Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have seen some older postings on this topic and would like some current advice. The Trek comes outfitted with full Ultegra gear; Bontrager wheels, saddle, handlebars, stem, and seatpost. The Giant comes mostly with Ultegra, but Race Face crank and 105 brakes (both are Ultegra on the Trek). It also has Mavic wheels, Easton bars and stem. I rode both and both could fit me well. I like the guys at the Giant shop, but the Trek shop has better servicing plan. Overall, I'm leaning toward the Giant because I could see myself riding with those guys. Should I be hung up on the differences in the bikes, or is it too small a difference to matter? Thanks for your comment.
 

·
gastarbeiter
Joined
·
1,524 Posts
what's the price dfference?

if the guys at the giant shop are cool, then it really shouldn't matter what you're riding. you don't have to buy your way on to a group ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Giants are a better value, lighter and use better carbon. Giant is the largest bike manufacturer in the world. They make their own carbon, most companies, including some Trek models pretty much buy their carbon from Taiwan or have them made there - where Giant is based. They have put a ton of R&R $$$ into making great carbon. I ride the TCR Advanced with full DA and it's nice to know where you carbon comes from.

Just think of a Giant like an Corvette. GM is the largest auto manufacturer in the world and they use all that knowledge to make a fantastic sports car that can out handle and accelerate most Porsches and Ferraris for only 50k.

That aside, I test rode a Madone 5.9 SL with full DA, it felt sluggish compared to the Giant, maybe that's because the Madone has fairly traditonal geometry. Gaints utilize compact technology. Meaning a sloping top tube and an overall smaller frame, thus making the frame lighter (less mass) and stiffer -- less length in the tubes to flex.

For the money, you can't beat a Giant. And their high-end stuff with the integrated seatpost is top notch. It tested slightly lower the the Cervelo R3 in the German mag Tour, then there was a drop off to the Scott CR1 and other hot frames. They measured weight, BB and rear triangle stiffness and fork "feel."

I would go test ride both again but sprint your ass off, also, find a big hill to climb, then you will have a better idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
I actually owned a 2006 Trek 5200 and sold it to buy a 2006 Giant TCR C2. My Giant came full Ultegra except for the (2006) 105 brakes which with kool stop pads, felt no different from the ultegra brakes with kook stop pads I had on the 5200.

It really comes down to fit and which one you prefer. I'm short legs long torso variety so Compact frames fit me better.

The nitpick is that the bontrager race wheels (although more expensive) I found them to be a bit more flexy than the Giant's Aksiums. The paint quality on the Trek seemed to be poorer, as it was not as uniform, had a grit to the clearcoat and chipped easily. Besides that, they are both good bikes.

The Giant feels more stiff, but that's probably cuz I have a small frame. The Trek was more comfortable over the bumps.
 

·
gastarbeiter
Joined
·
1,524 Posts
i'm a satisfied giant owner as well, but you kind of went off track with the corvette analogy my friend.


LukeVelo said:
Giants are a better value, lighter and use better carbon. Giant is the largest bike manufacturer in the world. They make their own carbon, most companies, including some Trek models pretty much buy their carbon from Taiwan or have them made there - where Giant is based. They have put a ton of R&R $$$ into making great carbon. I ride the TCR Advanced with full DA and it's nice to know where you carbon comes from.

Just think of a Giant like an Corvette. GM is the largest auto manufacturer in the world and they use all that knowledge to make a fantastic sports car that can out handle and accelerate most Porsches and Ferraris for only 50k.

That aside, I test rode a Madone 5.9 SL with full DA, it felt sluggish compared to the Giant, maybe that's because the Madone has fairly traditonal geometry. Gaints utilize compact technology. Meaning a sloping top tube and an overall smaller frame, thus making the frame lighter (less mass) and stiffer -- less length in the tubes to flex.

For the money, you can't beat a Giant. And their high-end stuff with the integrated seatpost is top notch. It tested slightly lower the the Cervelo R3 in the German mag Tour, then there was a drop off to the Scott CR1 and other hot frames. They measured weight, BB and rear triangle stiffness and fork "feel."

