Touring - New 520!

I just bought a new Trek 520, fellow tourists. As my last post on the BLT vs. 520 thread may have indicated, I was giving the matter a lot of thought. That thread arose at right about the right time for me, given my decision to get a touring rig. I was glad for the discussion.

Here are the options/modifications I got:

(1) replace the 105 crankset/derailler with LX (22-32-44 front end).

(2) Replace stock rims with Mavic touring. Have wheels hand built by LBS.

Price, all in (including tax): $1,200 (U.S., for the non-Yanks on the board.)


I'm buying the bike with solo, loaded touring in mind. So, given my budget, I considered only the 520 and the BLT. (Other bikes in the same or lesser price range had components that just weren't good enough, or didn't have the appropriate forks or beefy wheels.)

With the modifications I got, the 520 is set up identically to the BLT. Actually, the wheels I'll end up with are probably a little better, with the Mavic rims. The one difference would be that the BLT's got a frame with a thicker frame wall. That's an advantage, I thought, but the price of the BLT including assembly would have been $400 more than the 520. Given that the 520's frame has clearly shown that it's good enough for loaded touring, I didn't think it was worth the extra coin for the BLT's frame improvement. If the bikes were closer in price, within about $150 of each other I probably would have gone with the BLT.

Someone, I think it was cycletourist, complained about the 520's front fork. I thought the fork was fine-- beefy enough for loaded riding and with a nice set of threaded ports, too. I've not heard anyone who's bought the bike complain about the fork, either. (Nor the frame. That was a crucial matter in my choice. The benefits of the internet.)

One other item that may be of interest to anyone thinking about a 520 is that it has a compact frame. I'm not sure why the picture on the Trek site doesn't make this clear-- perhaps the largest size has a horizontal top tube. I didn't care much about the fact that the frame was compact, given that I am confident in its strength.

I'm looking forward to the bike!

Cheers,

I think you should really like the bike. Everything I have read has been good. Catfish on the board is I think the guy to talk to about the 520. He has put miles and miles on one.

Congratulatiuons Merriwether. Bought my 520 about a month ago and absolutely love it. Whta made you decide to change the rims? Mavics that good or the stock Bontragers that bad? I have not rread of or had any problems with mine to date.

Enjoy the ride.

congrats on the new bike ive had mine for 3 years and well over 12,000 miles loaded touring. you will grow to love this bike. I did notice some changes trek made since i bought mine they went to the threadless head set I dunno i must be old fassion i still perfer the quill so as to raise and lower the height as to how i feel but then i got 2 steel plates and six screws in my back!

the rims you say you didnt like do they still come with bontreager fairlanes? those are quite good and strong i got a bad one though which can happemn with any product and at 5,000 miles had to have the rear rim replaced as it developed stress cracks they replaced it free witha bontreager Clyde much stronger and probley overkill but i decided to build one for the forount also
good luck and enjoy your new ride\catfish

Originally posted by sammer
Congratulatiuons Merriwether. Bought my 520 about a month ago and absolutely love it. Whta made you decide to change the rims? Mavics that good or the stock Bontragers that bad? I.

Thanks, Sammer.

I have read a couple of reports online, including Catfish's, of the stock rims cracking after a few thousand miles of loaded touring. Most people haven't had any problems, but I thought it best to err on the side of prevention. I'm not a pure cyclist-- I do some lifting and I'm not a light guy. If the rim cracks later, I'd have to buy spokes as well as new rims. And, if the stock rim did crack, it would be likely to do so at a less convenient time than when the bike is still in the LBS after purchase, as it is now. Changing rims at purchase, too, means that my very skilled local wheelsmith will be building these wheels himself. I think that's better than even his tensioning and truing the stock wheels. Since all of this wasn't a whole lot of money, something like $150, I thought it worth the piece of mind.

But, yes, new rims may have been unnecessary. I'll probably never know...

I'm looking forward to loading 'er up and riding off into the countryside.

