaceable derailleur hanger on a bike that expensive...


You are correct. The Scott is a lugged frame with the tubes "welded" into place. I really don't understand the whole carbon welding process but then again, there are lots of things I just don't understand.  Ask my wife.


----------



## Max-Q

merckx56 said:


> Yeah, stickers make the ride...
> 
> What is shocking to me is the diehard Trek dorks haven't chimed in with, "It's the best bike ever...Lance rides one...!"


Speaking of Trek dorks... I saw one the other day that takes the cake. He was of course riding the required Trek 5200 and he was completely clad in Discovery kit from head to toe. He had the helmet, jersey, shorts, gloves and he even had his Discovery socks on  I almost thought he was the man until I noticed the tummy poking out from under the Discovery jersey.  

It started my ride out with a good chuckle.


----------



## merckx56

Sorry, I was thinking of the Team Issue frameset...my bad!!

As for the trolling comment,   

It isn't trolling if it's true...


----------



## merckx56

Max-Q said:


> Speaking of Trek dorks... I saw one the other day that takes the cake. He was of course riding the required Trek 5200 and he was completely clad in Discovery kit from head to toe. He had the helmet, jersey, shorts, gloves and he even had his Discovery socks on  I almost thought he was the man until I noticed the tummy poking out from under the Discovery jersey.
> 
> It started my ride out with a good chuckle.


Welcome to the lives of most of the folks around here who go to the "pro shop" in the neighborhood...  
There's one guy who comes out on Friday nights for the beer ride on a full on team TT bike with the full kit...Let's just say I'm not laughing with him...


----------



## Max-Q

merckx56 said:


> Welcome to the lives of most of the folks around here who go to the "pro shop" in the neighborhood...
> There's one guy who comes out on Friday nights for the beer ride on a full on team TT bike with the full kit...Let's just say I'm not laughing with him...


There is another guy around here that always makes me laugh. Every Monday night group ride he shows up wearing his US Postal jersey. And I mean EVERY single ride he wears that same jersey. Then at the the state RR championship I actually spotted him and once again he was wearing that USPS jersey during the race. 

I'm guessing he only has one jersey. Or maybe he has a closet full of them. I'm beginning to wonder if he has hundreds of USPS jerseys. I'd like to ask him sometime but he always seems like a non-approachable pr!ck.


----------



## divve

The Scott CR-1 frames are made by tube to tube joining. The tubes are accurately mitered for perfect fit, then glued to keep them in place, and finally wrapped for reinforcement. There are no lugs involved as the joints form an almost single coherent part together with the tubes. The end result is basically a monocoque frame, but put together in stages.

This process currently has the best potential to produce a strong yet very light frame. Compared to truly monocoque it also allows a manufacturer to offer custom geometry and better optimize every tube for its specific function.


----------



## Mark McM

*All frames are monocoque*



divve said:


> The Scott CR-1 frames are made by tube to tube joining. The tubes are accurately mitered for perfect fit, then glued to keep them in place, and finally wrapped for reinforcement. There are no lugs involved as the joints form an almost single coherent part together with the tubes. The end result is basically a monocoque frame, but put together in stages.


Um... by this definition, most filet brazed steel frames are also "basically a monocoque", because they use precisely coped (not mitered - look it up) tubes are brazed together, and then extra filler is built up to reinforce the joint..

Oh yeah, I forgot, all bicycle frames are monocoque. Monocoque literally means "single body" - a structure in which the outer "skin" supports all or most of the load. Since the outer walls of the frame tubes are the load supporting members, all frames are monocoque.


----------



## rogger

.....


----------



## divve

I know what it means in the strict sense of the word. We're talking about carbon bike frames. In my explanation I simply used the terminology that's commonly understood amongst cyclists.



Mark McM said:


> Um... by this definition, most filet brazed steel frames are also "basically a monocoque", because they use precisely coped (not mitered - look it up) tubes are brazed together, and then extra filler is built up to reinforce the joint..
> 
> Oh yeah, I forgot, all bicycle frames are monocoque. Monocoque literally means "single body" - a structure in which the outer "skin" supports all or most of the load. Since the outer walls of the frame tubes are the load supporting members, all frames are monocoque.


