I'm torn between buying a 1997 Trek 5200 or a 2006 Trek 1000

Estimation of the 5200 is 7500 miles on it
Estimation of the 1000 is 2500 miles on it.

The 5200 is reported as good condtion with significant cosmetic wear.

I'm a beginner to road bikes and not sure what I'd be better off with.

Well, if they both fit and are the same price, I say go for the 5200. It was and still is a very good bike. The 1000 is one of the best bang-for-your-buck rides out there, so if the price is right, I say spring for that one. You get a lot more bike than most people think.

I agree with the recommendation of the 5200 but disagree that the 1000 is bang for the buck. Especially in the entry level al/Sora range, you are just paying for the name. The Trek 1000 is not different in any substantive way from a half-dozen lower priced competitors.

But neither of these bikes is worth more than $500, and you didn't say what the seller was asking.

The Trek 1000 is not different in any substantive way from a half-dozen lower priced competitors.

But neither of these bikes is worth more than $500, and you didn't say what the seller was asking.


I'm just starting a search and was about to spend $669 plus tax for the 1000. Any other suggestions?

I would totally go for the 5200. My first road bike was a 5200. Great for both long rides and racing. It will give you whatever you are looking for. Never would have let go of mine if it were the right size.