Strong frame (I've added an inexpensive RST front shock fork) and driven often offroad and after going up curbs @ like 5 mph, even ridden it down The Capitol steps (Madison,Wi.) I currently have 4 of this model and 7 other recumbents.

Height! It's taller than most recumbents and not recommended for a novice bent rider. Some say the small 20" tires, but w/ the gear possibilities, It's way faster than anything out there, and you're not supposed to bounce curbs on a 'bent anyways

BEST RIDE EVER! Unbelievable comfort (I shortened rear seat support for further recline [wind resistance]), incredible gear possibilities (Dual chain/rear derailer setup [5 x 8 gears]), floating steering pole (raise for tight turns, cruise w/it in your lap), and seat backrest holds most backpacks securely.

Similar Products Used:

RANS Saturn V, Burley Limbo convertible, Actionbent Jet Stream II, Road Runner, Tadpole Trike, And rare Low Racer (7 in total of these 4 AB models), CaTrike Pocket, and a eBike that I'm converting from 20" x 16" wheels to 26" x 20" suspended w/ Cane Creek x Meks Melba shocks and a 3 speed internal rear hub

Frame Strength
Comfort
Ability to load it up
Great way to strike up conversation

Little heavier than most recumbents
Parts are still out there -- little tough to find sometimes

Wonderful recumbent...as many have said, TREK was ahead of their time when they pushed this one out. Strenght and comfort the best...I'm a big guy, and when camping, load it up. No issues what-so-ever. Like is so much, have two. (Third recumbent is a Vision). Only significant mod to the R200 was adding Aerospoke wheels -- yes, they a little heavier, but wanted bullet-proof wheels for the long hauls.

Similar Products Used:

Vision recumbent

Super comfortable & safe -- you can get both feet flat on ground while seated. Its wheelbase allows it to be placed on bus bike racks (unique!). 40+ gears, comfy seat back allows huge pedaling torque. Rider sits high for good vision. Variable pressure shock absorber on real wheel.

No longer manufactured, so no parts, except you can get replacement seat parts from Ran company. It's a rare collectors' item that gets me a lot of attention.

I've had my Trek R200 10 years and I ride it several times a week. Typical trip is 5-25 miles. Original paint job is still good. I once took it on a road trip of the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon, about 75 miles, camping along the way. I'm 6'2", 240 lbs, age 58-68. I stored gear in large daypack hung from seat back, hung other gear from underside of seat. I love this bike. When I get too old I want to put an electric motor on it.

Similar Products Used:

This is the only recumbent bicycle I've ever ridden.

as noted

Mid drive friction, see summary

Too bad trek stopped production. They were definately headed in a great direction. I love the mid-drive. FORTY very intuative gears!!! (keep the chain, cassette & derailleurs clean and the friction is not a problem. The Rans seat is the best I've ever had. (much better than the stock Vision seat) The R200 is extremely adjustable. I'm six feet tall and my ten year old son likes to ride my R200. It can easily be adjusted in minutes to fit either one of us. If you can't find the perfect position, your not trying. The R200 is very agile (responds quicker than the Vision.) The Cane Creek rear shock smooths out the ride wonderfully and is also very adjustable TREK, PLEASE KEEP MAKING RECUMBENTS

Similar Products Used:

Vision R44 x 2

1. Love the adjustability of the handlebar. If you can't find a good position for them, you haven't tried enough.
2. The mid drive gives lots of gears. You use them as 5 ranges of 8 or 9 closely spaced gears.
3. Rear shock is good. Never had problems with it holding air.
4. RANs seat is comfortable and very adjustable. Even better than on RANs bikes because it is easier to adjust seat recline.
5. The paint looks great and seems to be durable.
6. It is a Trek. Made in Wisconsin.
7. Shifting is good and precise if you adjust it properly.
8. Can be folded into a very compact package. I'd consider it for a European trip.

1. Higher than normal drivetrain friction.
2. Chain can drop off front chainwheel and mid-drive sprocket under certain conditions. Mainly fixed now (08/2001) by Trek and proper chainlength. (Do not have any slack chain!)
3. RANs seat. Too heavy, too high, too complicated. This was the RANs "fatass" seat that has a seatpad that is 3" thick and almost weighs a pound by itself. The seat and all the fittings weigh almost 6 pounds.
4. Bike is too high and too heavy at 34#. Blame the RANs seat for much of that.
5. Can't walk the bike easily. Need to steer with one hand and push on the seatback with the other hand when going over bumps.
6. The bike feels like it was designed by a committee. "Lets see how many desireable features we can put on this bike." But these features don't fit together as an organic whole.

