Trek 5200 or Ribble Nero Corsa

Coochcp

Another boring new bike question.

I've got a grand from insurance to spend on a new bike, I was riding a Bianchi with Campag Veloce running gear which I loved, now I'm looking at a full carbon frame with equivalent groupset.

I've looked at Planet-X, Focus, and Ribble and had settled on the Ribble specced with Veloce and running Aksium wheels for 1020....

but

last night I came across a Trek 5200 for 999 running full Ultegra and Bontrager Race Wheels, took it for a ride and I must say it was lovely, thing is I do like the neatness of Campag but is the Trek a deal not to pass up, I can't find much info on the 5200....

carlstone

I'd go for the Ribble over the Trek as Ribble are fairly local to me and it looks like a lot of bike for the money. Gets a great write up in this months Cycling Plus too. Also I like to ride something a bit different. I've got to ask why not Planet X? I love mine.

wildmoustache

if you rode it and liked it, i'd say get it. there's a good chance it fits you and you like it. the same might not be true of the ribble.

get the trek.

Adamskii

The good thing about Ribble is you can build the bike to your exacting spec. Choose the frame you want and then go from there.

The Ribble bike buider section on their website is genius!

Coochcp

Originally I passed up the planet-x because I wanted Campag running gear, but for the money I'm now thinking maybe I'm being a bit to picky, reconsidering the planet-x it is as good as the trek though monocoque frame would be slightly stronger.

Out of curiosity what is planet-x's service like and what are the reynolds wheels like?

JWSurrey

Well, the Ribble carbon bike gets a top rating in this month's Cycling Plus - which, of course, you've bought and read, since they sponsor this site

It has the same frame as the Condor, though I think the fork is different - So should ride very nicely (I've ridden the Condor frame).

I bumped in to a guy at a triathlon who had an uber cool and uber expensive Planet-X TT bike that he thought was very good indeed. Bought through GB cycles - thought the service and setup was good there.

I wouldn't get too hung up on it having Ultegra - I ride 105 and Veloce - Both are just as good, for different reasons - Ultegra's great too.

Whatever you buy, I prefer to buy from a bike shop and not online - The setup and advice I've received has been great.
You can always upgrade wheels easily, at a later date.

carlstone

Out of curiosity what is planet-x's service like and what are the reynolds wheels like?

Service is great. Email Brant at Planet X and I'm sure he will sort you out. I bought mine over Christmas last year and being my first race bike I was a bit unsure about crank lengths, frame size, etc etc. Brant sorted me out and it feels so special every time I go out on it (I've said it before but it still feels like its too good for me!). As for the wheels I've had no problems and I'm the wrong side of 15 stone at the moment :shock: .

SDP

ditto the planet x

great people who love bikes.....

Down the Road

carlstone wrote:

I'd go for the Ribble over the Trek as Ribble are fairly local to me and it looks like a lot of bike for the money. Gets a great write up in this months Cycling Plus too. Also I like to ride something a bit different. I've got to ask why not Planet X? I love mine.

Load of Crp

The 5200 is a double TOUR winner. The ribble is not much

Heritage speaks. When you can buy a frame worth £1100 2 years ago for 999 as a whole bike it says it all.

simbil1

Down the Road wrote:

Load of Crp

The 5200 is a double TOUR winner. The ribble is not much

Heritage speaks. When you can buy a frame worth £1100 2 years ago for 999 as a whole bike it says it all.

Glad you titled you post 'Load of Crp' so we don't have to read on into yet another of your tiresome and ignorant posts.

Coochcp

Just been digging around on the planet-x site, must say I'm impressed with their crash replacement policy should the unthinkable happen (again)

Down the Road

Facts speak for themselves The Ribble is just a cheap re-branded frame you can pick up from a number of "frame builders"

The TREK WON the Tour. Of that their is no doubt.

When you know what you speak of then you can talk.

Keith Rapley

"It's not about the bike"

Smokin Joe

The Trek won the tour?

Contador won the tour, and he would have won it on the Ribble had he rode that.

It's not about the bike.

carlstone

Well my Planet X is just fine for me, I can seriously say that any of these three bikes would be more than enough for my cycling talent (or lack of it), its just that the Planet X at the time pushed all the right buttons for the price AND the customer service was fantastic.

Load of Crp

Why is my opinion a load of crp? Its just my opinion, no better or worse than yours!