----------



## Mark McM

*Scott CR-1 monocoque ... NOT*



divve said:


> I know what it means in the strict sense of the word. We're talking about carbon bike frames. In my explanation I simply used the terminology that's commonly understood amongst cyclists.


Cyclists understand that a frame that is made by glueing together a set of individual tubes is a "monocoque"?


----------



## peterpen

Mark McM said:


> Cyclists understand that a frame that is made by glueing together a set of individual tubes is a "monocoque"?


I'm not buying that, nor Scott's other marketing non sequitur of "carbon welding."
but then I also don't buy that using lugs on carbon frames is inherently inferior. Works pretty well for Look and Time, two of the best frames you can buy. Colnago's aren't supposed to be too shabby, either.

However, we've drifted pretty far from the OP. The Scott is apparently a terrific bike. It has a large head tube, and steep SA's in the smaller sizes, so keep that in mind. 

And I know several people who race new Treks and they don't find them "dead" - I think that was a problem with early iterations but not the newer models. Snobs like myself may not find them terribly cool, but I regularly get beat in races by a guy riding a 5200 SL (or maybe it's a Madone?) - doesn't seem to hold him back.


----------



## divve

As stated in my original post the tube to tube joining method creates an almost single coherent unit between the tubes. That's what separates this technique from simply gluing or using a lug. FEA also shows that the forces aren't interrupted like in a lugged construction.


----------



## divve

All the frames you mention don't even come close in the stiffness to weight ratio. It's not about making a "better" riding bike. It's about using less material and pushing the weight down while still maintaining structural integrity. The possibility to make fully custom frames on a very small scale with this method shouldn't be disregarded either.



peterpen said:


> I'm not buying that, nor Scott's other marketing non sequitur of "carbon welding."
> but then I also don't buy that using lugs on carbon frames is inherently inferior. Works pretty well for Look and Time, two of the best frames you can buy. Colnago's aren't supposed to be too shabby, either.
> 
> However, we've drifted pretty far from the OP. The Scott is apparently a terrific bike. It has a large head tube, and steep SA's in the smaller sizes, so keep that in mind.
> 
> And I know several people who race new Treks and they don't find them "dead" - I think that was a problem with early iterations but not the newer models. Snobs like myself may not find them terribly cool, but I regularly get beat in races by a guy riding a 5200 SL (or maybe it's a Madone?) - doesn't seem to hold him back.


----------



## peterpen

divve said:


> All the frames you mention don't even come close in the stiffness to weight ratio. It's not about making a "better" riding bike. It's about using less material and pushing the weight down while still maintaining structural integrity. The possibility to make fully custom frames on a very small scale with this method shouldn't be disregarded either.


Numbers, please. If you're going to reduce a frame down to only the weight v. stiffness ratio, then let's see some real numbers - and no, stuff produced by Scott USA's marketing department doesn't count. Maybe Velo Magazine has some relevant tests? I found one they did on cranks.

Custom is a interesting point (and isn't this method what Parlee uses?) but I'm not aware that tube and lug construction doesn't offer the same possibilities. Plus I'm of the minority opinion that custom isn't really necessary, except for the freakishly proportioned or those wedded to specific components (ie, 'I have to have a 140mm stem - otherwise I can't carve turns the way I like,' etc etc.) 
However, it's interesting to note that some of the Saunier Duval riders use posts with extreme set-back to overcome the steep SA - which would seem to indicate that their Scott frames are not custom.


