Touring - Trek 520 vs. Cannondale T2000

I'm looking to purchase a bicycle for communting and the occasional week long tour towing a Yak trailer. Am thinking about the two listed in the title, but have also wondered whether a Cannondale Cyclocross disc could function in these roles. I'd appreciate any thoughts on these issues.

dr-j,
I don't think aluminum makes sense in a touring frame (Cdale). Steel(520) rides smoother, more apt to bend than crack, and can be welded at any garage.
But since you're looking more for a commuter and light tourer, have you looked at a Carpe Diem?(affordable titanium) Very smooth, very fast, and Yakable.

True in theory, but unless you plan to tour in Asia or South America, repairing aluminium or steel is about equal: IOW, you won't easily find a good welder that is able to repair a TIG-welded steel frame either. Modern tubes are very thin. Likewise, I haven't heard of many stories about broken Al touring frames.

As far as "steel riding smoother" it is partly true for a 1970-1980 touring frame, with very thin seat stays and chain stays. OTOH, these frames tend to flex too much when loaded: just try to stand on a fully loaded Peugeot frame of that era and you'll see the bike going where it wants. However, if you compare a modern steel touring frame wth a modern aluminium touring frame, they are both stiff. It's the geometry... and tire size that make them comfortable, stiff, reliable.

Going back to the question, look for archives on the subject. The Trek 520 and Cannondale T2000 are two equally good bikes, so, unless you find one bike more comfortable than the other, I would probably go by the shop that has the best support, service, upgrade policy (i.e. are they ready to swap items).

Differences and similarities:
- Trek is steel, which makes more slender tubes. I tend to prefer that look.
- Geometry: I know the large frames (I use 25") have similar geometry. If you need a small frame, it might be a different story.
- Gearing: both are geared too high for loaded touring. Off the hook, T-2000 is slightly better, but in either case, I would ask to swap rings for 24-38-48 (or 26-38-48), or to change the crankset for an XT crankset (22-34-44).
- Tires and fenders. Both have enough room for 700x35-40 with fenders.
- Stem: make sure the stem isn't cut, to allow you to go high enough for comfortable touring on the drops. IOW, you don't want to be perched high like on Trek's pictures.
- Shifting. Trek comes with bar-end shifters; Cannondale with STI. I have seen quite a few shops where the 520s on display have STI, however. With STI, the v-brakes used on the Trek need Travel-Agents which seem to be cable-eaters.
Bar-end shifters are more reliable if you tour off the beaten track, and I tend to favour their ergonomics. Be aware that switching a bike to bar-end shifters should save you $100-150.

Almost any hybrid bike will do what you're asking so why limit your choices. Of the two you've mentioned the Trek has a somewhat more conventional road bike geometry. It definately has more of a road bike feel to it. It's geared more towards the road bike end of the spectrum. The gearing causes many dedicated loaded tourist to regear the bike. However, if your not doing loaded touring the gearing combined with the road bike feel of the 520 keep it from being a one trick pony. Many riders use the 520 for commuting and long distance riding. That's not to say the T2000 isn't an excellent bike, it is. Ride both and then decide.

I'm looking to purchase a bicycle for communting and the occasional week long tour towing a Yak trailer. Am thinking about the two listed in the title, but have also wondered whether a Cannondale Cyclocross disc could function in these roles. I'd appreciate any thoughts on these issues.

Thank each of you for your thoughts on these issues. Ultimately, I decided to order the T2000 based principally on comfort (the Carpe Diem falls outside the range I was willing to pay for this machine). I'm 6'5" and 210 and intimately familiar with the Trek racing frame...I ride a Trek OCLV racing bike. I decided that comfort over the long haul was my principal criterion followed closely by gearing suited to the mountain passes in the intermountain West. The Jumbo Cannondale frame, the height of the bars, and the gearing were strong selling points for me.

I have some concerns pertinent to the characteristics of aluminum vs steel...but am hopeful that the choice of tires may help manage any difficulties that emerge. The STI shifters vs bar end shifters is also a concern, but I have been riding with STI for several years without incident and am prepared to take the risk.

I agree with Bokes as well. If by some slim odd chance you broke or bent a frame on a ride you can get the steel repaired your not going to be able to that with the AL frame. Steel will also last longer in the touring line then AL, plus your planning to use a YAK which will put more stress on the rear stays. The 520 is the best touring bike on the market for the money; your not going to find anything better till you go over $2,500! Test ride both for at least 12 miles each then make up your mind.

By the way, why not use panniers instead of the yak trailer? Panniers are safer and easier to pedal and stop with.

Thank each of you for your thoughts on these issues. Ultimately, I decided to order the T2000 based principally on comfort (the Carpe Diem falls outside the range I was willing to pay for this machine). I'm 6'5" and 210 and intimately familiar with the Trek racing frame...I ride a Trek OCLV racing bike. I decided that comfort over the long haul was my principal criterion followed closely by gearing suited to the mountain passes in the intermountain West. The Jumbo Cannondale frame, the height of the bars, and the gearing were strong selling points for me.

