frank the tank

im looking to buy a touring bike next year for a tentative multi-month tour im trying to plan through two continents. two bikes ive been considering are of course the venerable trek 520 and the surly long haul trucker. does anyone have experience with either or both they can share? ive heard good things about both; does anyone recommend anything else? looking to spend between 1200 and 1500 US.

much appreciated!

bokes

they are both good. which geometry do you prefer? I like the extra cm of chainstay on the LHT for extra pannier clearance, but I prefer the handling of a 71 deg head tube angle (Trek 520 medium) over the 72 deg (LHT med.) when loaded. But that's just me and your size may have other differences as well. Since you probably can't test ride a LHT, how bout finding a bike with the closest geometry as possible and giving it a spin?
I'm guessing that the tubing is similar - both do the job well.

bradw

Do you like the Trek 520 as it is?

I have a 520, and I have had it modified considerably from the stock configuration. It now has an MTB crank, flat bars with thumb shifters, better rack, tougher tires, more comfortable seat.

If I were to get a new bike, I'd probably get a Surly LHT and have it setup like I want.

So, Trek 520 out of the box, or get an LHT and set it up the way you want?

fixmeafalafel

I just got (like yesterday) an '06 520. They've switched the stem on it so that the bars are at seat height and now it's like a subtle light green color (pretty sexy, but i'm biased). I also had the cranks switched out for twenty bucks difference (sugino xd) and got the lower gears i'm looking for. Oh, and i switched the stock seat to a Brooks B-17, which feels great by the way. In sum, it was like 90 bucks aftermarket to get it set up how i wanted it.

Miles2go

I'd go with the Surly. You can order it from your local bike shop eqquiped as you wish. I have a good friend with one of these that I've ridden and it seems more robust than the 520. And, if you ever want to sell it, you'll have more people bidding on your auction because there aren't 10 others listed.

All comes down to you though. Ask your local bike shops if they've sold one and can put you in contact with the owner. See if you can find one to check out in person if you haven't already done so.

Cheers,

Ron
Wasatch Mountain Range, Utah

Bekologist

I own and ride them both, and my preference for loaded tours is the LHT, but I've got it built up with better wheels and gearing. My 520 was getting front end wobble when loaded lightly going downhill, and the LHT is stable enough that, loaded identically, with the same rack, I can grab a drink one-handed going 40 downhill -the LHT rides like it's on rails.


The tire clearance alone justifies the LHT over the 520 anyway.

I'm using my 520 as my town and century bike, and keep the LHT true to it's name- long haul truckin'.

aroundoz

I have owned an LHT for about 3 months now. I tried the 520 and came close to buying but went w/ the LHT due to the longer head tube, extra fork eyelet and because it has a lugged fork. The finish was way beyond my expections and is excellent. It tracks and corners incredibly well. Having said that, I have to point out that it is not an easy bike to climb with. I know it is a touring bike w/ longer stays etc..... But I have done a lot of touring and don't remember having this much difficulty climbing w/ a bike. I know I am getting a little older but did pull of a double century last year and feeling strong as ever. I have mostly toured on Mt. Bikes so maybe that has something to do w/ it. Anyway, I haven't ruled out that it is me and wanted to see what other's experience is but haven't figured out how to start a thread. So if you read this and have a LHT, please let me know. I would have to say that if you like the ride of the 520 and it fits you well, you will not find a better bargain out there. It is very well equipped for the price.

aroundoz

Hi,
Can you take a look at my recent post and tell me what you think? I am curious as to how you would rate your LHT's climbing ability as compared to your 520 or any other touring bike for that matter.
Thanks for your time,
Paul

baldinit

I was also looking for a touring bike and after extensive research went with the Surly LHT. The bike is awesome. Its a sturdy, well built frame that handles like a dream when fully loaded. You can't go wrong with it unless you're only doing light touring. Then you might want a lighter bike. The main reason I went with the LHT over the 520 and other touring bikes (the few that are available in the states) was I could build it exactly how I wanted it and the experience of building up my own bike appealed to me. Building the bike also gave me the confidence that if anything goes wrong while riding I'll have a good idea of how to adjust or fix it. I looked at the 520 but didn't go with it because of the changes I would have had to make to it. 28, 38, 48 crankset instead of the 30, 42, 52, for climbing mountain pases in Colorado on a fully loaded bike. STI shifters/brake levers because I feel they're safer when commuting in traffic. I don't use a handlebar bag so the possible interference with the STI shifters wasn't an issue. 26" wheels and S&S couplers for easy traveling (not sure that is even possible on the 520). The Bianchi Volpe was the closest on the market to what I wanted ($850). Good Luck!

NoReg

Why do long chainstays make it harder to climb? I could see if you were ripping the tires loose, but as long as they keep pulling, what difference is there?

One minor point relative to bokes' good points about geometry. It's a bit of a crapshoot. I now have an Urbane Tourist (Urbane is the brand, not where you would necesarily tour this bike) frame. I'm leaving next week, and couldn't wait for other brands to show up, plus, the UT is a very good rendition of a classic long distance touring frame, without the beefing up that some of the others have taken on, like oversized parts.

Anywhoo, I was feeling bummed that it didn't have chainstays as long as on the the Surly LHT. They are only supposed to be 45 cm across the line, but when I measured them, they are actually 46+. Just goes to show how one can fixate on a particular dimension but then it doesn't turn out to be that way on the bike.