The TREK WON the Tour. Of that their is no doubt.

How much do you think the actual machinery has to do with the winner of Le Tour when there is a minimum weight limit? Winning Le Tour in my 'opinion' has much more to do with the athlete, his team, tactics, luck and 'other' factors than the bike frame design.

When it comes to buying bikes for mere mortals pretty much any £1000 to £2000 bike would be more than sufficient and the choice comes down to what you want and can afford rather than if the machinery will do the job (because they all will).

carlstone

"It's not about the bike"

The Trek won the tour?

Contador won the tour, and he would have won it on the Ribble had he rode that.

It's not about the bike.

It seems that in the time it took me to type my long winded repy, you guys have put my point much more succinctly

Down the Road

Original question was Ribble v Trek 5200 The trek IS the better frame Of that there is no doubt.

PS and I know why!

carlstone

Original question was:

is the Trek a deal not to pass up

No mention of frame specific comparisons. Or was it mentioned that he was just buying the frame? I must have missed it.

My answer was that in my opinion I would go for the Ribble (or Planet X if it was still in the frame).

Sheeeesh :roll:

olr1

If it was a Colnago, it would be part of the bikes racing heritage.
If it was a De Rosa, it would be part of the bikes racing heritage.
If it was a Pinarello, it would be part of the bikes racing heritage.


...because it's a Trek, it's 'he would have won on anything'.

The choice is yours, but I'll go for the pro Tour proven frame, now some 12 years in development, backed by a lifetime warranty from one of the major manufacturers, rather than some rebadged job lot from a bike shop in Preston.

Trek hatred and Armstrong hatred seem to go hand in hand, used by numpties to define themselves as 'keeping it real'.
Sad really.

carlstone

The trek IS the better frame Of that there is no doubt.

Agreed

carlstone

Coochcp

Another boring new bike question.

Do you see what you have done now? You thought it was a simple question and world war three is about to erupt. Thank God nobody noticed your reference to Campag being neater than Shimano in the original post

Coochcp

Do you see what you have done now? You thought it was a simple question and world war three is about to erupt. Thank God nobody noticed your reference to Campag being neater than Shimano in the original post

That's the discussion I thought might erupt out of anything with this thread, still though I appreciate the points about the Trek, with a similar spec to the Planet X which is now a strong contender along with the Ribble maybe it is better to go with a proven frame with all that development behind, not that I'd ever be able to push any of them to their limits.

One thing I have found out since though is that the Trek (one left in the shop) isn't compact.... hmmmm

JWSurrey

Interesting points!
I would have said that Ribble bashing was more common, and Trek was the de-facto choice!
In fact, I think the most recent Trek Madone (if that's the right spelling) is an awesome looking machine.

What makes a 2002 frame better than a 2007 frame - given advances in carbon layup, lacquer, adhesive, weave, fibre technology?
I actually spoke to a designer who helped build the Deda. frame - If you trawl the threads, he's on some of the older posts.

How about this for a different point of view:
For a given price, there are 'n' number of machines.
I have no race team and mechanic sitting in my garage / on my back wheel.
I have no racing licence and am a very average cyclist.

Am I better buying a race-proven machine from a distant manufacturer with huge R&D budget/finite element analysis, wind tunnel, and marketing department, putting together a collection of components to a given price, or from one of Italy's premium frame/fork manufacturers (who may or may not have access to the above), assembled by a guy in a LBS, who has tailored the bike to my requirements and will be there to provide ongoing advice for my style and choice of cycling?
Maybe I should go for the one which has an obvious upgrade path - one with poor quality wheels, but a cracking frame that will take future upgrades, for instance?

I would like to see more scientific tests - I believe TUV test frames to destruction for manufacturers, although results seem to rarely be published.

Edit: Regarding Reynolds wheels, I was initially sceptical, however they've had good press - I think the last review was in Cycling Weekly back nearer summer when they did a good scientific test using an indoor track and power meters, plus some fancy math.
Condor had a pair in the window, and from the feedback I get from their staff, I would assume that they have therefore been tested by them, and proved good enough to stock.

andyp

olr1 wrote:

If it was a Colnago, it would be part of the bikes racing heritage.
If it was a De Rosa, it would be part of the bikes racing heritage.
If it was a Pinarello, it would be part of the bikes racing heritage.


