Trek 2300 question
Gregory Grosshans
speed). I've heard and seen a few posts (via Google search) about
problems in the early and mid 1990s with the 2300 composite frame
separating from the aluminum lugs/joints. Per a very helpful and
informative employee at Trek, Trek sells 1000s of bikes per year and
they deal with warranty claims with < 1/10 of 1% (i.e. < 0.1%) for the
higher end bikes (used more aggressively). The lower end bikes for more
casual riding have fewer warranty claims.
This particular Trek 2300 has a frame in very good condition, with a
virtually new chain, very little wear on the gears and according the LBS
had the original tires. I'm trying to decide if I should be concerned
about a possible frame separation problem given the few reports
available via Google and very small percentage of claim warranties on
the higher end Trek bikes (i.e. < 0.1% on thousands of bikes per year).
This would be my first road bike. The employee at the LBS said the bike
is a great bike, but if I have any concerns about the warranty issue
(i.e. lack of since it will be a used bike) that I should just buy a new
bike for peace of mind. This bike would be an intro bike for me and in
a couple years I would likely upgrade to an Ultegra or Campy component
bike.
Given the internet is a good database of anything (i.e. negative
comments, and a place to complain about (e.g. there are a lot of
complaints about the many cell phone brands available and the Internet
is a great place to yell and someone will hear/read the complaint)) and
that Trek is talking about < 0.1% warranty claims, I'm tending to think
I should not be worried about this composite separation problem. That
perhaps if separation were to happen on this bike it perhaps should have
all ready occurred.
Are there any bicycle store owners who handle Trek, or Trek customers
who have a 2300 frame, or did, that can comment on the 2300 frame? Are
there any early signs to detect composite frame separation?
Thanks,
Gregg
Danziggidy
I myself own a 96 Trek 5200 with full 600 parts. It's a great bike but what
I've gotten myself into is a dead end. By this I mean a couple of things:
1) 1" steerer tube - Old school and not as stiff as the new 1 1/8" steerers
2) Weight - New bikes weigh less
3) Obsolete components - My 600 gruppo (equivalent to nowaday Ultegra) is
only equivalent to 105 at best today
I ran into the same deal as you did, old bike that was never ridden selling
for dirt cheap. I wouldn't worry about the carbon/aluminum bonding issues.
I work in a Trek dealership and we have yet to warranty anything of the
sort. Buy the bike if you want a cheap intro bike but don't look at it as a
long-term investment.
Hope this helps
Jon
Andrew Lee
"Gregory Grosshans" <ggros...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3D93C453...@netscape.net...
> I've heard and seen a few posts (via Google search) about
> problems in the early and mid 1990s with the 2300 composite frame
> separating from the aluminum lugs/joints. Per a very helpful and
> informative employee at Trek, Trek sells 1000s of bikes per year and
> they deal with warranty claims with < 1/10 of 1% (i.e. < 0.1%) for the
> higher end bikes (used more aggressively). The lower end bikes for more
> casual riding have fewer warranty claims.
Are the warranty claims really that low for their high end bikes? Is that
for their current bikes or consistently year to year? I find that hard to
believe since I had two warranty claims on the same bike myself (fork, then
frame), though it was a 1987 aluminum model with the same or very similar
lug design to the bike that you are looking at. I knew someone who had 5
frames of the same design replaced under warranty (in '86 I think) when the
design was still new. I would guess that their frames of that vintage at
least had a much higher than 0.1 % failure rate if actually ridden. Maybe
they worked out the bugs by the early 90's.
Bob Denton
>
>Are the warranty claims really that low for their high end bikes? Is that
>for their current bikes or consistently year to year? I find that hard to
>believe since I had two warranty claims on the same bike myself (fork, then
>frame), though it was a 1987 aluminum model with the same or very similar
>lug design to the bike that you are looking at.
Totally irrelevant. The problem with the early 2300s was that the
carbon tubes were glued directly to the aluminum. There was some form
of reaction, possibly electrolysis, in some of the bikes and the bond
failed.
I believe there was indication of corrosion around the joint. This was
resolved by putting a layer of fiberglass or similar material between
the carbon and aluminum.
I had a 1992 2300 and found it was an excellent intermediate bike. By
1995, the problem was long fixed.
Buy it!