I like and admire all sorts of bikes. I have a special place in my heart for real touring bikes, though. The bike that can haul all your stuff on remote adventures year after year, the one that rolls along a rough dirt road without complaint but still poses gracefully in the photo next to you at the mountain pass... now that's a bike!

Trek went through a period of using rims with too thin walls. The braking surface would wear thin and the rim would burst.
For touring you need a fair amount of metal on the side, and some modern rims (Alesa ?)even have wear indicators.
The thin-walled rims are just as strong when new, and the thick walled ones will wear out eventually.

im finding that i do a lot of long distance trips now like 100km+ and my mountain bike is just too much to push for that distance. I was considering the 520. Is it good for touring and all that stuff or should I just get a road bike. Does it have that taking off road bike feel to it or does it feel like a MTB. And how much in USD or CDN $ does it go for.

Originally posted by WorldIRC
im finding that i do a lot of long distance trips now like 100km+ and my mountain bike is just too much to push for that distance. I was considering the 520. Is it good for touring and all that stuff or should I just get a road bike. Does it have that taking off road bike feel to it or does it feel like a MTB. And how much in USD or CDN $ does it go for.

The 520 is a road bike with touring geometry and fittings. It's designed for long-distance riding with full loads of front and rear panniers. It's not going to win any races, but it's not slow, either.

They sell for about $1000USD.

There are other threads about the 520 and other available touring bikes on here that are worth reading, too.

RichC

I bought a 520 a couple months ago. I LOVE IT !!!!

Congratulations, Merriwether, on your purchase.

I haven't gone on a tour with it yet. Come to think of it, I haven't been on a tour !! I do 95% of my miles through commuting, but I bought the 520 with an eye towards touring eventually. In the interim, it's got the "umph" needed to handle the pothole-ridden roads I traverse -- with confidence.

It is a solid, confidence-inspiring bike. I am very happy with it.

To an earlier poster's question regarding the type of ride: it's a heavier road bike, with a long wheelbase. It's not at all "twitchy" but, rather, solid and sure. I can maintain speeds nearly equal to my road bike on the flats but would start to feel the weight on the hills.

It's a BMW 528, not a Porsche Turbo. But it's not SUV either.

Originally posted by Rich Clark


The 520 is a road bike with touring geometry and fittings. It's designed for long-distance riding with full loads of front and rear panniers. It's not going to win any races, but it's not slow, either.

They sell for about $1000USD.

There are other threads about the 520 and other available touring bikes on here that are worth reading, too.

RichC


Rich what i mean is right now on my MTB cuz its got 2inch tires with loads a grip and ways 27lbs i gotta push more than a road bike to get the speed. its also harder to h9old up an average speed of maybe 30km/h on a MTB. Will it be easier on an unloaded tour bike.

Originally posted by WorldIRC



Rich what i mean is right now on my MTB cuz its got 2inch tires with loads a grip and ways 27lbs i gotta push more than a road bike to get the speed. its also harder to h9old up an average speed of maybe 30km/h on a MTB. Will it be easier on an unloaded tour bike.

Sustaining a given speed on level ground is more a matter of aerodynamics and rolling resistance than anything else. Bike weight affects acceleration and climbing more than cruising.

Putting high-pressure narrow slicks on your MTB will help a lot. If that's not enough, then road bikes might be the next step. Whether you want a tourer or not depends on how you plan to use the bike.

You might also want to look into cyclocross bikes.

RichC

i just found a good deal on a used roadie ima go check it out

Hello gang
Not sure if this is the right thread. Someone had asked me to post something when i had some more mileage on the new 520. Just passed 500 miles the other day. cannot say enuff good about bike. First real loaded tour later this month, have carried loaded panniers on several 50 mile legs to see how it felt - no prob. This was rears only, have not bought fronys yet.

I pick up my new 2003 520 tomorrow. It looks basically the same as the 2002 with the exception of a new seat design. I couldn't see anything else different on my first inspection. I will check it out tomorrow and if anything pops up I'll pass it along.