This is a reasonably good recumbent. I've been riding recumbents almost exclusively since June of 1995 and my riding is mostly 20 mile per day commuting and some summertime tours and club rides. I bought the bike because I was interested in trying ASS (Above Seat Steering) and checking out the comfort of the RANs seat. It turns out that after 4000 miles of riding this bike that I still prefer USS (Under Seat Steering) because it is ultimately more comfortable and it (USS) is, at the most, only 1/2 mile per hour slower than the ASS. In my opinion the aero advantage of ASS is overrated. (All my bikes have been unfaired.) The RANs seat is comfortable but the Vision seat is more comfortable. The bike is now out of production but it was a great value at closeout for $750 completely setup from Wheel & Sprocket with the Trek guarentee and 30 day service. At $1200 it was too expensive. But then the Haluzak for my wife was $1500 so who is to say.

Similar Products Used:

Homebuilt Easy Racer Clone, LWB, USS
Vision R42, USS, LWB and SWB
Vision R42, 20x20, USS, LWB
Infinity, LWB, USS
RANs Nimbus, LWB, ASS
Ryan Duplex Tandem, ULWB, USS
Haluzak Leprechaun, SWB, USS
Have test ridden most every other recumbent.

Well thought out bike.
Strong, light aluminum frame.
Air rear shock and swingarm make front suspension unnecessary.
Great components.
40 gear range!
Kewl gold metal-flake red

heel can hit front tire in tight, slow turns

A gas to ride! I did a lot of cyber-cruising before buying. Trek did their homework, used the proven Rans seat, opted for a SWB, 20/20 wheel setup and an efficient mid-drive system. Yesss. Now if only I can keep my wife off of it...

Similar Products Used:

Bike E AT, Vision R40

It's a bent
Rans seat
Nexave brakes
Mid-drive
Looks
Strength
Rear suspension
20/20 format
People love it
Chainguard - save your pants

Weight
SWB
Mid-drive
Set-up for handlebar
No fenders
No accessories
Where to put stuff?
No support from Trek

Bought this bike here in Santiago, Chile in January of 2000.
Took my dealer months to get it and months of convincing because they didn't know it existed and when they saw a picture did not believe I'd ever buy it. Dealer ignorance was a minor problem. A number of details went wrong during the assembly, but the head mechanic admitted his lack of expertise in this area. In his defense, it wasn't anything that compromised safety.

So, I had to learn to ride all over again. Just 'cause you can ride a bike does NOT mean you can ride a bent. It took a few weeks to really have it down. The most difficult is taking off. You must remember to downshift when coming to a stop or else it will be nearly impossible to get going with the gearing too high. A 20/20 format is excellent and helped significantly in this respect. Its inherent balance and stability facilitated the transition. Many people have the idea that bents are not stable, but I felt comfortable and balanced on the bike.

One difficulty with low-speed maneuvering has to do with a fundamental limitation of the SWB (short wheel base - front wheel behind crankset - see picture). You must be careful when turning and pedaling at the same time as you can experience heel strike. For me, with size 13 flippers, this overlap was very pronounced. For my girlfriend and her size 5 feet, it wasn't so marked. This can be a significant problem at low speed as you need to pedal to maintain your momentum. Tight maneuvers b/n cars became difficult in this respect. It was the fundamental reason for me selling the bike. I simply could not accept this limitation in an urban environment. For open road touring it's not such an issue, of course and the SWB does help reduce the weight vs. larger 'bents.

Rans seat - this is a very good seat. I favor my Bike E Sweet Seat over this one because I like a firmer seat cushion. However, two major advantages to the Rans seat - rear reflective patches and incline adjustment.

Mid-drive - Okay, the question is why did Trek reinvent the wheel with something as complicated as a mid-drive. That being said, there are some significant advantages to a mid-drive over a conventional drivetrain. Understand the a 20 inch (406 mm) rear wheel limits your gearing markedly. Manufacturers overcome this by either stretching fr dr to accomodate large chainrings or using the Sachs 3x7 internal hub (which has a fair amount of friction I am told). A mid-drive offers the equivalent of FIVE chainrings, thus the Trek offers 25-125 gear inches with struggling. The question is, why the !"#$ isn't a touring bike like this geared lower? To at least 20 inches!? On a cyclotour with a BOB trailer, there were times when I had to push the bike because it simply lacked the gearing sufficient to climb.
There's no excuse for this. Anyone with a clue about cyclotouring knows that 20 gear inches is the absolute minimum. The R200 with its mid-drive should be able to span 17-140 inches without problem.

Another major flaw of the mid-drive is that is will not back pedal to save its life. There's too much friction in the drivetrain (I'm 95% sure it's due to the mid-drive cassette). So, you must push it back to get the pedal in the starting position to get going.

The mid-drive is an excellent system and there are times when I miss it. Its range and precision of gearing is far superior to a conventional 3x9 drivetrain. Trek needs to refine it for it to become top notch. Especially the chain management. The front chain was unacceptably prone to falling off the mid-drive chainring.

