Touring - Trek 520 vs LeMond Wayzata

Okay, here's something that might get me beat up...

I'm now comparing the Wayzata against the Trek 520. I know that for the 520 I would need to convert the handlebar setup to my Braham bar (which is what I prefer over drop bars) and different shifters and brake levers. But other than that, the stock components are generally better than those on the Wayzata.

For the Wayzata, I would want to upgrade the following components:

(A) Both the Shimano Tiagra derailleurs (I am quite suprised that such a quality bike would come with these lower end derailleurs) to Shimano 105 components

(B) The cassette and chain to HG70 11-32 and HG73 chain

(C) The Avid SD-3 brakes would need to be upgraded to at least Avid SD-5's

(D) Switch to a carbon fork (the Wayzata's for is aluminum), I cn get one that will work for $200

Once it take the fork and component upgrades into account, the Wayzata turns out to be a few hundred dollars more expensive than the Trek 520 which comes with a SRAM 970 cassette, Shimano 105 front and Deore LX rear derailleurs and Avid SD-5 brakes.

The question I have is about weight and agility. I am curious to find out if the Wayzata with its steel frame rides in a similar way to the Trek 520, which has the reputation of riding like a truck. Does anyone there have sense of how these two bikes compare form a performance standpoint?

If it turned out that the Wayzata was more agile (I don't really intend to load out my bike the way most tourers do on the Trek 520), then perhaps spending a little more to get the Wayzata the way I want if it's the better way to go.

Any comments or suggestions?

By the way, I am trying to work with my LBS to see if we can get the bikes in for me to try out (they don't have either right now).

I looked at the Wayzata on the Lemond website. It doesn't look like a touring bike at all. More of a sporty city bike.

Stripping it down and putting on a carbon fork, slightly better derailers, and slightly better brakes/chain/cassette, isn't going to change it in any substantial way. It might be a little lighter, but it'll still be a fancy cruising bike. Probably faster than a 520 with a flat bar.

Plus the wheels, with 20 spokes up front and 24 in back, are really not set up for carrying more than just the rider.

It seems to me you aren't sure what you want out of a bike.

If you want something that can carry a little bit of a load but still be fast, you might want to consider a cyclocross bike. The Surly Cross Check goes for around $800-$900 (shop around) and has decent components, good cantilever brakes, and is a couple pounds lighter than the 520. Seems a lot of people use it for touring, commuting, faster rides (not road race fast, but faster than a loaded tourer). It seems that most of the major manufacturers make a cyclocross bike. I think Lemond has one called the Poprad.

Of course the cyclocross bikes come with drop bars.

I think you should keep looking. Hit the websites for all the manufacturers and see what they have. I think Specialized has a line of flat bar performance bikes.

Why would you want to swap derailleurs and such right away? I'd at least wait until they broke or wore out.

Hi,
I have ridden both, only briefly. The Wayzata is a lot more agile; the 520 much better at long rides. This should be no surprise, the 520 was intended as an all day cruiser and the Wayzata is an urban
warrior. For the rear der, I would stick with the LX for either. Unless you are sure you will never go on a tour. My big rear cog has 34 teeth, but I live on the side of a mountain. In any case, you're comparing apples and footballs. Both are quite good at what they were designed to do.

I agree with bradw. You really aren't sure what you want in a bike. You seem to be set on a 520, but really don't care about loaded bike touring. And I will maintain what I have said for three times now. You need to get out and test ride these bikes, and quit basing your decisions on what someone else just swears is the ultimate end all bike. Comparing the 520 to the Lemond is like comparing an apple to a Pineapple. They are only the same in that they are bikes. Geometry, wheelbase, components, aren't even close.

I looked at the Wayzata on the Lemond website. It doesn't look like a touring bike at all. More of a sporty city bike.

Stripping it down and putting on a carbon fork, slightly better derailers, and slightly better brakes/chain/cassette, isn't going to change it in any substantial way. It might be a little lighter, but it'll still be a fancy cruising bike. Probably faster than a 520 with a flat bar.

Plus the wheels, with 20 spokes up front and 24 in back, are really not set up for carrying more than just the rider.

It seems that most of the major manufacturers make a cyclocross bike. I think Lemond has one called the Poprad.

Yes, it is. Funny enough, the Poprad has the same number of spokes. Actually, it's the same frame and fork as the Wayzata, but with a double crank instead of a triple and drop bars and a few other differences... In fact, I will probably test that one out since my LBS has one in stock.




It seems to me you aren't sure what you want out of a bike.


That actually may be true. The more I look, the more confused I get. I know I want a smooth ride and I'm afraid that aluminum just isn't going to do it for me on longer rides. I was looking at the Trek 520 primarily because of the steel and good component mix, not because I plan to load the bike up and head out cross country. The idea of long distance adventure cycling sounds like a lot of fun, but the tours I do are day tours where all I bring with me is a trunk mounted to a Blackburn rack.