I would go test ride both again but sprint your ass off, also, find a big hill to climb, then you will have a better idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,699 Posts
LukeVelo said:
Just think of a Giant like an Corvette. GM is the largest auto manufacturer in the world and they use all that knowledge to make a fantastic sports car that can out handle and accelerate most Porsches and Ferraris for only 50k.
In their dreams!

First real corner and the 'vette would be sliding towards a ditch while the Porsche and Ferrari are carrying on up the road.

If GM have all than know how, how come they have never won LeMans or any F1 race? Even Ford had to resort to British engineering to get their wins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
ultimobici said:
In their dreams!

First real corner and the 'vette would be sliding towards a ditch while the Porsche and Ferrari are carrying on up the road.

If GM have all than know how, how come they have never won LeMans or any F1 race? Even Ford had to resort to British engineering to get their wins.
It was late, I don't think I got my thoughts out the way I wanted, not only do I think Giants are a better value, I just think they are better bikes. There is also a similar thread on here asking why people pay so much for Colnagos, then someone went into the car comparison and there are over 80 posts.

As for the comparison, I drive a BMW 3 sport coupe for a reason and I have also owned a 911, I love euro cars, thier build quality, their pedigree. But the new Vette is something else, the Z06 has the chassis of an F1 car and can accelerate and out handle most Porsches and Ferraris, for only 65k. Now would I buy one, no, but I still respect the Vette. I'm different with bikes, I just don't see why you would pay a premium for a name like Trek or Colnalgo - especially when they tend to be heavier, plus I see so many jokers on them. Besides, I don't own a regular Giant, I have the Euro T-mobile version with the ISP, def a head turner, def their flagship, like the Z06 Vette for GM less expensive and faster.


But enough ramblings, back to the point, you will get more for your money with a Giant vs. a Trek. Trek spend a ton on marketing and jack up their prices a bit becuase of the "Lance factor." But don't take my word, just go ride them again and push them, you might like the Trek better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I had the oppurtunity to ride both bikes. The giant was a size medium while the trek was a 56. The Giant weight 19 lbs with pedals and Trek weight 18 lbs w/o pedals. Price is $1800 for the Giant and $2000 for Trek. The Giant felt quicker, corner better, and shifted better (double as oppose to triple). However, I felt a little cramped, maybe due to the compact geometry. Also with the giant I felt too much of my weight was distributed over the front end of the bike when standing to pedal. I did not have this feeling with the trek. Trek felt more plush as I did not feel the road bumps and vibrations as much. The trek felt more upright but and overall more comfortable. I would say chose Giant if you're looking for speed. Chose Trek for more confort and sacrificing a little speed.
 

·
lo and behold!
Joined
·
147 Posts
scitech said:
I had the oppurtunity to ride both bikes. The giant was a size medium while the trek was a 56. The Giant weight 19 lbs with pedals and Trek weight 18 lbs w/o pedals. Price is $1800 for the Giant and $2000 for Trek. The Giant felt quicker, corner better, and shifted better (double as oppose to triple). However, I felt a little cramped, maybe due to the compact geometry. Also with the giant I felt too much of my weight was distributed over the front end of the bike when standing to pedal. I did not have this feeling with the trek. Trek felt more plush as I did not feel the road bumps and vibrations as much. The trek felt more upright but and overall more comfortable. I would say chose Giant if you're looking for speed. Chose Trek for more confort and sacrificing a little speed.
Sounds like the Giant was too small for you.