Can't wait to get it out on the open road.

Mur

I have a 1991 Trek 520. It's a fine bike and after thousands of miles it's still a work horse. Great product. I did the 2001 MS150 in MO last year with approximately 50 lbs. of gear on board. No problem! I did the Firecracker 100 in Kansas in July (no load) and still kept up with some of the road bikes. (Note: This bike is bone stock with the exception of a new seat.) Need I say more. Component upgrades after 2002 MS150 in Aug/Sept. will, without a doubt, bring the bike back up to a more than capable medium for travel, beit leisurely touring or grunting it out with the road warriors under the blistering sun of the midwester sky. I've looked at the new 520's and the basic design is nearly identical to mine. I like the bar end shifters but wouldn't mind the shifters on the brakes. The price hasn't really gone up on them that much either. I bought mine for arond $720.00 new in 91. I weigh about 205 and have had zero problems with the bike. Normal wear and tear, tires, a chain, brake pads and some cables here and there have been the only things replaced.
Rock on roadies.
Ricky D.

Hello, I just discovered this forum while searching for information on the Trek 520. I'm really impressed with the quality of the responses you guys give, so I'm optimistic that you can help me out, too.

I'm thinking about buying the 520. I'm a tall person (6-4) with long legs and I was looking for a leisure bike that comes in at least a 25'' size and that would be comfortable to ride on the road (primarily short-distance, but also long-distance once in a while). On the other hand, I would also like to take the bike off the pavement once in a while (for example, cycling around the lake, through the woods, etc., nothing fancy). My questions are:

(1) Someone said the 520 is not an SUV. Did anyone ever take it offroad? Does the bike do alright off the pavement? What about the tires?

(2) I'm thinking about putting a flat bar on it (I prefer a more upright position). Any comments/criticism/suggestions about that?

(3) I tend to believe I would almost be better served with a cyclocross bike, but they are all too small. Anybody knows of a 25'' or 63 cm cyclocross bike? Any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance!

Wolfgang

Good bike, however, a few points to watch.

1. Current Trek 520s use a threadless fork. Make sure the bike shop doesn't cut the fork before you are really sure about the height you need. I'm only 5'11", with 35" inseam, and I use a 25" Trek 520 with about 100 mm of seatpost exposed and with a long Zoom adjustable stem so the bars are level with the saddle. BTW, mine is 2 years old and it used a traditional quill.

2. If your fork is high enough, and your stem is high enough, you may get the drop bars at a comfortable level. You won't look like a racer, but you may look like what's promoted by Rivendell (http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/rr_raisestem.html), Bruce Gordon (http://www.bgcycles.com) and a few other tourers.

3. Using flat bars is possible, but an expensive proposition, as you will need new shifters and new brake levers as well. Better negociate it with the bikeshop beforehand. Another option would be to look at alternate bars, such as Moustache bars (see Rivendell above for some examples), because these will reuse the same shifters and brake levers.

Regards,

Soulteacher, I bought a Trek 520 in late May and I really enjoy it. I bought it primarily to absorb the pounding of my urban commute ride but I have hopes of doing tours within a couple years.

I'm 6'4" and I absolutely love the fit. It's ideal for me.

The thing rides like a tank. It's pretty heavy but sturdy. I've never taken it offroad in the 1300 miles I've ridden it but I'd imagine it can easily handle fire roads and the like. The tires can take a real beating and the rims can absorb a beating.

Soulteacher:

You wanted to know a couple of things in particular. First, can the bike be ridden off road?

I'll provide my experience, but bear in mind I swapped out the stock rims for Mavic Touring rims at purchase. The new rims are stronger than the stock rims. Not that I think the replacements make my remarks entirely inapplicable to the stock wheels, but you should be aware of the possibility that my modifications have strengthened my wheels considerably. I do use the stock tires, though, which I think are 35mm.

