Touring - surly lht vs. trek 520

alright folks, i want an answer without a sugar coating. what is the best bike for a fully loaded tour. i have ridden both, and must say, i like the surly better. it seems more solid, has a lower center of gravity (which apparently i like), etc. here is the catch. my aunt works for trek, and can hook me up with a 520 at factory cost, which will end up being like 500 to 600 dollars. the surly will cost me around a thousand bucks. this is a month's difference of work and touring. anwhoo...

I started out with a 2002 trek 520. It was a nice bike, I did a few small tours on it and used it for some long road rides. I'm short, so I had the 17in model. I eventually decided that it was a bit too big for me and I went to a 42cm LHT with the 26in wheels. I think the 520 may have been a bit lighter and faster than the LHT, but the LHT is a better fit for me, and I like the "cool-Surly-factor". My LHT is a very comfortable and stable ride.

My bf worked for a Trek dealer and got a 2003 520 (same model as the 2002 model). He rode it for a couple of years and then went to a Surly Crosscheck that he likes a lot better.

The 520 is a fine bike, but it ended up not quite fitting our needs and we moved on. Sold the frames off to happy new owners.

It seems that the newer models of the trek 520 have downgraded the component kit since our 02/03 models.

the 520 is a great bike. It is actually extremely similar to the stock surly LHT. Same bar end shifters, comparable wheels and drivetrains... For the money, i would get the 520. Heres why...

if you really really decide you hate it, sell the frame and fork and buy a surly and move the components over. If your going over 3500mi there is a good chance you'll be replacing many of the drivetrain components and possibly the wheels anyhow. The 520's lx hubs are money, but the bonty rim (while it is eyeleted -woohoo-) isn't leading the pack as far as touring rims go. The 700c surly has deore hubs and alex rims. The 26" surly has shimano xts and alex rims.

another thing to consider - what size lht do you ride? 54s and below come with 26" wheels. This is arguably a mixed blessing. as far as the surly cool factor goes, it is becoming one of the most ubiquitous tourers out there... that really shouldn't affect your decision though

after a good long tour you'll be so attached to any bike you'll swear it was love at first sight. The rack that comes with the 520 is kind of a piece, and will start to sway under a serious load. I have the same rack on my fixed gear. Kudos to trek for spec'ing a rack though, the surly comes nekkid. Also, to the best of my knowledge the 520 comes with avid v-brakes as opposed to the unbranded cantis on the -- which are you more comfortable working with?

long story short, you can't beat an extra month of touring or a 500 dollar 520 (although i would imagine factory cost is well below 500)

I don't know about "best" as I have only ridden the 520.... for thousands and thousands of happy fully loaded touring miles.

If you can get a good fit on the 520, I wouldn't hesitate.

in my situation, i will have an extra 500 dollars to spend on upgrading components. from what i have read, the rear rim is a weak point. i would also like to put on some snazzy touring tires. the trek also comes with shimano 520 clipless pedals, which is another 50 bucks.

truth is, i have ridden both, and i liked the surly better. plus, surly seems to have quite the vibe around it right now. not only for the "coolness" factor, but because it is a kickass bike. also, when a company is as popular as trek, it seems they don't put the heart into their regular old production line bikes, unless you want to spend 3000 dollars or have it custom made. i don't know **** about bikes, but i have a gut feeling that it might be the case.

also, i might like wider rims. the stock 700x32 seems like a pencil. i like the idea of at least a 35 and touring tires. i want room for fenders too. can anyone give me their take on thin vs. wider tires for long distance touring?

Not sure about the lower center of gravity of one versus the other, or if that really is a relevant consideration. The 520 lists the more intuitive BB height on their geo chart but Surly goes the the "drop." There's a limit on how low to the gound you want your BB to go anyway as you don't want to drag a peddle going around turns. Both bikes apparentlly are cro-mo with layed-back angles, a long wheelbase, and a long chainstay. I'll bet they're both very similar.


What you might consider is getting the 520 and using the savings to improve the components. It's low gear could be lower (e.g., aim for a 1-to-1). Personally, I've never like bar-end shifting. And, some custom wheels with lots of spokes would be great, and ... etc.