Bob Denton
Gulf Stream International
Delray Beach, Florida
www.sinkthestink.com
Manufacturers of Sink the Stink
Jon Isaacs
>I've gotten myself into is a dead end. By this I mean a couple of things:
>1) 1" steerer tube - Old school and not as stiff as the new 1 1/8" steerers
Probably important on a serious MTB, irrrelevent on a road bike. There are
significant advantages to the 1 inch quill stem like this 2300 offers, the ease
of adjustment is probably the number one reason that quill stems are considered
by many superior to threadless for road bikes.
>2) Weight - New bikes weigh less
Irrelevent for most road bikes.
>3) Obsolete components - My 600 gruppo (equivalent to nowaday Ultegra) is only
equivalent to 105 at best today
The only part that is not available to today is are the shifters themselves.
Those 8 speed Ultegra shifters were good shifters when they were built and are
good shifters today, assuming they are not worn out.
------------
The real issues with this bike are the condition and the fit.
How are the wheels, are the spoke nipples corroded, are there dings in rims or
are the sidewalls worn.
What is the general condition of the bike, does it look like it has barely been
ridden or does it look like someone thrashed it and it has seen a lot of
miles???
How does it shift, is it precise in every gear or is it finicky??
How does it seem riding it. Does it seem comfortable and enjoyable??
How much are they asking for this bike??
Chris Mitchell
"Andrew Lee" wrote in message news:up88pss...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I find that hard to> believe since I had two warranty claims on the same
bike myself (fork, > then frame), though it was a 1987 aluminum model with
the same or very similar
> lug design to the bike that you are looking at. I knew someone who had 5
> frames of the same design replaced under warranty (in '86 I think) when
the
> design was still new.
The years you cite above are among the first years for Trek's aluminum bike
production. Those bikes were dreadful, snapping derailleur hangers, drop
outs, etcetera. And in all fairness the bugs were worked out.
I do not sell Treks, or own one, but it is fair to say that their quality
has improved considerably.
There were issues with the early iterations of the OCLV frames, but again,
those were resolved.
It is also fair to point out that many manufacturers (and at those volume
levels they've stopped being builders) have had quality issues. Cannondale
had a run of bad forks delivered to them in the mid-80's, prompting a recall
notice. Look carbon frames, circa 1988-1989-1990, had considerable issues
with fork failures, fork crowns and steerers parting ways at inopportune
times (Droll understatement, that).
Is the 2300 a good buy for the original poster? Does it fit that rider
well? Does the rider need to have the latest and greatest? Is the rider
happy on it?
If there is something else that should matter, what would that be? One
thing to be sure about is if the manufacturer's warranty transfers to a new
owner. It is most likely that it does not.
-Chris Mitchell
Mike Jacoubowsky
> resolved by putting a layer of fiberglass or similar material between
> the carbon and aluminum.
Corrosion due to different materials was rarely a structural warranty issue
with the TREK 3-tube carbon/aluminum design. Cosmetics and cost were the
main reasons for leaving that design behind, as the cost of producing them
wasn't all that much less than an OCLV, and there were sometimes issues with
the clearcoat lifting off the frame (or getting whitish blotches) near the
lugs, as moisture would find its way in between the clearcoat and the carbon
tube by way of the joint where the lugs were joined to the tubes. This is
the exterior of the joint, not the inside part which provided the secure
bond.
As for the warranty claims being *that* low, I think somebody goofed on
their numbers. Industry-wide warranty claims for frames is something around
2% I believe, and the TREK frames are under that number, but I doubt they're
less than 1 in 1000.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Bob Denton" <bde...@soytek.com> wrote in message
news:tsh8puo22rp5l334v...@4ax.com...
chris
head-downtube, the other was the BB and seat tube (this frame was less
than a year old). Trek warrantied both, but I ended up swapping the
2300 for an OCLV the second time and paying the difference. I'd get an
OCLV instead. Very good frame.
Gregory Grosshans <ggros...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3D93C453...@netscape.net>...
Danziggidy
interface flexes significantly more, and 1" steerer tubes leave less metal
up front. With respect to the weight my 96 weighs 23 lbs, a 2002 weighs
17.5 lbs. Since when did 5.5 lbs become a trivial amount? I don't care if
you race or not, 5.5 lbs is huge.
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020927120503...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Bluto
> 1" forks are tough to come by, the stem/fork
> interface flexes significantly more, and 1" steerer tubes leave less metal
> up front.
Now I'm hardly one to stick up for 1" steerers, having laid waste to a
horde of them, but the 1 1/8" version is a pretty lame upgrade. A
1.125"x.0625" tube is by nature 30% stiffer than a 1"x.0625" tube of
the same material, but that does not tell the whole tale.