If you want something that can carry a little bit of a load but still be fast, you might want to consider a cyclocross bike. The Surly Cross Check goes for around $800-$900 (shop around) and has decent components, good cantilever brakes, and is a couple pounds lighter than the 520. Seems a lot of people use it for touring, commuting, faster rides (not road race fast, but faster than a loaded tourer).

Of course the cyclocross bikes come with drop bars.

I think you should keep looking. Hit the websites for all the manufacturers and see what they have. I think Specialized has a line of flat bar performance bikes.

Yes, I have looked at several of the cyclocross bikes because they offer me pretty much the kind of mix I am looking for. The most common objection I have to those bikes in that class is that most have doubles instead of triples and, like you said, they have drop bars. I would have to change both of those things for them to work for me.

I really appreciate your comments. This is why this forum is so helpful.

W

Why would you want to swap derailleurs and such right away? I'd at least wait until they broke or wore out.

Very good point. I have considered that and I may just go that way. As long as they don't give me any trouble, why switch, right? I just don't want to have to be taking the bike every week for adjustments or other problems. I know there will be some break-in ajustments - cables stretch, components "settele in". I'm just considering the follow-up costs that I might incur too soon.

Take the other bike I am considering: the Bianchi Strada. This bike is way cheap. Mainly because of all the generic components on it. But it does have a steel frame and a carbon fork. The only major thing wrong with it may be the Tiagra hubs. But like the guy at the LBS said, ride them until you have problems and then upgrade. I think he's probably right.

I agree with bradw. You really aren't sure what you want in a bike. You seem to be set on a 520, but really don't care about loaded bike touring. And I will maintain what I have said for three times now. You need to get out and test ride these bikes, and quit basing your decisions on what someone else just swears is the ultimate end all bike. Comparing the 520 to the Lemond is like comparing an apple to a Pineapple. They are only the same in that they are bikes. Geometry, wheelbase, components, aren't even close.

I know, I know. Yes, you have told me many times to test them out myself, and I am... Turns out that the LBS doesn't have the bikes I want in stock and has to get them in for me to try out. I can't ask him to bring in ten bikes just so I can try each of them (most of the bikes I am looking at aren't the more common models). So I am trying to create a short list to work from. Fortunately, I take a fairly common frame that, if I don't like the bike, he can still sell. I'm not going to be able to tell much from a quick trip around the parking lot, so I'm also trying to work it out with him to let me *really* take the bikes out. He just wants to be sure that I won't sue him if I get hurt while testing the bikes (obviously I won't - get hurt OR sue him :)).

So this weekend, if he gets it in, I will test out the Trek 520, the Lemond Poprad (as long as the bike in stock at least close to my size) and perhaps another true road bike like a Specialized Allez just to make sure that I don't want to go to drop bars (which I'm pretty sure I don't, but I'm willing to try).

As for not knowing what I do and don't want, you may be right. But what I do know is that I love riding my '89 Giant Iguanna with Specialized Armadillo 1.5" road tires (which I have taken on 65+ mile tours many times). It's just time to move up.

What I like about my current bike:

(A) It's rugged - Hey it's mountain bike. This bike is great for the roads I encounter all the time - pot holes, gravel, eneven pavent, etc. This all-steel bike has no suspension so I believe that I have a general sense of the ride I'll get on a steel road bike. I really don't want to give up on this ruggedness though, even if I have to give up some speed.

(B) I like my handlebar setup. I have a Zoom Brahma bar (the long bullhorns) and I have several hand positions. I can stretch out onto the ends (this is my cruising position) and move back to the straights for braking and shifting. It's a really wide bar - 57cm with 48cm of straight before the bends. I like it because I can really breathe and enjoy the scenery. No, I don't mind not having any brakes or shifters out on the ends of the bars (although I have considered using a time trial bar with the brakes on the ends).

(C) I love my friction shifters. Call me "old school", but I HATE clicking indexed shifters. They make a lot of noise and frankly, in the tours I ride, there's always tons of folks with poorly adjusted shifters so they're always grinding and clicking.... Mine are smooth and quiet. If I have to cross gear, I can trim my front derailleur instantly. For my new bike, I have found some NOS (new old stock) Suntour XC Expert shifters that I'll set to friction. I have been told that these have enough throw to use with 9 gears. Joy....

(D) Speaking of gears, I love my lower gears. This old 18-gear bike has a 14-32 with a 28-38-48 and it is wonderful on the hills of the north shore of Long Island, NY. Who cares about what people say about triples? I say, "NEVER get off the bike". I never do.

(E) Lastly, the bike really fits me (or at least I think it does). I will take it with me for my fitting for my new bike to see, but I really like this bikes's geometry. It looks like a road bike (even though it has 26" wheels). That may be one reason I'm drawn to the Trek 520, the LeMond Wayzata and the Bianchi Strada. The Specialized hybrids have a really cramped cockpit. The guy at the LBS says that may have to go to an XL in the Sirrus to get the same anount of space. They just feel wierd.

