martianone
10-06-07, 01:00 PM
what is the widest tire that fits a Trek 520 without fenders ?
i know 37-622 will work,
has anyone run 42-622 or wider ?
Thanks,
martianone
i know 37-622 will work,
has anyone run 42-622 or wider ?
Thanks,
martianone
Touring - widest tire fitting Trek 520 ?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : widest tire fitting Trek 520 ?
Michel Gagnon
10-08-07, 09:43 AM
I have fenders on mine, and mine dates back from year 2000, but here is my take on this:
- Front wheel: 37-622 is a tight fit. A slick tire will fit, but for a knobby, it depends how high the tire actually is (some 37-622 are wider and especially higher than others). But with about 2-3 mm clearance below the fork, the thing is likely to jam quickly in the mud. And BTW, 37-622 doesn't fit under a fender.
– Rear wheel: again it depends on the tires, but 42-622 fits under a fender. In my case, the tightest clearance I have is under the rear rack. Even there a 42-622 should fit, but maybe with only a few millimetres of space.
- Front wheel: 37-622 is a tight fit. A slick tire will fit, but for a knobby, it depends how high the tire actually is (some 37-622 are wider and especially higher than others). But with about 2-3 mm clearance below the fork, the thing is likely to jam quickly in the mud. And BTW, 37-622 doesn't fit under a fender.
– Rear wheel: again it depends on the tires, but 42-622 fits under a fender. In my case, the tightest clearance I have is under the rear rack. Even there a 42-622 should fit, but maybe with only a few millimetres of space.
martianone
10-08-07, 04:41 PM
MG:
merci beaucoup.
merci beaucoup.
professorkev
10-11-07, 11:08 AM
So why is it people would go wide on this bike? the 520 is typically for touring , and if you go wider don't you lose speed and energy trying to get going on the bike? I can't picture the width your talking about, still trying to figure out some things.
gowfermike
10-12-07, 10:23 AM
I have the 2008 Trek 520. It has 700X32 tires. The only reason for a wider tire I know of is for a softer ride. When riding all day comfort is as important as speed.
martianone
10-12-07, 07:05 PM
Dear PK:
why wider tires ?
because i like them.
i live in a rural area with rough gravel/dirt/sand/washboard roads, the wider tire is more comfortable and secure in these conditions. Schwalbe marathons are a good balance of traction and rolling easy, 32 mm marathons can run at 95 psi, while 37 and 42 mm marathons run at 85; not much resistance loss to the lower tire pressure. the wider marathons have a slightly shorter, but wider contact patch; a shorter contact usually has slightly lower rolling resistance. yes, my wider tires might loose a little speed, especially in stop and go traffic as they are heavier. toured thru syracuse last july, primarily along bike route 5, in the city, probably 32 mm tires would have been fine. on the trail east of the city were a number of mucky sections, my wider tires coasted thru nicely, saw plenty of evidence in which narrower tires bogged down, passed a couple bikes with their wheels sunk below the rims in mud
and the cyclist struggling to keep going.
wide or narrow ? a preference based upon conditions and experience.
why wider tires ?
because i like them.
i live in a rural area with rough gravel/dirt/sand/washboard roads, the wider tire is more comfortable and secure in these conditions. Schwalbe marathons are a good balance of traction and rolling easy, 32 mm marathons can run at 95 psi, while 37 and 42 mm marathons run at 85; not much resistance loss to the lower tire pressure. the wider marathons have a slightly shorter, but wider contact patch; a shorter contact usually has slightly lower rolling resistance. yes, my wider tires might loose a little speed, especially in stop and go traffic as they are heavier. toured thru syracuse last july, primarily along bike route 5, in the city, probably 32 mm tires would have been fine. on the trail east of the city were a number of mucky sections, my wider tires coasted thru nicely, saw plenty of evidence in which narrower tires bogged down, passed a couple bikes with their wheels sunk below the rims in mud
and the cyclist struggling to keep going.
wide or narrow ? a preference based upon conditions and experience.
brianmcg123
10-12-07, 07:54 PM
Professor,
Yes the 520 is for touring, not racing.
Speed is of little importance, but since you were asking, you will be able to go a lot faster carrying 50lbs of stuff using 35mm tires instead of 23mm tires when you factor in all of the flats you will be getting with the 23s.
Plus you are only talking about at most a 1-2 mph difference, and that is only if you are on completely smooth roads. Most people don't ride on completely smooth roads.
Yes the 520 is for touring, not racing.
Speed is of little importance, but since you were asking, you will be able to go a lot faster carrying 50lbs of stuff using 35mm tires instead of 23mm tires when you factor in all of the flats you will be getting with the 23s.
Plus you are only talking about at most a 1-2 mph difference, and that is only if you are on completely smooth roads. Most people don't ride on completely smooth roads.
Michel Gagnon
10-17-07, 08:07 PM
My preferred touring setup is with 28-30 mm wide tires in front and 30-32 mm wide tires behind. Note that I'm talking about real, measured width... and that I have about 29,5 mm wide with my current 700x32 Continental Top Touring 2000. The above setup is fine for commuting and even for touring on good roads, but when I was touring with my daughter on a trailercycle, I much preferred having a 700x37 on the rear wheel. Why? Comfort mostly, and pinch flat avoidance, as I had about 150-200 lb on the rear wheel.
Now having a bike that accepts fatter tires has a few advantages. For instance, the LHT runs 700x40-42 (from memory) with fenders on both wheels. This allows one:
- to use wider tires for comfortable and safer rides on gravel roads;
- to install knobbies (typically available only in sizes wider than 700x35) for off-road touring;
- to install knobbies or studded tires for winter rides or touring.
All this broadens the uses of the bikes. One might suggest that off-road touring is best done on a mountain bike, but what if one rides cross country and the ride includes the Top of the World highway (through Dawson City) or the Trans-Labrador highway? Isn't it nice to have a bike suitable for those stretches and the paved ones alike?
And if/when one tours on asphalt, it's quite possible to install narrower tires. The rims used on the LHT are perfectly suitable for 700x28-30 tires. Not exactly racing tires, but much better for commuting, touring or randonneuring.
Now having a bike that accepts fatter tires has a few advantages. For instance, the LHT runs 700x40-42 (from memory) with fenders on both wheels. This allows one:
- to use wider tires for comfortable and safer rides on gravel roads;
- to install knobbies (typically available only in sizes wider than 700x35) for off-road touring;
- to install knobbies or studded tires for winter rides or touring.
All this broadens the uses of the bikes. One might suggest that off-road touring is best done on a mountain bike, but what if one rides cross country and the ride includes the Top of the World highway (through Dawson City) or the Trans-Labrador highway? Isn't it nice to have a bike suitable for those stretches and the paved ones alike?
And if/when one tours on asphalt, it's quite possible to install narrower tires. The rims used on the LHT are perfectly suitable for 700x28-30 tires. Not exactly racing tires, but much better for commuting, touring or randonneuring.