----------



## TZL

I found the Felt F2c (i'm assuming your taking about the 05 lower modulus frame) not the most inspiring frame ever, but i rode the f1c frameset (higher modulus frame) and that was an AWESOME frameset

If i switched away from Giants, it would be to a Felt F1c frame.........also try the Giant TCRs and TCR Advanced while you at it


----------



## TZL

Divve,

got the figures for the Giant TCR Comp, TCR Advance and the two Felt carbon frames?



divve said:


> Custom isn't just about fit. It's also tuning handling properties specifically to your requirements. You can select a specific headset and fork, then match the head tube angle to suit that particular rake and stack height, in order to accurately achieve a desired rake. Additional choices such as stay lengths, top tube slope degree, and stiffness to weight trade-offs can also be adapted to your needs.
> 
> >and isn't this method what Parlee uses
> Parlee uses lugs.
> 
> Scott CR1 Limited - 925g (tube - tube joining)
> headtube stiffness: 84 Nm/deg.
> BB stiffness: 101 Nm/deg.
> 
> Canyon F-10 - 1049g (tube - tube joining)
> headtube stiffness: 113 Nm/deg.
> BB stiffness: 127Nm/deg.
> 
> Spin 800g - 1000g (tube - tube joining)
> headtube stiffness: fully custom 85 -120 Nm/deg. (basically anything you desire)
> BB stiffness: fully custom 100 - 130 Nm/deg. (basically anything you desire)
> 
> Look 585 - 1079
> headtube stiffness: 68 Nm/deg.
> BB stiffness: 91 Nm/deg.
> 
> Colnago C-50 - 1505g
> headtube stiffness: 80Nm/deg.
> BB stiffness: 97Nm/deg.
> 
> Time VXRS Module - 1044g
> headtube stiffness: 63Nm/deg.
> BB stiffness: 91Nm/deg.
> 
> Was that enough numbers for you?


----------



## divve

Custom isn't just about fit. It's also tuning handling properties specifically to your requirements. You can select a specific headset and fork, then match the head tube angle to suit that particular rake and stack height, in order to accurately achieve a desired trail. Additional choices such as stay lengths, top tube slope degree, and stiffness to weight trade-offs can also be adapted to your needs. 

>and isn't this method what Parlee uses
Parlee uses lugs.

Scott CR1 Limited - 925g (tube - tube joining)
headtube stiffness: 84 Nm/deg.
BB stiffness: 101 Nm/deg.

Canyon F-10 - 1049g (tube - tube joining)
headtube stiffness: 113 Nm/deg.
BB stiffness: 127Nm/deg.

Spin 800g - 1000g (tube - tube joining)
headtube stiffness: fully custom 85 -120 Nm/deg. (basically anything you desire)
BB stiffness: fully custom 100 - 130 Nm/deg. (basically anything you desire)

Look 585 - 1079
headtube stiffness: 68 Nm/deg.
BB stiffness: 91 Nm/deg.

Colnago C-50 - 1505g
headtube stiffness: 80Nm/deg.
BB stiffness: 97Nm/deg.

Time VXRS Module - 1044g
headtube stiffness: 63Nm/deg.
BB stiffness: 91Nm/deg.

Was that enough numbers for you?


----------



## divve

TZL, 

I only have the numbers on the Giant TCR and Advanced. Note however that the latter is in constant development and seems to get stiffer in every new incarnation (due to their work with T-Mobile).

Current TCR Advanced - 1030g
headtube stiffness: 67Nm/deg.
BB stiffness: 86 Nm/deg.

TCR Composite - 1100g
headtube stiffness: 56 Nm/deg.
BB stiffness: 101 Nm/deg.

New development TCR Advanced - 1079g
headtube stiffness: 73 Nm/deg.
BB stiffness: 98 Nm/deg.

(the new frame in development also appears to have significantly more trail for increased steering stability)





BTW, could you edit that typo in your quote with my text so it makes sense?  "desired rake" should read "desired trail".


----------



## Mark McM

divve said:


> As stated in my original post the tube to tube joining method creates an almost single coherent unit between the tubes. That's what separates this technique from simply gluing or using a lug. FEA also shows that the forces aren't interrupted like in a lugged construction.


This still isn't making any sense. How is any solid joint not a "single coherent unit"? A particular joining method may be stronger or weaker, or stiffer of more flexible, but as long as there is a continuous bond between the tubes, it will act as a single unit (this applies to welding and brazing, as well as gluing). I think you've been reading too much marketing literature. Also, how are forces "interrupted" in any type of construction? Doesn't that violate Newton's 3rd law?


