Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Geometry Q's: Fuji vs Trek

    I'm looking to get a touring bike this spring and hopefully do a trip in Europe late summer. My past: long time MTB rider, switched to singlespeed road bike last year... love it (Fuji Track).

    The touring models I'm looking at are: Trek 520, Fuji World or Touring, Cannondale T800, Devinci Caribou 1, Surly Long Haul Trucker.

    I've whittled it down to Trek 520 and Surly LHT... just going by pricing, features and user reviews online.

    For fun, I compared my current bikes' geometry to the Trek 520... and I'm surprised how close the numbers are. As far as I can tell the major difference is 5cm more on the chainstay, which also means 5cm more wheel base. Is this really enough to make the ride feel different? Granted, also, that the handlebar setup will be different too (higher on the Trek 520).

    Here is an image showing my current bike (Fuji Track) and the two closest comparable Trek 520 sizes.

    http://www.glammo.com/geo.gif

    Is there something else I'm missing, that would account for a drastically different ride if I were to hope on a touring bike right now?

    I'm trying to justify the $1400 (Canadian) cost of a new Trek or Surly LHT. Like all that money just to be able to put racks+panniers on a similar bike......... argh

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah, go test ride the bike.....or be ready very sorry when you buy it.

    Good luck-- test riding bikes is total fun.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    '86 or '87 Trek 850 MTB (bought used in 2007); previously: 1999 Bianchi Volpe
    Posts
    33
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    From everything I've read about frame geometry, a 5cm difference in chainstay length is HUGE.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah, maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read?

    Bike geometry isn't simple.... there's a lot more to it that chainstay length.

    There are a lot of self proclaimed experts who'll tell you why the bike they own is *better* then the one you own. Almost all of it is complete crap.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound
    My Bikes
    2007 Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30
    Posts
    995
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cablestein
    The touring models I'm looking at are: Trek 520, Fuji World or Touring, Cannondale T800, Devinci Caribou 1, Surly Long Haul Trucker.

    I've whittled it down to Trek 520 and Surly LHT... just going by pricing, features and user reviews online.

    As far as I can tell the major difference is 5cm more on the chainstay, which also means 5cm more wheel base. Is this really enough to make the ride feel different?

    I'm trying to justify the $1400 (Canadian) cost of a new Trek or Surly LHT. Like all that money just to be able to put racks+panniers on a similar bike......... argh

    I hope you meant 5mm not 5cm. 5cm would be huge. That would be like the difference between the chainstays on a racebike vs. a Surly LHT.

    The material of the frame is pretty important. All steel frames aren't the same, there is different quality and strength just like there is different quality aluminum and carbon.

    And a canadian like yourself... not even considering a Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30? An awesome touring bike! check it out at www.bikes.com. I love mine!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rocky Mountian builds great bikes-- I'm glad to see them venturing into the touring world. It's great to see them come up with a different style bike, and just not another 700c classic touring bike clone.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    5,117
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One thing to look at would be frame weight, not because the weight is in itself a big factor, but because it may highlight different tubing choices. One would expect two bikes even if Identical in every way geometry wise, to have very different tubing when intended for such different purposes.

    I don't think the 2 inches in the stays is all that big a deal. Longer stays are pretty much an advantage on almost any bike. Maybe not on a racing bike, assuming you are a real racer, not just someone who rides racing bikes. If you really live in the pack, and need razor sharp handling, that's one thing, for most other road uses long stays are an advantage, and they can be lot longer than +2 inches, try +10. As long as you can get heel clearance for the size of paniers you are carrying, stay length is not a deal breaker. On one end of the extreme there are all the folks who use hsort stayed MTBs, on the other there are way over length frames made by the likes of Thorn (special order), Sakkit, Arvon, LHT Big Dummy.

    So the factors you want to look at are geometry yes (stearing geometry is way important, not just CS length), but also tubing, brake set-up, fork, hub width, braze on's, fender accomodation, rack accomodation. For instance stand over can be important on a touring bike where sometimes the junk out back makes it hard to swing a leg over. A stand over that might be fine on a bike without any rubish back there used on a track, is all of a sudden a ba!! breaker if you have to hop down on the bar on a rough trail section. Often half to 1 degree less seat post angle is adviseable, particularly with the Brooks.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •