Hello everybody,

I'm new here So please be gentle

I'm considering between 2 touring bike models.
1. CINELLI Hobootleg 2017
2. TREK 520 Disc 2016

Those the only two i'm looking due possibility of shipping to my state.
No meter what I will choose I will be happy to upgrade my custom specialized allez that served me over Europe last summer in lot of pain carry 30kg on it over the Alpes .
Both Bike take's of me invest of 1000-1200 euro totally, so no issue on that, just to say that the CINELLI coming with TUBUS Rear and Front Carriers, Rear and Front Fenders and the TREK is naked with only rear rack.

My concern is about the visual, I more like how the CINELLI frame look like, so this is for now my choice,
But I need your thoughts about the component of each one and for the long term uses.
I get used to sti shifters on my commuting bike, Why those touring bike used friction shifting? more durable?

Also I'm not sure that Disc brakes will be the best for ultra remote place touring, What do you think?

Thanks for your help, travelers

Elad

Sounds like you've pretty much answered your own questions. Many people touring prefer friction shifters because of reliability. Any possibility of test riding either one before buying?

ha i'm glad to hear that.
No chance even to watch, No such of touring culture in my country=no touring bikes.

Thanks

Friction shifters will almost* always work. If your rear der brakes, and you have to replace it with something you find in the middle of nowhere, odds are you can ride with friction shifters and that for a while. If indexing gets out of tune, you may have to take it in to get looked at, not so with friction.

Looking at those bikes though, the bar ends are indexed for the rear and friction for the front. Normally they have an option to switch from friction to index, but index for the rear is common.

They're different Brands , Do You Have a Retail Dealer In your town selling Both?
[or even someplace to help you put the bike together properly from the shipping carton?]

My Town Shop just has The Trek 520.. they Trek bikes and the 520 models, have been fine for decades.
(mostly with Rim Brakes; they still make rim brake 520 models today)

Cinelli was never known for Touring bikes, They made their name in racing .. I expect Its A Taiwan Company (huge, making many brands )
painting it for who ever sells them, Probably Fine.

See: https://www.bikeforums.net/touring/


What Is Your Country?

Should probably post/move to the touring forum. Lots of people there will help you out.

https://www.adventurecycling.org/def...est_OGrady.pdf

https://www.adventurecycling.org/res...blog/trek-520/

These are reviews of older versions of those 2 bikes. Both bikes will be fine for your intended use. The tubus racks are a big plus for the cinelli; the disc brakes are a plus for the trek.

I think they're very close but I prefer slightly the trek mainly for the disc brakes.

The 520D now has a fitting on the left rear dropout for s kickstand, the rear rack is Aluminum .

The ONLY shifting/ shifter that ALWAYS works is on a ROHLOFF14. So far mine has 10,600 miles in 2 years, impossible to break. Set 'n forget. It's the Rolls Royce of bike equipment.

The Cinelli does look nice, but seems to have a short frame and toe overlap. I couldn't find their measurments.

1- the bar end shifters on both bikes are friction front shift and indexed rear shift. The Microshift brand shifters on the Cinelli offers the option to friction shift the rear derailleur, but indexed shifting is the default. Depending on what model shifters the Trek has, there is a chance the rear shifting can be indexed or friction. Some Shimano bar end shifters are indexed only for the rear.

2- The Cinelli comes with Tubus front and rear racks. Thats a huge plus.

3- Bikes have equally comparable derailleurs, cassette, and crankset.

4- Trek has 36h wheels while Cinelli has 32h wheels. Without knowing anything on build quality, more spokes = stronger wheel.

5- Bikes have equally comparable wheelset component quality. I would rather have the Cinelli's tires as they are wider and i like em more than the Bontrager hardcase.

6- Cinelli bike's frame tubing is more respected. Trek's tubing will be plenty strong, its just not name brand. Having a name brand tubing matters to some.

7- The biggest difference, to me, is the brakes. I have multiple cantilever brake bikes and love them. My touring bike has canti brakes and it stops a heavy rider and gear just fine, even with the rims are wet. There are many who swear canti brakes dont work well, but I am convinced their brakes arent set up properly. There is still something to be said for disc brakes. If you plan to scream down a mountain road carrying full gear in the rain, disc brakes will stop you better.