----------



## divve

In every frame there are localized stress concentrations where the tubes connect. It requires more material to be placed in those areas using lugs in order to spread the stresses farther down the tubes. When it's too weak in those areas the frame won't act as a coherent unit. Excessive flexing will occur at the joints and you loose resilience and liveliness. That's what I meant by interrupted.


----------



## peterpen

Divve- thanks! this is fascinating stuff. Where did these numbers come from? 

And what are the Canyon F-12 and Spin frames? Google did me no good...

Wouldn't it be cool if frame manufacturers were required to publish these numbers? Or better yet, some relatively objective 3rd party to test and weigh stuff? I'm not saying they'd ever be my *only* standards for choosing a frame, but it would be nice to have them readily available.

As for Parlee, while they themselves refer to lugs (and the frames look like traditional lugs a la Look or Colnago) I think the 'lugs' are laid up individually on each frame. Check the first pic on their website.

To the OP - sorry for hijacking yer first ever thread!


----------



## divve

The numbers come from the German Tour Magazin that I read. Agreed, you can't attribute any true "ride quality" properties to the numbers. All they can do is give you an indication in which direction you might want to start looking.

www.canyon.de
www.spin-system.de
http://www.germancarbongroup.de/

Parlee does indeed use a more elaborate/accurate system for their lugs. It's not like a Colnago for instance where the tubes are slid in and glued. It looks like they use something that's half-way between lugs and joining.

Check last page of their catalog:
http://www.parleecycles.com/PC2005cat.pdf

BTW, the black bike was part of a study project set up with the proprietor of Spin and his university professor. The complete bike weighs 10.56lbs - frame ~850g/fork ~ 265g I believe.


----------



## Crazy Attacker

hi 1gunner
I just bought a CR1, no regret, just one why I didn't bought before!
This bike is a rocket, the only limit of this bike is you!
Cheers


----------



## rocco

*Here we go again...*

Another installment of the simplistic circle jerk known as "My frames stiffer than yours".



> How Stiff is Stiff?
> Pez: I recall reading that the Gitane-branded bikes built by Francis Quillon, founder of Cyfac, and ridden by the Renault team in the early 1980's were among the most flexible ones ever tested. This was also true of the Vitus 979's, but it has not stopped these bikes from being incredibly successful in professional racing (Fignon winning 2 Tours, Kelly winning lots of races including Paris-Roubaix). So besides bike "feel," just how important is stiffness from an engineering or efficiency perspective?
> 
> Aymeric Le Brun: To explain the ride of a frame, “stiffness” and “power transfer” are two terms easily cited, made generic, and these days often vulgarized. While these are indeed important factors, they aren’t the only qualities to look at with respect to a frame. Cyfac considers what we call the “reactivity” of the frame relative to the power of the rider using it.
> 
> Stiff for one person may not be stiff for another. Or, for certain events/distances/types of riding, an overly stiff frame can have a significant performance disadvantage for the rider. This is why we look at 1) the rider-machine as a symbiotic pairing and 2) the performance of the frame relative to the morphological and physical characteristics of the individual using it.
> 
> Sean Kelly rode on the Vitus frames and Laurent Fignon, as well as the entire Gitane Team, rode on Cyfac-built Reynolds series bikes. They were ultra-light for the time and considerably flexible. But this flex actually permitted these riders to have a frame that was “reactive” under all circumstances. As long as the flexibility isn’t too great (i.e., it still permits the transmission of the rider’s energy) it is important—indeed, fundamental--in the reactivity, or dynamics, of the bike. In these examples the frames were of the proper stiffness/reactivity for Kelly and Fignon to have such successful performances. However, for a larger/stronger rider these frames may not have been optimal and, conversely, a super light-weight rider may have even found them too stiff!
> 
> We like to look at the example of the pole-vaulter Sergei Bubka who was the only athlete capable of bending the ultra-stiff pole that he used. That was the right piece of equipment for him because he could realize its potential. Other competitors couldn’t even begin to use his equipment; they had to find the right combinations of stiffness/reactivity that were suited to them. The same principle applies with a frame (at the bottom bracket).
> 
> Pez: When building up an entire bike, how important is it to match the stiffness of the frame/fork with that of other components (handlebars, stem, seatpost, wheels)? How is that done?
> 
> Aymeric Le Brun: A frame equipped with the wrong wheels or components can see its road manner and power transfer affected negatively. A bike’s manner is the result of the association of the entire ensemble of parts (especially the frame and the wheels).
> A stiff frame (like the Cyfac TIGRE or NERV CARBON) can be further enhanced by the use of rigid wheels (like the Campagnolo EURUS or BORA, or the Mavic COSMIC CARBON) and by the use of full-carbon handlebars (like the ITM KSWORD).
> 
> Alternately, these frames could have a more versatile set-ups with the use of accessories that are less rigid (Mavic KSYRIUM SL2 or CAMPAGNOLO Proton wheels) or non-oversized bars/stems (like the ITM MILLENIUM with a strada-bend bar). Of course, the overall ensemble of frame and parts should be set up to fit the profile of the individual rider, the type of riding, and the desired feel.