I have taken my bike on real hiking trails, with tree roots to get over and ruts. I did this on more than one occasion with a large load, too. The ride was fine. The wheels remained true. There was no deviation laterally, and no hops formed.

I didn't hammer downhill the way I would do on a mountain bike, but I didn't ride the brakes either. With my setup the bike should be ridden with some restraint, but it doesn't have to be babied, either.

I have taken the bike on unpaved roads, or thickly graveled and unsealed roads, countless times. That is no problem at all. I wouldn't hesitate to ride long distances on reasonably maintained dirt roads even with a load.

The bike could be used as a cross country mountain bike-- the old mountain bikes were just steel frames with no shocks, after all-- if you used fatter tires. Still, I would be cautious and avoid jumping other than bunny hops. But since you're asking about using a touring bike offroad, and you're not asking about mountain bikes, I'm guessing your intended uses will be well within the performance envelope of the bike.

Should you get a flat bar?

If I might be forgiven an opinionated answer, the answer is no. If you want a more upright position just buy a stem with a lot of rise. It's cheaper than replacing the handlebar and the brakes and shifters, which is what you would have to do to make the flat bar work properly.

You'll also retain the benefits of the drop bars. Drop bars allow you to duck into the wind and put yourself into a position in which you pedal harder and go faster. On long downhills you'll like being able to tuck. The drop bars are narrower than most upright bars, which can be a help in traffic, too. You have more hand positions available with drop bars, and believe it or not being able to get into the drops provides a nice break for your back on long upright rides.

I might as well add a word or two about the threadless headset on the 520, since it's relevant to your stem decisions. Some people on these boards are bothered by the 520's new threadless headset, complaining that the steerer tube is cut too short. I don't agree with them. I don't think this is any disadvantage at all, and it's certainly not one worth complaining about. You can get stems with any amount of rise you want to place the handlebars at an appropriate position. Whether the stem rises in a straight line to that position, or whether the steerer and stem get there in a roundabout 7 shape, is unimportant.

Lest you be concerned that the riser stem would be weaker than a taller steerer and horizontal stem, note that many mountain bike stems are made with significant rise. Use a mountain bike stem with a high rise if you want to be secure in your stem. Or just note that many pro road racers, who descend on their machines at 50+ mph, use low steerers and stems with a significant rise.

In other words, if the frame is roughly the right size for you, you can get the handlebars to any position you want with the right stem. Do that instead of losing the drop bars.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Merriwether

I might as well add a word or two about the threadless headset on the 520, since it's relevant to your stem decisions. Some people on these boards are bothered by the 520's new threadless headset, complaining that the steerer tube is cut too short. I don't agree with them. I don't think this is any disadvantage at all, and it's certainly not one worth complaining about. You can get stems with any amount of rise you want to place the handlebars at an appropriate position. Whether the stem rises in a straight line to that position, or whether the steerer and stem get there in a roundabout 7 shape, is unimportant.


You can't get "any amount of rise you want." It's entirely possible that a given individual would require the bars to be higher than is possible to achieve solely through swapping stems. I know this from personal experience.

The solution to this is to special-order the bike with an uncut steerer, and have the bike shop cut it only after fitting you. This is a pain in the butt, but it solves the problem. It also makes it impossible to test-ride the bike with the bars at the desired height, but that's often moot since so few shops stock 520's anyway.

The other issue with threadless headsets on touring bikes is that some riders like to lower their bars according to riding conditions, or the load they're carrying, or how early it is in the season, or how much climbing is involved in the current leg of their tour. Again, the solution is a taller-cut steerer, from which spacers can be removed below the stem to lower the bars. Of course, this leaves an ugly stub above the stem, but at least the functionality is retained.

All this could have been avoided simply by not changing what was a perfectly serviceable and versatile design, and I guess that's why some of us are disdainful of this change: touring bikes should be designed for functionality, not fashion.

RichC

But on the pro side, you can maintain a threadless headset with a couple of allen keys, rather than 2 large heavy spanners. Useful if you have to carry all your tools.

