[urbanrider]

I presently ride a Trek 4900 but I'm considering a the Trek XO1 or the Trek Touring 520 for short to medium tours
I'm not considering ultra long rides (in excess of 300 kms.)
What are the advantages/disadvantages of each bike for this type of riding.

More endurance then speed!

Thanks in Advance:confused:

[The BikeForums Team]

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

[Rotifer]

I don't know much about either of them but, on checking out the Trek site, I'd say we're talking apples and oranges here. The XO1 (http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2003/road/xo1.jsp) is a relatively aggressive aluminum bike. While the 520 (http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2003/road/520.jsp) is your classic steel touring bike. I imagine, with cyclocross tires, the 520 would be enjoyable on the trail. If you want something you may want to strip the rack off and hit a cross race (or you just like speed) consider the OX1. If you want something that will dampen your ride with a full load of gear, get the 520.

[Rich Clark]

For long, loaded tours the 520 takes the prize without breathing hard. It has wider gearing, front lowrider braze-ons, bar-end shifters, and a more compliant, comfortable ride. It's a touring bike.

The XO1 is a nice bike and would make an excellent commuter. And you could tour on it if you wanted to, although I'd want lower low gears if I were climbing significant grades with a full load (this applies to a lesser extent to the 520 also).

The 520 has a somewhat better parts spec as well.

RichC