I have some concerns pertinent to the characteristics of aluminum vs steel...but am hopeful that the choice of tires may help manage any difficulties that emerge. The STI shifters vs bar end shifters is also a concern, but I have been riding with STI for several years without incident and am prepared to take the risk.

I recommend that you read Adam K.'s website. He's a really smart -- and helpful -- guy on the West Coast of Canada who has toured extensively on a Cannondale 2000, including crossing the continent, etc etc. He's had some issues with STI shifters too.

Do a search and you'll quickly find Adam K.'s site.

PS - both bikes are great, with the Trek beloved more by tourers, and the Cannondale being pricier (by almost 1000 Can$) and a bit easier on the eyes. I bought a Marinoni Tourismo because I wanted a high quality steel frame, but I had to accept a carbon touring fork -- which can be switched out later. I made a number of other changes too, to the gearing and the saddle esp.

I'm looking to purchase a bicycle for communting and the occasional week long tour towing a Yak trailer. Am thinking about the two listed in the title, but have also wondered whether a Cannondale Cyclocross disc could function in these roles. I'd appreciate any thoughts on these issues.
Hello- I have experience w/both bikes, I ride an aging 520 & I bought the wife a new 2001 Cannondale because it seemed so nice & modern. My results are: Old Trek=reliable, Cannondale =trouble!

6'5"? You're a big feller. Shoulda said that earlier. You need a stiff frame, at that price range you want ALU. So you prob made the best
choice going for the Cannondale.

dr~j,
Congrats on the new purchase! I too, just ordered a new T-2000. My reasoning for this one was very simple: I have a 20+ year old T-400 with well over 25,000 miles on her. Everything is original except for the following: The Brake Pads, Chain, Wheels, (Tires of course) and Handlebar tape. Although I am still using the old veta gel seat that came with her, this will soon be retired as it really has had it! I have owned two Trek mountain bikes over time, and am aware of the 520 and its cult following. That said, I know from experience that the Cannondale has worked out fantastic for me, and did buy based on brand loyalty, since I am upgrading an old bike. Besides, the ole 400 has slowly morphed into my ultimate commuting bike over time, and I wanted something that I could morph into my ultimate touring machine. I responded to this post however, because of what I see as ignorance when it comes to aluminum vs chomo when it comes to touring. Don't believe the "Third World Country" thing . . . Both of those bikes are tig welded, and chances are good that if either breaks, that the pygmie just up the road, isn't going to have a tig welder in his hut . . . . If people bought touring bikes based upon that theory alone, wouldn't we all buy bikes made from bamboo and laced together with grapevine?????? By the way, does anyone who says "don't buy aluminum because if you ever tour in a third world country" really ever plan to even leave their state????????? I am 5'11" and 200#. About 7 years ago, I rode the ole T-400 118 miles, came home, replaced the tires and then push mowed the yard . . . Yea, my 400 is comfortable too . . . . The bottom line as I see it, is this argument is similar to a couple of NASCAR Rednecks discussing Ford and Chevy . . Both are great at doing what they do, and we as consumers need to weigh through the hype and figure out what is right for us . .

As for the Bob Trailer thing, I have one . . . Its fantastic behind my mountain bike, and I have done a quite a few overnighters, and one 5 day tour with my mountain bike/bob trailer rig . . But for touring on pavement, I have found that panniers seem to work much better for me. One problem that I have with the Bob Trailer and the Bob Dry Bag, is there is only one way in it, and that requires almost removing the bag from the trailer to get it open to retrieve whatever it is I wanted, and almost removing it a second time to get it closed. With panniers, I feel more compact, and even faster even though the bike handles like a turtle . . At speed on flat ground, the trailer is great, and its not that bad going uphill . . . However, be careful on downhills . . You will forget its back there, until you go to hit the brakes hard, and then you can feel it push you, and even fish-tail . . But its when I get off the bike, that I have my largest problems . . The extra girth/length of the trailer makes it awkward to handle/balance. (Parking is cool though, by jackknifeing the trailer, the bike creates three points and will stand on its own) Anyway, there are a lot of people who say they work for them, and they certainly do for me too at times, but panniers seem to work for me better on pavement . . . .

I would love to hear how you feel about your 2000 after you have ridden it a while . . I am leaving at the end of this month on a 1300 miler through the southern states. I will let you know about my new rig and my likes/dislikes. I too have reservations about STI, and am not looking forward to breaking in the brooks.

“By the way, does anyone who says "don't buy aluminum because if you ever tour in a third world country" really ever plan to even leave their state????????? “
actually, I do ride in distant lands. I've toured on 4 continents and i'm planning next for China.
Opining that “steel is more appropriate”, only reflects my priorities. It doesn't mean the Cdale is a bad bike. Some people prefer a harsh alu ride if it means they can shed a few pounds.

This is a comment related to the STI shifters.....I did the transam last year and had an issue with mine T800. The cable snapped at the point where it attaches to the "nubbin" inside the gear shifter.