How does the 520 compare in weight to a touring bike made from Reynolds 531 Super Tourist steel (Manganese Moly made into thin-walled racing and thick-walled touring tubes). The Trek site says made from Cromoly, but this is pretty vague. I get the feeling that the Trek is pretty heavily built, possibly overbuilt compared to a typical UK tourer.

My one is strong enough for fully loaded touring, but is no heavyweight when unloaded. It handles trails well (with handbuilt wheels).

Originally posted by Rich Clark

You can't get "any amount of rise you want." It's entirely possible that a given individual would require the bars to be higher than is possible to achieve solely through swapping stems. I know this from personal experience.

The other issue with threadless headsets on touring bikes is that some riders like to lower their bars according to riding conditions, or the load they're carrying, or how early it is in the season, or how much climbing is involved in the current leg of their tour. Again, the solution is a taller-cut steerer, from which spacers can be removed below the stem to lower the bars. Of course, this leaves an ugly stub above the stem, but at least the functionality is retained.

RichC


Let's not make mountains out of molehills, shall we?

Look, if this guy is like 95 out of 100 men his size a threadless headset won't cause any difficulty in fitting him on a 25" frame. That's just the way it is.

For example, if Soulteacher just wants the bars 1" or less above seat height-- and that's high for a tall man on a road bike-- this can almost certainly be done at the reach he needs.

But Soulteacher's a tall guy, and that's likely to make matters even easier. A taller man can have the bars a bit lower compared to the seat than a smaller man to acheive equal levels of comfort in a riding position.

There are a huge number of stems available. Stems can be ordered in lengths from 0 to 150mm, and some come longer if you hunt for them. They have rises up to 45 degrees. Reversible stems give you effective rises much higher. If you're willing to use mountain bike stems you can solve the vast majority of fitting issues.

All of this I know from experience. Whatever might be said about threadless headsets, that they prevent any but a small number of riders from getting the handlebars to the height they want when buying a new bike is just false. Unless Soulteacher's got especially idiosyncratic fitting needs he needn't make a special order for an uncut steerer.

He could do this, of course, and if he's really worried about the stem maybe he'd feel more comfortable doing it. But he likely doesn't have to, and he might find getting the bike quicker and easier if he doesn't ask to do this. So as far as his decision to buy the bike in the first place goes, that the 520 has a threadless headset is almost certainly not going to be an important fact for him.

For all the talk of the ease of raising/lowering the stem of a threaded headset I don't know anyone who actually does this. It's mostly a theoretical worry, like the double-switch pitching change in baseball. For those who do want to do this, a change in stem length might be desirable to compensate for height changes, too. So, someone who varied bar height through the year might well find he's happier with a threadless set and two stems that can be swapped in two minutes. He might prefer this to the ease of lowering a threaded set's stem combined with the frustration of changing the stem itself.

If someone really did want the ability to raise/lower the bars quickly on the road, and moving the spacers on a threadless stem just wouldn't do the trick, then, yes, I agree. A threaded set would be preferable. Again, though, most people do not have any such preference. I don't think it's reasonable to consider a bike purchase on the serious expectation that one will develop this preference if he doesn't already have it.

For these reasons I just don't share the frustration that you and some others have with newer, threadless headsets. I don't think they introduce significant fitting problems for someone without special needs, especially someone who's considering buying a bike that he can order in a size he wants.

All I know is that I'm 6'4" and ride a completely stock 520 and it fits perfectly for me.

Before this thread I didn't even know there was such a thing as a threadless headset.

Originally posted by Merriwether
Let's not make mountains out of molehills, shall we?

I don't think we are. It's just a discussion.


Look, if this guy is like 95 out of 100 men his size a threadless headset won't cause any difficulty in fitting him on a 25" frame. That's just the way it is.

I have a philosophical problem with companies like Trek being willing to dismiss the other five riders, assuming you're correct about the ratio.