:)

in my situation, i will have an extra 500 dollars to spend on upgrading components. from what i have read, the rear rim is a weak point. i would also like to put on some snazzy touring tires. the trek also comes with shimano 520 clipless pedals, which is another 50 bucks.

truth is, i have ridden both, and i liked the surly better. plus, surly seems to have quite the vibe around it right now. not only for the "coolness" factor, but because it is a kickass bike. also, when a company is as popular as trek, it seems they don't put the heart into their regular old production line bikes, unless you want to spend 3000 dollars or have it custom made. i don't know **** about bikes, but i have a gut feeling that it might be the case.

also, i might like wider rims. the stock 700x32 seems like a pencil. i like the idea of at least a 35 and touring tires. i want room for fenders too. can anyone give me their take on thin vs. wider tires for long distance touring?

If you want a bike with a "custom" feel and want to run big tires you should check out this thread.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=251875

Joejoe,

Trek 520 vs LHT is a question that gets asked a lot in online forums (or vs. a bunch of other bikes in this price range, like the Bianchi Volpe, Novara Randonee, etc. etc.). It's a tough choice for a lot of people depending on fit, intended use, etc.

However, in your situation, you have a chance to buy a Trek for less than 50% of the list price. If I were in your shoes I'd thank my aunt profusely for the opportunity, buy the Trek, and then use it long enough to *gradually* start spending money on any upgrades that you *really* need, not what people say you need. My advice is the first thing to look at would be the saddle, then the rear rack...unless you're a very heavy person or carrying an extreme load I don't think you'd have a problem with the tires or the wheels.

Now, if you were looking at Surly LHT complete for $950 vs. Trek 520 at $1300 (which I think is the current retail), the outcome would be different. But if you can really buy the Trek for $500 or $600, I would do it.

BB

sounds like you are just looking for someone to tell you it's ok to buy what you really want, even thought it costs more and adds marginal utility.

Do what you want, it's your money.

The vibe & coolness factor exists almost exclusively on internet forums. When you are in the middle of nowhere riding your loaded bike, it doesn't matter even a little bit. In fact, the less you care about the bike, the better, because it's going to fall over, be thrown and dropped by the baggage monkeys at the airport, get rained on, covered in mud, shat on by birds, covered in pine sap, etc. etc.

I've run Continental TravelContact 35's on my 520, w/fenders. I like the bar-end shifting. I swapped for mountain bike cranks, ditched the stock rack, saddle and pedals.

Good luck w/ your decision, and have fun on your tour!

My 520 was a fantastic bike, I rode a similar trip to your own and I wouldn't hesitate to reccommend it.

If your sticking to gravel roads and sealed roads, the crankset, Bontrager rims and tyres are fine, even for a heavy load. All's needed is a new saddle and put the stock rack on your other bike and buy a good set of cro-mo racks.

Plus it looks kick ass:

http://bp2.blogger.com/__DjrcD0RPZY/RfyR-hiyJmI/AAAAAAAAAAs/57i9CgULZx8/s1600-h/DSC00269.JPG

valygrl

my heart has been stuck on the surly lht for a while. but the money and time issue is erking me. my last bike was an impulse buy. i got turned onto bikes, went to the local bike store, test drove one, loved it, and bought it right away. now i can't stand it compared to the bike i have in mind, which i'm afraid is the surly lht. but, i want to get going, and be able to buy things like new tires, a computer, and a brooks b-17.

i'm also taking into consideration how spoiled i am with the option. and, the 520 that i tried was waaay to small, and the surly that i tried was perfect.

i'm probably going with the 520. i had my mind made up before i made the thread, but i enjoy the discussion since bikes are my current personal trend.

with that taken care of, suggest some upgrades, with say....500 dollars to work witih. things i have decided on

computer - 30 $
b-17 - 80 $
tires - 50 $

rims...i'm paranoid about these things. the drivetrain doesn't bother me, nor does the rack. if i have some extra money, i think it will be a rim upgrade, at least the rear one, or maybe more beer. this will be a fully loaded tour (probably 80 pounds) plus me (205 pounds).

rims...anyone? recs?

Well..... it seems to me that you obviously like the Surly better, but can get the 520 for a deal. Bearing in mind you might (depends on where you are touring and the load you have and how strong you are) have to change the crank rings or crank -even so, it would still seem that you'd come ahead money wise, probably saving a couple of hundred dollars.