I owned a number of OCLV Treks in the mid-90's. They rode great, but I kept breaking BB shells (was 180lbs at the time).
Rode a Giant TCR 1 on a little 20mile hilly loop. Was light and quick handling. Felt like a wet noodle climbing (200lbs)

Can't imagine you'd be too disappointed either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
scitech said:
I had the oppurtunity to ride both bikes. The giant was a size medium while the trek was a 56. The Giant weight 19 lbs with pedals and Trek weight 18 lbs w/o pedals. Price is $1800 for the Giant and $2000 for Trek. The Giant felt quicker, corner better, and shifted better (double as oppose to triple). However, I felt a little cramped, maybe due to the compact geometry. Also with the giant I felt too much of my weight was distributed over the front end of the bike when standing to pedal. I did not have this feeling with the trek. Trek felt more plush as I did not feel the road bumps and vibrations as much. The trek felt more upright but and overall more comfortable. I would say chose Giant if you're looking for speed. Chose Trek for more confort and sacrificing a little speed.

I was measured to ride 56cm bikes. I felt great on a Large Giant. Maybe it would help to ride a large? (Even thought Giants site says Medium = 55-59cm)


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Meatball said:
I was measured to ride 56cm bikes. I felt great on a Large Giant. Maybe it would help to ride a large? (Even thought Giants site says Medium = 55-59cm)


How tall are you, what's your inseam? I'm 6 even with a 33" inseam. I have a longer torso so I live the Giant's compact sloping geometry. I ride the ML, with a 120mm stem. It's tight.

Oh, if you are are still trying to decide bewteen Trek and Giant, go ask Hincape about his Trek and then go as Kessler about his Giant :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Yeah, I think the Giant was too small for you. If anything, you should feel more outreaching since the top tube should be longer. Either than that, with the correct stem, you shouldn't feel "cramped" just because it's compact.

I will echo that the Trek felt more comfortable and the Giant more stiff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Heck said:
Yeah, I think the Giant was too small for you. If anything, you should feel more outreaching since the top tube should be longer. Either than that, with the correct stem, you shouldn't feel "cramped" just because it's compact.

I will echo that the Trek felt more comfortable and the Giant more stiff.


After looking at the specs on both Giant and Trek's website the medium TCR 2 should not be too small for me. I'm about 5' 8" with a 31 inch inseam. You guys are right, maybe it's just due to the stem length or degree rise and not the geometry of the frame. The top tube of both bikes are about the same also. Maybe I'll go back and ask to have to seat and stem adjust to the same dimensions and see how the two bikes feel. But thanks for the insight everyone..
 

·
gastarbeiter
Joined
·
1,524 Posts
scitech said:
After looking at the specs on both Giant and Trek's website the medium TCR 2 should not be too small for me. I'm about 5' 8" with a 31 inch inseam. You guys are right, maybe it's just due to the stem length or degree rise and not the geometry of the frame. The top tube of both bikes are about the same also. Maybe I'll go back and ask to have to seat and stem adjust to the same dimensions and see how the two bikes feel. But thanks for the insight everyone..
I'd seriously consider trying a Small
 

·
imbasilical moreon
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
Excuse me ????

ultimobici said:
In their dreams!

First real corner and the 'vette would be sliding towards a ditch while the Porsche and Ferrari are carrying on up the road.

If GM have all than know how, how come they have never won LeMans or any F1 race? Even Ford had to resort to British engineering to get their wins.
are you daft ???

...until the arrival of Aston Martin (actually using american Ford NASCAR racing know how you nit wit :D) this season the Corvette DOMINATED it's class, with over 2X the wins of it's nearest rival, Dodge, the big Ferarri was a very distant third ...

...if you were to compare the results of running professionally driven street stock GT3s, F550s & Z06 Vettes across the assortment of tracks on the LeMans Series (including tracks in the States) you would find, much to your chagrin, that the Corvette outperforms the others in the corners, only to loose that advantage on the longer straightaways.

...they are quite better cars than you give them credit for, but for $46,000 I would prefer the new Cateram CSR ...

b0nk
ps-my ancestors are from Bolton, Lancs, so according to Monty Python I am daft too:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
big cost difference

I have also been trying to make a similar choice. There seems to be a big price difference between the 5200 and the TCR with the TCR being several hundred cheaper due to the current Giant sale. How do the wheels compare between the two?
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top