For one thing, all 1" steerers are sleeved, butted, or otherwise
reinforced at the bottom end, where they receive the most stress and
flex. Most manufacturers took the adoption of the 1.125" standard as
a cue to use cheaper unbutted steerers (when using steel).
The other factor is that 1.125" steerers are now likely to be made of
carbon, or worse, aluminum. An aluminum 1.125" steerer that is twice
as thick as a steel one is only 56% as stiff as a steel one, and only
73% as stiff as a 1" tube without butting! In my experience, aluminum
steerers are most likely to be about 1.5 times as thick as their steel
counterparts, for even more flex.
> With respect to the weight my 96 weighs 23 lbs, a 2002 weighs
> 17.5 lbs. Since when did 5.5 lbs become a trivial amount?
I have a feeling that these numbers are comparing an actual
measurement (of an existing bike in your size) with a published figure
of dubious veracity. If you wish to know the real difference, weigh
your bike, sans bottles, cages, pump, tools, etc.-- and with dumb
skinny tires and tubes-- on the same scale as a new 2002 model in the
same size.
I'd be mighty surprised if the difference was anywhere even close to 5
lbs. The components haven't gotten all that much lighter, and you
can't save 5 lbs. from a frame that doesn't weigh 5 lbs. The biggest
difference is likely to be in the wheels, where a little extra
substance makes a big difference in durability. A small investment in
some schmancy hand-built wheels that tweak your knobs will make up the
diference and then some.
It might be worth it to upgrade to a known reliable metal bike, but
not to buy another plastic unit that some slippery ad man
characterized as tons lighter.
Chalo Colina
Qui si parla Campagnolo
No they aren't.
<< the stem/fork
interface flexes significantly more >>
Bugle oil...
<< 1" steerer tubes leave less metal
up front. >>
So? We are talking about road framests, yes??
<< With respect to the weight my 96 weighs 23 lbs, a 2002 weighs
17.5 lbs. Since when did 5.5 lbs become a trivial amount? I don't care if
you race or not, 5.5 lbs is huge. >>
It didn't all come from the headtube, fork steerer, as a matter of fact, a one
inch fork, HS, headtube weigh less...
And if ya are a normal sized boy in the US, you and your bike is about 200
pounds or more and 5.5 pounds is pretty insignificant except when you pick it
up to put on top of your car.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
El Senor
> With respect to the weight my 96 weighs 23 lbs, a 2002 weighs
> 17.5 lbs.
A 23lb carbon fibre bike!!?? This seems almost impossible. Are you
sure your scale is accurate?
-Mike
Jon Isaacs
>interface flexes significantly more, and 1" steerer tubes leave less metal
>up front.
I think Chalo Colina has addressed your comments quite nicely. In my
experience a 1 inch steel fork is sufficiently stiff and in fact stiffer than
forks made from other materials.
> With respect to the weight my 96 weighs 23 lbs, a 2002 weighs
>17.5 lbs. Since when did 5.5 lbs become a trivial amount? I don't care if
>you race or not, 5.5 lbs is huge.
Well, that must be one heavy 2300 because my 59 cm Eddy Merckx with basic STI
comes in under 23 lbs (weighed on gram scale.)
Yeah 5 lbs is nice but one is going to have to pay for that in more ways than
just through the pocket book. $1000 bikes are not coming in at 17.5 lbs. And
as someone calculated last year, Lance's bike would have had to have been about
10 lbs heavier for Ulrich to keep up with him on the climbs.
5.5 pounds is not huge, 5.5 lbs makes very little difference in the long run
except to make a bike that is less durable and more likely to suffer from
fatigue.
jon isaacs
Qui si parla Campagnolo
comes in under 23 lbs (weighed on gram scale.) >>
My Nobilette, lugged steel, with 1985 C-Record gruppo, including Deltas was
20.5 pounds.
Jon Isaacs
>20.5 pounds.
My SR Maxima, 59 cm is something like, 21.0 lbs. Supre gruppo with a Ti
saddle.
jon isaacs
Jim
My 59 cm Falcon (Reynolds 531) frame and fork with Dura Ace EX
components comes in just over 20 lbs. That's a '70s frame with early
'80s components that I put together in college, with no ultralight
gimmickry, and it's still a blast to ride. And now I weigh 20 lbs more
than I did then, so I might as well be carrying around an extra bike!
-Jim "I'll keep my lugged steel frames, thank you very much" McKim