Since I believe both have made good touring bikes based on previous posts, the real question here is do you need to save that money? If you really need that money, get the Trek. If you don't really need to save that money or can afford that extra couple of hundred, get the bike *you* really want. Course, you could get the Trek, then decide you don't want it, strip it and sell the frame to get a Surly LHT frame and build it up, but that could be tricky in terms of you needing someone to do it, or having the tools and know how to do it yourself. And don't forget, if you take a frame size smaller than a 56cm for the LHT, you'll then need a 26" wheelset. Also add in the aggravation of messing around to do this (though if you have the time and inclination to do so, that's not a big deal).

It's up to you, they both seem capable bikes -seems like money is the issue here. If you really like the Surly over the LHT and can afford it, get the LHT. If you can't afford it, get the 520.

Then ride and be happy!

i'm definetely going with the 520, not because i need the money, but because it will be nice when i do. i'll be able to afford some other things that i don't really need, and some things that might come up unexpected, like a super expensive broken part. both bikes run an equal chance of having a major flaw, regardless of reputation or reviews. i think i'll hold on to the extra cash for something unexpected.

i am a sucker for first impression. the surly blew me away the first time i rode it. the trek was too small, and i didn't get the chance to make an adjustment. with some tlc, my trek 520 will be the bestest touring bike in the whole wide world. thanks for the advice folks, and more words of wisdom are welcome.

Nothing says you can only have one bike.

If the money works for you to get the 520 right now, do it.

Later on, get an LHT.

rims...i'm paranoid about these things.

rims...anyone? recs?

Honestly I wouldn't worry about the rims or tyres for awhile. They're plenty strong.

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v142/19/120/686314148/n686314148_214860_322.jpg

If you can get a good fit on the __________, I wouldn't hesitate.

fixed.

I'm constantly amazed that the answer is often something other than "buy which fits best".

radioflyer

the situation is always more complicated. "buy which fits best" happens to include more than the fairytale factor that is which bike tickles my fancy on the test run. theranman is obviously throwing down strong word for the trek 520. threads like this, opinions, reviews, and reputation are helpful, but are mostly fun and games. but, i agree with your point, and thank you for the concern. i'll make the choice that fits me best. truth is, as i mentioned before, i think we are all pretty spoiled with our options. i did a 1200 mile tour on a trek hybrid and it worked just fine. i could use it again on my next tour. maybe i'm expecting a bit too much. but, someday when i have the money, who knows what kind of dream rig i'll ride.

Buy the 520 and sell it to me at your cost plus 10%, then take that and the difference and go get your Surly. I know, I know, what a great guy I am, but hey that's what BF is for.:D

10%....oh okay, thats great! hopefully my aunt will give me a not so good deal!!!!:rolleyes:

fixed.

I'm constantly amazed that the answer is often something other than "buy which fits best".

When comparing only two bikes, would not the correct terminology be "buy which fits better"? :)

Reality check: A buyer usually won't get a "best" fit until AFTER purchasing the bike from an LBS, and then going thru the fitting process. This makes it very difficult to make a good decision beforehand, unless you know your measurements and can apply them accordingly. When I said "If you can get a good fit", it was assumed that you can't get a "BEST" fit until after the purchase.

The OP started the thread by taking the position that price was a consideration. If such is truly the case, and he can get a good fit on the Trek, I stand by my statement. If he can determine beforehand that the Surly will fit better, AND it's worth the price difference, then I'd suggest he goes that route.

"Reality check: A buyer usually won't get a "best" fit until AFTER purchasing the bike from an LBS, and then going thru the fitting process."

Absolutely spot-on. As for the cool factor; only a fool would dis a Trek 520 ( I don't mean the OP - just sayin'). They may be about $200 over-priced, but that's because they are made by hand in Wisconsin. For years they were the production tourer to beat. To date, no one has. They now have relative equals, but the differences are mostly in the realm of personal set-up preferences. Surly is a good competitor, and if you walk into a shop with cash in hand, you'll get a great low price on a Trek 520 when you mention that there is a Surly downtown that you might like instead. That's the market today.

If you can get a Trek for $600, it's golden. Conversely, if the reverse were the deal, that would be great, too. That savings on the Trek will get you alot of "personal preferences" but if you get the Surly, you'll still be a-changin' things before you get it right. Remember that it will take a few very long day trips to sort things out on any bike.

There are a few additional considerations in your 520 vs LHT debate.

1. Gearing.
The 520 is geared way too high for touring, unless you are a racer-type or live in Florida. At the very least, you'll want to swap the "30" for a "26" granny (25-30 $). If you are more of a perfectionist, you'll prefer to either swap all rings for something like 48-38-24 (75-100 $) or for a compact or mountain crankset (100-200 $).