----------



## divve

A frame that rides good and is stiff is always better than one that isn't. No exceptions.


----------



## wipeout

Max-Q said:


> There is another guy around here that always makes me laugh. Every Monday night group ride he shows up wearing his US Postal jersey. And I mean EVERY single ride he wears that same jersey. Then at the the state RR championship I actually spotted him and once again he was wearing that USPS jersey during the race.
> 
> I'm guessing he only has one jersey. Or maybe he has a closet full of them. I'm beginning to wonder if he has hundreds of USPS jerseys. I'd like to ask him sometime but he always seems like a non-approachable pr!ck.


I don't get guys like you, Max-Q. Why do you laugh at other cyclists because of what they wear? Hell, at least the dude is out riding, so what if he is supporting Discovery and his local LBS? I applaud anyone out there on a bike...


----------



## rocco

divve said:


> A frame that rides good and is stiff is always better than one that isn't. No exceptions.


If the frame rides good (lively/responsive) for the individual who uses it. There plenty of examples of very powerful pros winning often on bikes that aren't the stiffest around.




> All the frames you mention don't even come close in the stiffness to weight ratio. It's not about making a "better" riding bike. It's about using less material and pushing the weight down while still maintaining structural integrity. The possibility to make fully custom frames on a very small scale with this method shouldn't be disregarded either.


In this quote it seems like you're saying stiffness to weight ratio is the only important concidersation. Are you saying the mark of a great frame is only about using less material and pushing the weight down while still maintaining structural integrity? Making a "better" riding bike isn't? Making a lively or responsive frame isn't?

If I understand you correctly, I don't agree.





> Agreed, you can't attribute any true "ride quality" properties to the numbers. All they can do is give you an indication in which direction you might want to start looking.


This I do agree with.


----------



## divve

My point was, that you should try to go as stiff as possible without having to sacrifice the so called "ride quality" that you're looking for. In other words, if you find two equally well riding frames (if that's even possible), the stiffer of the two is preferred. I see no reason to give up stiffness when there's no apparent benefit behind it.

In regards to stiffness to weight and preferred ride "feel", if you can have all those things that you desire, why not choose the lightest package that can offer it? For instance, let's say your Time VXRS for 2008 is only 350g, but doesn't sacrifice anything, including durability. Wouldn't it be obvious to choose it over one that's 3 times heavier?


----------



## rocco

divve said:


> My point was, that you should try to go as stiff as possible without having to sacrifice the so called "ride quality" that you're looking for. In other words, if you find two equally well riding frames (if that's even possible), the stiffer of the two is preferred. I see no reason to give up stiffness when there's no apparent benefit behind it.
> 
> In regards to stiffness to weight and preferred ride "feel", if you can have all those things that you desire, why not choose the lightest package that can offer it? For instance, let's say your Time VXRS for 2008 is only 350g, but doesn't sacrifice anything, including durability. Wouldn't it be obvious to choose it over one that's 3 times heavier?