The nubbin then went and got trapped inside the shifter. The shifter is IMPOSSIBLE to take apart and successfully put back together. I rode for a day with 3 gears using the front derailleur.

I luckily managed to get to a town in Idaho where the bike shop open 3 days a week was luckily open. The nice mechanic didn't know much about fixing these shifters, but managed to get a new cable into the shifter. The nubbin kept getting in the way. Anyhow, my shifting was still rather clunky for the rest of the trip to the Oregon coast, but I made it! I was wondering about bar-end shifters, if this might not have happened or would have been more 'fixable'.

and am not looking forward to breaking in the brooks.

Pure myth! Don't let the folks who talk endlessly about break-in time on a Brooks taint the actual truth... with Proofhide and seat time a Brooks will start to feel comfy very quickly. Just rub in a pea-sized amount on the top of your saddle and a nice finger full on the underside... let sit overnight, lightly rub a cloth over the seat-side and leave the underside alone (makes for great protection from any road wetness that may spit up onto the underside of your Brooks) and go riding! Simple as that... you'll see slight indents forming from your sitbones sooner rather than later.

The Brooks break-in debate is just about as full of folly as the Alu vs. Steel argument.

so what brooks should I buy? the B17 or B67 (I think that's the model number). There is one that is sprung and one that isn't.

To Boke- Four Continents? Wow! I would love to sit down and have a meal with you! If ever in East TN, the dinner is on me!
PDX- I am curious as to how many miles you had on the STI's before the cable failure. You are not making me feel better about the STI Choice, but good to know now rather than in the middle of a tour. Someone told me the other day that Shimano recommends replacing these shifters about every 8000 miles. Does anyone know if this is true???
Istanbul Tea- Thanks for the advice! The Proofhide is on order as of as soon as I read your post. I called the bike shop, and asked if they had any . . They didn't, but said it would be here Monday

Here's the link to Adam K's site.

There's a good discussion there of STI breakdown on a cross continent tour.


http://www.adamk.ca/tourbike.htm

so what brooks should I buy? the B17 or B67 (I think that's the model number). There is one that is sprung and one that isn't.

Standard rule of thumb (or butt:D ) is...

If your saddle is level with or above your handlebars go unsprung... in your case that would be the B17.

If your saddle is below your handlebar height go sprung... that would be the B67.

I would add though... a sprung saddle (the B67) is quite comfy if your saddle is level with your handlebars and I know a few folks who absolutely LOVE their B67's and their saddles are higher than their handlebars.

How's that for screwing the whole theory up!!

I have both Brooks models and prefer the B67 as does my wife... it's wider than a B17 and seems to be more supportive not to mention the fact that the springs really do offer some very nice shock absorbtion. I find the B67 to be better for longer periods of riding whereas the B17 is also very comfy-at first-but then falls off into discomfort after a spell.

I would suggest Wallingford... with their policy of exchanging a Brooks up to 6 months after purchase date you really cannot go wrong buying from them. Yes, their prices are a tad bit higher than Persons Majestic but their exchange policy flexibility more than makes up for the 10 or so dollars saved. Buy a B67 and ride the dickens out of it... if she's comfy you found your saddle... if not, send it back and get the B17 (just keep them in good shape while riding as well as the original box somewhere handy and you'll have no problems exchanging it if you so desire).

StillRockin - I probably had close to 6,000 miles on my STI shifters. The failure wasn't in the STI shifters, but in the cable. However, the design of the STI shifters made it impossible to actually open up and repair on the road. If in some foreign land, I would think about the bar end shifters.

Because I use my Cndale as my every day bike when at home, I replaced the broken STI shifter with a new one. They are so easy and handy to have when biking around town. I can shift while braking, etc.

Oh, one bad thing about bar end shifters is that they can break off. Being a rather careless person, I have leaned my fully loaded touring bike up against a pole/tree/what-have-you to turn away and have the entire 100 lb hulk tumble to the ground. The STI shifters are pretty safe where they are, but I have heard of the bar end shifters getting knocked out/broken when something like this happens.

Pure myth! Don't let the folks who talk endlessly about break-in time on a Brooks taint the actual truth... with Proofhide and seat time a Brooks will start to feel comfy very quickly. Just rub in a pea-sized amount on the top of your saddle and a nice finger full on the underside... let sit overnight, lightly rub a cloth over the seat-side and leave the underside alone (makes for great protection from any road wetness that may spit up onto the underside of your Brooks) and go riding! Simple as that... you'll see slight indents forming from your sitbones sooner rather than later.

The Brooks break-in debate is just about as full of folly as the Alu vs. Steel argument.

Hey Tea!, Yes, Yes I agree totally with you, Just received my Brooks B-17 Thurs.greased her down, put it on the 520 and went out for a dreaded ride Fri.(All the hype I heard made me nervious) WOW to my surprise this thing was GREAT right out of the box! rode 30 miles and felt teriffic,can't imagine what it"ll feel like after 1000. I would highly recommend as hundreds have allready the standard B-17.