...because it's a Trek, it's 'he would have won on anything'.

The choice is yours, but I'll go for the pro Tour proven frame, now some 12 years in development, backed by a lifetime warranty from one of the major manufacturers, rather than some rebadged job lot from a bike shop in Preston.

Trek hatred and Armstrong hatred seem to go hand in hand, used by numpties to define themselves as 'keeping it real'.
Sad really.

Fair enough - but how does one react to someone, and have a look at page 1 on this thread - who rates Trek ahead of Ribble's badged Dedacciai carbon frame because of the Trek's racing heritage?

This'll be the same Dedacciai btw who were founded by people leaving Columbus who as much experience as anyone in tube design for bike frames.

Slagging brands is such a dull sport these days.

olr1

It is a dull sport.

I'm trying to inject a little bit of objectivity; the 'Treks are rubbish' brigade would recommend anything before admitting that perhaps the frames used by Armstrong et al are decent enough.

Too many plonkers seem to think that their choice of bicycle or componentry (see Campag vs Shimano threads ad nauseam...) some how marks them out from the herd, makes them appear more knowledgeable, shows them to be 'real cyclists'.

It's all a bit sad really, especially given that most gear snobs will be way over biked on anything better than a Raleigh Chopper.

Objectively, the Trek OCLV frame is at least as good as any other carbon offering out there, and has the additional benefit of a number of years of R&D in the glare of the Tour and Armstrong.

Yes, it's a common frame.
Yes, it's ridden by American accountants.

Yes, the Euro-Italianophiles don't like it, but it's still a good bike.

simbil1

I've just re-read the thread and didn't notice any of the Trek bashing you mention OLR1? Just people saying consider other bikes too.

They are all good bikes and if they all came in at £1k I think me and most people would get the Trek. Not because of 'heritage' or the brand or because a super human won the TDF on it, but because it is generally well received by objective reviews. The point is that it would normally retail at around £1.8k and is not worth that kind of money in my opinion. Too many people look at a price tag to decide how good something is. It doesn't matter if something is mass produced in Taiwan with no name on the frame and then cobbled together in a shed in Sheffield or a warehouse in Preston to make a bargain bike, or if it is made in a secret factory in the USA and expensively marketed with adverts and sponsorships - it only matters how well they ride. The Trek may be fractions of a percentage better than the others but certainly not worth the RRP in comparison to the small name bikes. The same would be true for any of the big names - you pay a premium. Nothing wrong with that if you know what you are doing, but if someone asks for a recommendation on a forum, there are always going to be word of mouth recommendations for the smaller players that people may not even be aware of.

Peace

philo

"Facts speak for themselves The Ribble is just a cheap re-branded frame you can pick up from a number of "frame builders"

The TREK WON the Tour. Of that their is no doubt.

When you know what you speak of then you can talk"



Let's get this straight! I admire Armstrong and think he's done wonders for cycling but.......was it his Trek that won him 7 tours? Yes?

So Nike manufactured shirts MUST have been responsible for Man U winning the Premiership?
..and Nike clubs making Tiger Woods the World's best golfer?
...and Roger Federer using......Wilson Rackets!! (What's gone wrong here Nike!?)
..and Nicole Cooke winning the Women's World Road races.....on a Raleigh!!

Somehow I think the marketing boys at Trek are pretty happy.

I've a Ribble Deda Nero Corsa btw. Brilliant bike for £1300. Nuff said
[/quote]

G man

If you've ridden both and you like both, then go with your own instinct and whichever one will give you the most pleasure. If all other factors are fairly equal then base it on looks. I would be happy with either bike, as Dedacciai and Trek frames are both meant to be good quality. The fit is definitely the most important thing, followed by the quality of frame etc, but looking at my bike makes me happy, as well as riding it. Is this normal? I'm so shallow.
G man

aracer

Down the Road wrote:

The 5200 is a double TOUR winner.

Well actually no it's not. Never seen Lance riding a 5200.

top_bhoy

aracer wrote:

Down the Road wrote:

The 5200 is a double TOUR winner.

Well actually no it's not. Never seen Lance riding a 5200.

I'm curious now to know what bikes he did ride the Tour with. For historical accuracy, can you enlighten us?

Adamskii

I live in Preston. I was looking to spend 1K on a new bike for the spring, probably from Ribble but now my head is all messed up

Oh the confusion.