A taller man can have the bars a bit lower compared to the seat than a smaller man to acheive equal levels of comfort in a riding position.

Comfort is subjective. I think it's better to design a bike that allows th user to make adjustments on the fly than to design one that requires replacing parts to accomplish the same thing.


There are a huge number of stems available. Stems can be ordered in lengths from 0 to 150mm, and some come longer if you hunt for them. They have rises up to 45 degrees. Reversible stems give you effective rises much higher. If you're willing to use mountain bike stems you can solve the vast majority of fitting issues.

Setting aside that it's tough to carry an inventory of spare stems on a ride, and the issue of bar diameter when using MTB stems, I'm not disputing what you say. But it's still trye that there are fits that can't be accomplished via stem swapping unless the steerer is cut high and a lot of spacers are used. This makes accessibility to the bikes very difficult for test riders, and further marginalizes touring bikes as a product category.

How many buyers end up on hybrids who would be better served by a touring bike, had there been one for them to try that could have the bars raised to saddle height for that initial test ride?


All of this I know from experience. Whatever might be said about threadless headsets, that they prevent any but a small number of riders from getting the handlebars to the height they want when buying a new bike is just false. Unless Soulteacher's got especially idiosyncratic fitting needs he needn't make a special order for an uncut steerer.

They do prevent some riders from getting the bars high enough to suit them unless they order an uncut steerer. The proportion of such riders is an unknown. One could argue that the ability to cut a threadless steerer to any desired height is actually another advantage of the system, since threaded systems are limited to the height of the head tube plus the height of the longest available stem.


He could do this, of course, and if he's really worried about the stem maybe he'd feel more comfortable doing it. But he likely doesn't have to, and he might find getting the bike quicker and easier if he doesn't ask to do this.

It's not a mystery, and doesn't require guesswork. The bike shop can measure him and calculate whether it's necessary. And they should.


So as far as his decision to buy the bike in the first place goes, that the 520 has a threadless headset is almost certainly not going to be an important fact for him.

I agree. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, I think the 520 is a fine bike. But for many buyers new to current road bike designs, threadless headsets are a real "gotcha." "How do I raise my handlebars" is an extremely common question, and it shouldn't have to be.


For all the talk of the ease of raising/lowering the stem of a threaded headset I don't know anyone who actually does this.

I know lots of people who do this. You should try it sometime. Oops, I forgot, you can't. :p

I'm not suggesting that the 520 is a bad bike because it has a threadless headset. I am suggesting that a bike designed for loaded touring doesn't benefit from a threadless headset in the way that bikes designed for competition do, and that Trek's reason for make the change have little to do with making the bike more functional.

More generally, I think it's a shame that touring bikes are so hard for people to buy, because I think they're the most practical design available for general use. It's already bad enough that even most Trek dealers don't even stock the 520. That they arrive from the factory in a state that makes them an even tougher sell for buyers who might choose them over a hybrid if only the bars could be easily raised by the salesman for the test ride just makes it worse.

RichC

After reading some of these posts and the question about weight i weighed my 520 with frount and rear racks and fenders it weighs in at a whopping 29 lbs (if the scale is right. ) I allways knew the bike was heavy but when riding it day after day touring It really isnt an issue for me .However, i did notice the weight one day this sumer my road bike (5200) was down for a reapir so i decided to use the 520 for a club ride, man that 520 seemed like a slug that day.