What I don't like about my current bike:

(A) The gears. I start freewheeling at about 23 mph and really can't hold cadence beyond 18 or 19 mph. I could really use a 12 or 11 on the back. But I don't want to give up my hill climbing gears either. Thus my attraction to the triples.

(B) This bike is pretty heavy. I need to loose some weight (:)) - and so does my bike. It's time. Sometimes it feels like there's somebody behind me holding me back when I'm in my 30th mile...slowing me down... I've had it for over 10 years and it's time to return it to the trails with knobby tires until I break it...

(C) Doesn't everyone want a new bike?

So there you go. That's why I'm looking for a steel frame, with a wide gear range, a handlebar setup that enjoy and something that will allow me to keep up with the pack.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments. I'll let you know what I choose...

W

By the way, should this thread be posted in the Road Cycling section?

What I don't like about my current bike:

(A) The gears. I start freewheeling at about 23 mph and really can't hold cadence beyond 18 or 19 mph. I could really use a 12 or 11 on the back. But I don't want to give up my hill climbing gears either. Thus my attraction to the triples.

(B) This bike is pretty heavy. I need to loose some weight (:)) - and so does my bike. It's time. Sometimes it feels like there's somebody behind me holding me back when I'm in my 30th mile...slowing me down... I've had it for over 10 years and it's time to return it to the trails with knobby tires until I break it...

(C) Doesn't everyone want a new bike?

So there you go. That's why I'm looking for a steel frame, with a wide gear range, a handlebar setup that enjoy and something that will allow me to keep up with the pack.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments. I'll let you know what I choose...

W[/QUOTE]

Hey Warren, I would be interested in what you end up with, so please head back here and let us know. Also, I might appreciate an update after maybe, say, 3 months, or 1000 miles or so. . . I have 3 bikes currently. (This time last year, I had Six, but it was time to get real since I only really rode two of them) I use the three in different ways. I live in Northeast TN and have one dedicated to my commute to work which is almost year round. That is how people at my job know me. You can't believe some of the questions I am asked about bikes. And I must not do a very good job of selling my opinions here either, because normally they still leave my office and head to the Walmart to do their bike shopping . . . :eek: But I explain to them, that they can buy a mountain bike, and adapt it to be an OK Road bike, but if they are planning on riding mostly on the road to buy a road bike. I try to explain what sets a touring bike apart from a racing bike, and have even gone so far as to print out the two and overlap them to show people the difference. And I tell them that if they want to do it all, that they are going to have to bite the bullet, and buy about 7 bikes! Most people in this area are after comfortable bikes, suitable to railtrails and will probably never do more than 25 miles max at any time. But I stress to them, to please go to the bike shop, and ask to ride 4-5 completely different bikes for a few blocks. This will quickly answer lots of questions to them, and they will buy a bike on feel rather than color . . .

Keep us updated, you certainly have me curious as to what you will come home with!

The Poprad (which I believe is the same frame as the Wayzata) is marketed as a cyclocross bike and rides as such. I fitted mine with a rear rack and panniers and used it for a tour with no problems, however there were times I wished for more stability. The Trek (which I now own) is totally different as everyone has mentioned. It is definitely more stable and, imo, more comfortable. Having said that I would still own the Poprad if it hadn't been damaged by UPS.

The Poprad (which I believe is the same frame as the Wayzata) is marketed as a cyclocross bike and rides as such. I fitted mine with a rear rack and panniers and used it for a tour with no problems, however there were times I wished for more stability. The Trek (which I now own) is totally different as everyone has mentioned. It is definitely more stable and, imo, more comfortable. Having said that I would still own the Poprad if it hadn't been damaged by UPS.

Yes, the Poprad is the same as the Wayzata except for the crank (double instead of triple), the tires, the drop bars and related brake levers and shifters and a few other minor things...

Hopefully I can test one out this weekend (if it doesn't rain) to get a sense of the frame's feel.

What do you mean about wanting more stability? Is the bike *too* light or something?

Now that you have the Trek, do you feel like you're dragging the bike around as opposed the the feel of the Poprad?

The Poprad, unloaded, was quicker and more agile. I wasn't knocking the bike, it's just different and if I was looking for an all around bike, not for fully loaded touring, the Poprad would be a great choice.

The Trek is slightly heavier, more predictable and I do find it to be a bit slower, but not as if I'm dragging it around. Seems to have a workhorse reputation. This probably all has to do with the wheelbase, bb height etc which I'm sure someone more knowledgable can explain.

I like both bikes. Test them and see what feels best.

I'll be doing a fully loaded ride with the Trek next week so I'll get a firsthand opinion, but from everything I've read on this board I expect all high marks.