2. I'm not sure whether Trek still uses the Bontraeger Farlaine rims. If that's the case, consider it as a consumable. My rear rim lasted 5000-6000 km (I don't remember now), so it's either 60-80 $ for a replacement rim you build yourself or more money for a new wheel. BTW, I normally don't wear a rear rim in less than 40 - 50 000 km.

3. The 520 is limited to 700x37 on the rear wheel and 700x35 on the front wheel (with fenders). The LHT fits that or even 700x42 with room to spare under the fenders. That's nice to have if you plan off road or gravel road touring (ex.: Continental Divide).

I looked at the LHT and the 520 earlier this year. I bought the 520 and never looked back. I love my 520.:love:Bang for the buck and it's so comfortable.
Ciao,
Timothy

michel

thanks!!! this is the info i was looking for. (of course, thanks for the other replies)

i'm going with the 520, and it seems like the upgrades i will make will be the "granny", and new tires/rims, and of course a saddle. the rims are the big kicker. i've read good things about mavic rims, or maybe the bontrager maverick. i was worried about tire clearance. the 32's seem way too thin. i still a newbie, but they erk me. for my last tour i did 35's, and its nice to know now that i will be able to run 35's with fenders. i also ran cheap rims on my last tour which held up fine. but, they seem like a key aspect, and i'd like to splurge.

thanks alot. the advice in this thread has truly given me a boost!!! this is a cool community. biking kicks ass!!!:D

You are picking a long term relationship here. Go for the one that fits best and makes you happiest. You'll not miss the money in the long run. You shouldn't skimp on the really important things and this is one of those things that you will be getting a lot of enjoyment out of for years. If you've been a good boy

im in the same position of making this decision, except i'm not letting money factor in as much (as i should). im a 46 on the LHT so I can't really put bigger wheels on it. that's my main concern.

i'm going with the 520, and it seems like the upgrades i will make will be the "granny", and new tires/rims, and of course a saddle. the rims are the big kicker. i've read good things about mavic rims, or maybe the bontrager maverick. i was worried about tire clearance. the 32's seem way too thin. i still a newbie, but they erk me. for my last tour i did 35's, and its nice to know now that i will be able to run 35's with fenders. i also ran cheap rims on my last tour which held up fine. but, they seem like a key aspect, and i'd like to splurge.

thanks alot. the advice in this thread has truly given me a boost!!! this is a cool community. biking kicks ass!!!:D



I have a 520 that I bought 7 years ago, when there weren't any talks of the LHT. Except for the Winter season when I would love to use the 520 more often, I'm really satisfied with the bike. However, I'm sure I would feel its limitations if I were planning a tour with lots of off-road cycling.

A few tricks: to tour on hard surfaces, I find the 700x32 sufficient for my needs. When I used the bike for loaded touring with my daughter on a trailercycle, I installed a 700x37 tire on the rear wheel and kept the 700x32 in front. That gave me the best of both worlds: a relatively narrow tire in front where there is a bit less weight, and a more comfortable tire behind to support my weight, my daughter's weight and panniers. Riding with tires of two different widths is no problem, and if you tour off the beaten track, carry a 700x28-32 folding tire so it won't be too bulky.

As for the rear rim, it depends what you have in mind. Replace the rear rim soon if you plan a cross-country tour or if you get it for free, but otherwise, wait until the stock rim breaks apart. Spokes pulling through the rim or the rim splitting apart along its circumference (like a pie crust) as it happened to my rim won't mean an accident. In my case, I saw what I thought was a dirty line or a tiny crack. Then the rim became crooked and upon closer inspection I saw it was splitting apart. I discovered the split at the beginning of a 100-km ride and had to release the rear brake about 50 km later. I completed the ride without any problems.

As for the front rim, stresses are much less important, so you're not likely to break the rim. My front rim is about to be replaced – after 30-35 000 km – because a good part of that mileage was done in the city, often with a trailer and/or a trailercycle in tow, and under all weather. So basically the brakes have worn the braking surfaces.

i like the ride bike paths if i run across them, which aren't necessarily "off-road" in the sense that they could be a problem. regardless, i'll probably put on a bigger, higher quality touring tire. that slick little 32 just erks me. i might do the rim, but i doubt it. for my last tour, the rims on my clunker lasted me 1200 miles without a broken spoke, so i'm not too concerned.

thanks again.