I really like the 520 for loaded touring it fits me and works for me. Mine is 3 years old and has the quill stem I would not buy a new 520 because of the threadlress system. I under stand threadless and have it on one of my 2 road bikes,. The argument for going tothreadless is the ease of adjusting the headset with just a couple of allen wrenches. I dont buy that as a good enough reason to loose the ability to quickly adjust the height of the H B espicially for touring,

I can tell you during two summer long tours of many thousands of mles each. i neded to adjust my headset only once. checking the head set is part of my pre ride check , squeeze the frount break and move back and forth , One morning i noticed a little bit of slight play so stoped at the first LBS i saw borrowed a BFW (big friendly wrench) and a head set wrench made the ajustment withen minutes. never neded another adjustment till i was doing winter overhaul on that bike.
catfsih

On Stems and Headsets:

As in many areas of bike function, there are strong opinions about the significance of the 520's threadless headset. I'll leave it at this. The fact that there has been such detailed discussion of this issue here should indicate to Soulteacher that it is a matter worth thinking about. So, he, and any of the other seven people in North America, Western Europe, and Oz/NZ who have read this far into the thread, should ask whether the versatility of the threaded stem is a must-have.

Thanks Joe and Catfish for your responses.

Out of curiosity, the Gordon BLT has a threaded stem, I know, but what about other options? Is this a common feature in the British touring bikes?

On weight

I'll have to agree with Catfish that the 520 isn't light. I haven't weighed mine, but with front and rear shelved racks the thing must be in the high twenties (pounds...2.2 pounds to the kg). I often ride with panniers, in which I keep a lock, rain gear, and whatever else I'm bringing along, so the weight is greater still. I would guess that the bike is far into the thirties in a typical configuration: three bags on my racks, lock, rain gear, whatever odds and ends are in there for errands, and a light and battery. I don't ride it with a priority for speed, though. My aim was to get as fast a ride as I could given the ability to carry loads and stand up to adverse conditions. For that, the 520 is a great bike. I love mine.

Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out that the contemporary 520 is significantly lighter than older steel sport-touring bikes, and is lighter than its incarnations from several years ago. Yet it wobbles not at all with massive loads on it, unlike older sport touring bikes. I understand that the new 520's are even noticeably stiffer than the older ones, though I've not been astride an older 520 one with a significant load. I can't say myself.

If you want a touring bike, though, you should understand what you're getting into. You're going to have to forget about a seventeen pound machine.

I've been thrilled with my 520, myself, and that's after about a thousand miles. Gordon's BLT is magnificent, too, as are even higher-end custom bikes. None of them are light, though, even with pricier components than 520's 105 (or XT in my case).

I also think it's a shame more 520's aren't bought. That's more a function of what people want, I think, than what the LBS decides to try to sell. The 520's much more expensive than comfort bikes, of which the store near here sells a ton. It's doesn't perform like a racing replica, thus disqualifying itself in the minds of many other prospective shoppers. It's only people who already know something about bikes-- ones who appreciate the practical advantages of a solid touring machine or who actually want to go touring-- who see the 520 for what it is.

There just aren't that many practical cyclists or would-be tourists around. It's a nice market, to be sure. Still, Trek sells the 520 reliably in relatively small numbers year after year, so the niche is still worth pusuing for them. A few custom manufactures seem to eke out a living in this market too.

The British equivelent of the 520 is the Dawes SuperGalaxy

http://www.dawescycles.com/bikes/supergalaxy.htm

Still made from 531ST with a threaded headset and pretty good spec for loaded touring.
Other ready-built tourers come from small specialist makers (Orbit,Thorn) ;threadless headsets are pretty common but come with long steerers and plenty of spacer rings.

Its quite usual for club riders to get their LBS to build up a stock frame from one of the scores of framebuilders, so any way you like it, and the price can be reasonable. At the moment there is no shortage of options for the tourist.

I just skimmed through the comments regarding threaded vs threaded headset, and the fact current design should satisfy almost everyone anyway...

Well, I'm only 1,82 m (5' 11"), and use a 25" frame. My seatpost is also raised by 100 mm (saddle at 180 mm above top tube), and the handlebar is a tad higher -- I have the traditional headset.

So, I would probably be in the 5% for whom the new design wouldn't fit... unless they add a 27" frame to their line.