Note that the R200 uses KMC chains. Despite publicity to the contrary, I've never had any difficulty with them. 1200 miles and they were fine. But also took good care them, ensuring that they were clean and lubed.

The component spec was good, thought an 11-32 or 11-34 nine speed would have been better on the rear. The brakes are excellent. Massive braking power (though a smaller wheel does help increase the torque). I traded them for Magura Blues for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with this review. The Maguras did modulate better but are quite a bit more expensive. Only major complaint was the Bontrager RE-2 pedals. Understandable in-house spec, but terrible choice for a bent. Nature of entry/exit is distinct from an upright and no matter how much I adjusted the tension, it was difficult to engage and disengage. Had great success with VP dual pedals.

The frame - probably the strongest frame in bicycling history. A monster 3 inch main tube couple with a reinforced version of the super strong VRX rear 'triangle' (superior lateral rigidity for towing a BOB trailer).
This bike could handle 300 lb riders and laugh. But, the question is, does it need to? 32 lbs is kind of heavy. Is such an overbuilt bicycle necessary? I really think manufacturers need to bring the weight down. It makes for a faster bike and more fun. 32 lbs is porky, but this is a first generation design and a bent will always have some disadvantages - seat, stem. Still, Lightning Cycles has their 19 lb R40 and Baccura trikes has a 17 lb Type R. Yes, these bikes are several times more expensive, but they show that it is very possible.

Rear suspension is wonderful. Finding the correct pressure is difficult. Ignore the OEM recs, it would be totally overpressurized. They are not taking into account the geometry of the bike and how much farther forward your body is. I ran 125 psi for 190 lb rider. The suspension would definitely benefit from rebound control. It slammed back down when the pressure was above that (for me). I think Trek should have splurged for a Lizard Skins shock cover. The shock is right where it gets sprayed and covered by dirt and water all the time.

Which brings me to the point of fenders. They are desperately needed. I used a backpack hung from the seat and it would get covered it dirt and spray because of all the stuff from the rear wheel. In front it wasn't so critical, but it would have helped a lot. Moreover, there are NO accessories for this bike. Not one. That's pretty sad considering how many dozens there are for upright bikes. Dunno if this has changed since I sold it in July, but I doubt it. It's very frustrating to find a computer whose wire harness is capable of spanning the considerable distance between the handlebar and front wheel. Trek needs to step up and remember that they have a recumbent.

Another weak point is the angle limit screw which is designed to adjust the angle of the handlebar. Great idea except that the screw just scrapes against the stem. They couldn't even put a little rubber cap on it. And it's too easy to strip. Moreover, a lock out is needed not only to facilitate walking the bike (just try lifting the front end up to clear a curb), but also for safety. I almost fell off the bike once because my feet slipped and the stem flopped forward when I attempted to stabilize myself.

In summary, the R200 has great potential. It is a wonderful bike if Trek would pay attention to it. But they haven't. They stuck it on the market and abandoned it. No accessories or refinements. Given how novel the product is, I cannot believe they made no changes between 1999 and 2000, because it sure needs some. This is a beautiful, fun and exciting bike. It has some flaws which could be corrected, making it a very strong contender. The comparison between Bike E and Trek is so obvious. Bike E is highly committed and provided very solid backing to their line. Trek has done just the opposite. With Cannondale coming on board with a bent and their Headshock fork, Trek will need to turn things around. They certainly can, if only they dedicate the time and resources which the bike deserves.

Similar Products Used:

Currently using a Bike E FX (modified)

Extremely comfortable to ride--no back or ankle aches.
Midrange drive; rear shock.
Higher seat position than most recumbents--good for commuting/visibility. Less wind resistance=very fast on flat/downhill.

More difficult to maneuver at very low speeds than road/mountain bikes. Adjustment period before able to ride with confidence and speed--but well worth the effort.

A lot of fun to ride and a great way to commute.

For the next generation, Trek should try to reduce the weight somewhat and cut the price.

Similar Products Used:

Tested Rans, Lightning, Bike E, Haluzak and other recumbents

Comfy, fun to ride, wife loves it, lots of gear choices, grip shift.

Heavy, cheesy handlebar stop, small diameter wheels loose momentum rapidly.

Jury still out on weather it is faster than my 30 yr old Motobecane 10 spd.
If not for price, never would have bought it.
Happy with purchase.
If paid retail, would be seriously disspointed.

Similar Products Used:

E bike, Vision.

Fun to ride
Keeps you motivated to use it
no painful tiny mountain bike seats
comfortable, adjustable seat
Attention!

Steering wheel could be better
no accessories
came without a kickstand!

Its a fun bike, It was on sale for $600! So I had to get it. Compared with the high end $1500+ bikes, it can hold its own. Its a gas to ride, and definately something that keeps your interest and keeps you motivated to go out and ride it.

Similar Products Used:

none (Mountain bikes)