Yes you should try to go as stiff and light as possible without having to sacrifice the so called "ride quality" but those numbers don't inform us about the ride quality. It seems that many eat up those sets of numbers regarding stiffness and weight as if they provide the complete answer. I suspect some people are looking at those numbers and they assume the lightest and stiffest frame listed must be the best one for them. The differences between these frames regarding weight and stiffness aren't by factors of three and on the same note I suspect some people think the differences between those numbers equal huge differences in terms real performance for them.


----------



## mick wolfe

*CR 1 vs. Trek 5200*



1gunner said:


> First time poster here. looking to move up from an older Trek 5200 to somthing a little newer. The '06 Felt F2 is also a consideration but not a frontrunner due to the fact that the felt dealer is 35 miles away.Thanks in advance.


Went from an '04 5200 to a Specialized Roubaix Comp late last year.In baseball terms,riding the Roubaix was like removing the weighted warm-up "donut" from the bat. As an added bonus, the Roubaix rides smoother over rough roads. I can't speak for the Scott,but the 5200 definitely feels like "old tech" to me.


----------



## acid_rider

*not so fast! ok, just as fast! 8^)*



mick wolfe said:


> Went from an '04 5200 to a Specialized Roubaix Comp late last year.In baseball terms,riding the Roubaix was like removing the weighted warm-up "donut" from the bat. As an added bonus, the Roubaix rides smoother over rough roads. I can't speak for the Scott,but the 5200 definitely feels like "old tech" to me.


ok, my 2 cents. I had a Roubaix Comp 2005 for 6 motnths before it was stolen from my house and I could not get another one for months (sold out) so I settled on a 2005 Madone 5.9 (same geometry as 5200?). I loved Roubaix Comp and expected Madone to be less of a smooth ride. To my surprise - not so! It rides just as well as Roubaix did and the only difference is that Madone is more responsive for criterium-type riding that Roubaix. Otherwise - both are terrific rides! This "old-tech" is pure bull, IMHO.

My friend has CR-1 Pro and he loves it too! So there you have it. There are no losers here. Trek and Roubaix have better warranty (longer) than Scott to the best of my knowledge.

Enjoy, ride safe. Cheers.


----------



## mick wolfe

acid_rider said:


> ok, my 2 cents. I had a Roubaix Comp 2005 for 6 motnths before it was stolen from my house and I could not get another one for months (sold out) so I settled on a 2005 Madone 5.9 (same geometry as 5200?). I loved Roubaix Comp and expected Madone to be less of a smooth ride. To my surprise - not so! It rides just as well as Roubaix did and the only difference is that Madone is more responsive for criterium-type riding that Roubaix. Otherwise - both are terrific rides! This "old-tech" is pure bull, IMHO.
> 
> My friend has CR-1 Pro and he loves it too! So there you have it. There are no losers here. Trek and Roubaix have better warranty (longer) than Scott to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> Enjoy, ride safe. Cheers.


 If you read the reviews of those who had previously owned a 5200 and then switched to the Madone 5.9, you'll find the consensus is the 5.9 is vastly superior in every way.....smoother ride ,more responsive,etc. My comments are about the "carbon 120" Trek 5200 vs. the Roubaix ....... not a " carbon 110 " Madone. I have no basis of comparison here. I do have 3000+ miles combined riding the 5200 and the Roubaix and will state until the day I take my "dirt nap" , the 5200 feels like "old tech" in comparison to the Roubaix. Ride safe.............Mick


----------



## kewlnitrox

*Scott CR1*

I just bought a "lowly" CR1 team (105 group)... Ended up 10% faster in the bike leg of the triathlon than when I went with my old steel bike. Technically slower course (half the course length but double the laps), and definite lack of bike training. I am also either keeping up with or dropping my roadie buddies on the rare hills. You can say I am 100% satisfied.

Comfort wise, about the same as my >15 yr old old steel bike. Too cool!


----------