Regards,

Everyone, I'd like to thank you for all the feedback! Gosh, I really learned a lot. I'm more of the type 'clueless cyclist' but - taadaaaaa- I ordered my 520 last weekend!:beer: The good thing is that my LBD seems to be on top of things. I actually printed out some of your messages and showed them to him and he made sense out of it for me. In the end I went with the flat bar but that's just a very personal preference (I agree that - rationally - the drop bar would make more sense). I'll keep you updated how things go once I have my baby.

Congratulations, Soulteacher!! I think you'll love it. I know I love mine!!!! :D

I just copied this over from another thread (kind of a dead one).

Hello all
Been gone a while due bad computer and work and riding, thought i would say hello. I have been catching up with Dwagenheim, pretty awesome. Did my first century in August, it hurt a bit more than I expected, but based on waht 1 of my ride partners went through, I am pretty sure that my BG saddle literally save my behind. Quite an experience overall, ride time 6:39, average 26 kmh with 2 (official) rest stops, leaders did 4:35.

Later that month I rode the local MS150 (which I extended to 210 km) and it was fun but of course seemed fairly easy after the century. I did the ride with loaded rear panniers to see how it felt - a bit unbalanced in the turns with nothing on the front. I am wondering now about front panniers vs a Yak trailer?

Someone had posted earlier that they wanted to hear progress with mu new Trek520. Mileage is over 2200K/1300 miles at this point and it has performed beautifully. There was a problem with one of the stock IRC Duro tires that I was unable to rectify - would you believe 8 or 9 flats in a row. I gave up and threw away the "bad" tire, kept the other IRC as my spare, and installed a new set of Conti TT2000s. The bad IRC did spoil a couple of rides but neither I nor my ridemates were ever able to find the fault that kept holing the tubes.

I love the bike - strong, secure, great drivetrain, reliable. Did not get to do any multi-day tours this year, but hopefully next year will be better.

Sammer

PS Rich C if u see this - I had some additional problems with my bike fit after taking your original advice - steerer tube uncut etc etc. Well either dut to age or inexperience, I needed my bar raised after I got the bike home and did some rides. Temp answer was a n adjustible stem wich fixed the prob short-term but looks dorky. So now my LBS will have to install a steerer tube extension with a new/shorter stem.

I really don't care about the techno debate about threadless v threaded. I want a bike that fits, and I can only say that the threadless has not offerred any benefit to me. Some of this could be said to be my fault - so be it, but it doesn't change the fact that the "new" design didn't help me when needed.

If it aint broke, why fix it?

Big congrats to the new 520 owner.
Cheers

Thats a good bike, i dont know why you want to change anything, but if you dont like what u have, go for it

Congrats on your 520! That is going to be one of my next two bikes. I have plans for touring...big plans!!

Woo Hoo, I got my new 520 today! It is sooo cool! Unfortunately, it started raining so I couldn't use it too much, but it's really neat. VERY quick! I had a flat bar put on it and LOVE it. It looks a little bit like a mountain bike but is so much quicker. Very easy to handle, too. Exactly what I was looking for. It looks a little bit smaller than I though it would, but it's okay.

Thanks for all the encouragement and wishes. I'll keep you posted on how things go. Definitely praying for better weather!

I had no idea 520's were so popular. I've had mine for almost a year (bought it slightly used) and am still in love w/ it. I haven't taken it touring yet, but it makes a excellent commuter and is still fun and fast enough for me when I take her out w/o panniers.

Oso

Originally posted by OsoGuevara
I had no idea 520's were so popular. I've had mine for almost a year (bought it slightly used) and am still in love w/ it. I haven't taken it touring yet, but it makes a excellent commuter and is still fun and fast enough for me when I take her out w/o panniers.

Oso

The 520's a great bike. It's built right, and stays built.

The 520 carries heavy loads, can be ridden on hiking trails, and you can also leave the panniers at home and go on a club ride.

Originally posted by Merriwether


The 520's a great bike. It's built right, and stays built.

The 520 carries heavy loads, can be ridden on hiking trails, and you can also leave the panniers at home and go on a club ride.

It's also one of the few bikes available with a 25" frame.