The acceleration was noticably faster on the 5900, and it did climb faster, particularly when standing. The 5900 is stock spec (Dura-Ace, Bonty Race-X-Lite wheels), with a couple of upgrades- Giant Carbon stem and bar, USE Carbon post, SLR saddle, Conti GP Supersonic tyres/tubes. For the first time since i got the 5200 i went out on the 5900 last week, to see how marked the difference was. I've put on a Selle Italia SLR saddle and Ultegra SPD-SL pedals.
2006 TREK 5200 OCLV CARBON 120 FULL
It's just the stock spec- full Ultegra, Bontrager Race Lite wheels, Bonty bar/stem. I bought the 5200 after crashing the 5900 into a car at high speed and realising that training on such an expensive bike was a pretty dumb thing to do! I've had the 5200 about 3 months now, and ive done about 1500 miles on it. Just to be saved for racing and sunny days! I also find it irritating that on pre-2004 models you cannot change the headset, as the fork steerer is 1.25" at the bottom, but the standard 1.125" at the top, so you're stuck with the **** Klein/Cane Creek headset they spec, meaning you have to take out the seatpost and 'empty' the frame after a wet ride! That really is the only complaint i have, it is a pleasure to ride, extremely responsive and very stiff, a dream to ride.
2006 TREK 5200 OCLV CARBON 120 UPGRADE
I wouldnt say the frame was any more harsh, there may be a very slight difference, but its not something that is really noticable, and thats on the sh*t road surfaces in the UK! I would actually question whether the 5900 is a worthwhile upgrade if you already own the 5500, as the difference is solely the frame. The front end felt decidedly more 'muted' which i attribute to the lighter fork and carbon bar and stem.
When was there a 5000 zerokoo0l, ive been aware of a 5200, 5500, 57 over the last 5 years, but never a 5000? I bought the 5200 instead as I think in the end it just made more sense for me and have since made a few additional "improvements" (Chris King Headset, Ultegra Pedals) but think the 5000 is unmistakingly a lot of bike for the money. I do not know if the paper was ever made public as it was written as sales information for the trade, I happened to get it when I visited a dealer over the winter who printed up the only information he could find for me on that specific bike off of the dealer resource site. I have the paper around here somewhere and if I can dig it up will post a more exact account. The paper goes on specifically compare the 5000 to the Giant and speaks about the main advantage Trek has is in the quality and workmanship of the frame, fork, and wheels which come on the 5000. I think what you may have read and/or possibly misunderstood part of a white paper originally provided by Trek to their dealers via their dealer website that compared the 5000 to the 5200 and stated that the reason they were releasing the 5000 was to be competitive with some lower priced carbon framed bikes from Giant and a few other brands.