Originally Posted by
DropBarFan
I agree that geometry & tires make much more difference than frame material. Of course if alu is good for the 520 fork why not the whole frame (other than machining costs for a low-selling bike)? Also I think the video confirmed my belief that touring bikes should have some front/rear suspension.
Perhaps that's the direction of travel. Look at the Trek 920 - full aluminium. It takes a while for consumers to move on from entrenched ideas on what a touring bike should be. Since the 520 is such long established model Trek will be making cautious changes. What's certain is the current trend towards fatter gravel tires has almost certainly diminished the importance of frame material. Touring has also changed since I started doing it several decades ago. More people on the planet = congested roads. Anyone who spends reasonable amounts of time on a bicycle can attest to how unpleasant touring on busy roads is. People want to get away from the traffic as much as possible. That's why the 520 is morphing into the gravel arena. Some people say that's just a marketing gimmick. I think it's a smart pragmatic move by Trek. They're reacting to what consumers want. Flexibility. Ride some tarmac roads one day, snake off into some gravel paths the next. You shouldn't need separate bikes to achieve these things.