8- The cable routing on the Cinelli is all on the top of the top tube. This is common for some MTB and adventure/gravel bikes because it keeps the cables from getting as dirty. But the Cinelli also uses full cable housing, which will keep the cables clean and well functioning. I have cables routed this way on 2 bikes and it works for me. Some dont like the look which is why I mention it.

9- What is the geometry of the Cinelli? Knowing the bottom bracket height, chainstay length, trail, etc will help compare the bikes for fit. Seems pretty important to not easily find online.



I would go with the Cinelli every day of the week, but thats completely because of personal reasons. I love the mix of it being a touring bike and adventure bike, it has more personality than the Trek, its an iconic name, I like the canti brakes, and it looks sharp.
But the Trek is a really solidly spec'd bike.

Hobootleg | Cinelli

Right on the manufacturer site.

Good link.
I should have phrased my comment differently. I didnt find gerometry from a google search as the cinelli website wasnt on the first page of results. Geometry is usually pretty easy to get from the initial 5 or so google results.

Thank you all for comments.

In Israel there is no even one brand that importing touring models.
As I said, my last trip was with my road bike allez with custom rear rack and it was horrible on gravel because the frame was very short. So you said the cinelli looking shorter frame then the trek, Is it limit with overloaded stuff? here is the frame geometry(at the end):
Hobootleg | Cinelli

After body measurement, all of my road bike have effective TT of 53.7mm very comfort on that, but dunno how it suit for my in a touring bike with the same TT. I had never ride in a touring frame. the cinelli have effective TT of 54 in medium size? it can be fit?

Plus, you said that the benfit of disc brake is over wet condition. but you don't mention how can you fix a rotor in scenario of bending in Nowhere.

For commuting, it's a trade off. The tubus racks are nice. However, if you really are going to tour a lot, then keep it simple... canti brakes, and friction shifting. For commuting, I care for neither. I have a touring bike with STI shifting and I converted from canti brakes to disc brakes. But, my touring bike is for commuting... not touring. I also added a Bionx electric motor. Let's be clear - this is the commuting forum... not racing, not touring, not fitness. All those other types of cycling are great, but this is where you come to look for advice and discuss issues primarily for commuting on a bicycle. Plenty of folks want to turn the discussions into something other than commuting.

Everything that I have done with my touring bike has been to make it into a really great commuter - that is it's primary purpose. I have a road bike for fitness and distance rides.

IMHO - cyclists sweat details of bike specs vs. bike specs, but miss the bigger picture of getting an optimal fit. Ride the bike that fits better!

The 53 Cinelli is really short, 1031 mm vs the Trek 54 at 1048, with 10 mm longer chain stays. The Trek shows lower standover, so maybe see if the 57 will fit and get a shorter stem 80mm. A longer TT is best for other than drop bars.
I would get the disc Trek that also has a stronger fork. That would allow future switching to a trouble free Sturmey Archer DRUM brake, mine with dyno has 20,600 miles. Guess you will need stronger racks and more money. They both have bar end shifters that I wouldn't want.

PS The 56 Cinelli is likely your size, it is a better 10 mm longer TT. My goof. 100 mm stems are NOT better or necessary. A taller frame will also reduce reach.

I mentioned couple of time's that I don't have the models in the shop for test ride.
That's why I'm asking you over the measurement table and I need to live with it.
I had mistake to open the thread into the commuting forum, my use will be over ultra touring only.
I take into account all what you say. But I prefer more the cinelli because the overall look.
I don't want the frame will be limit me, So I have question about touring geometry:
For details only I am 172.5cm height and 82cm inseam, from What I got in the body measurement is I need looking for road frame with 53.7ETT.
i'm asking simple, the 53.7ETT is a general guide how reach you gonna be over the handlebar, but this
measure number is only for the road bike because i'm sitting aerodynamic that impact the way my body sitting on the bike(more reach). SO If I need 53.77ETT on a road bike and more "Reach", That's not say's that I need less "Reach" in a touring frame because my upright sitting? many touring bikes I saw are strange measure with shorter reach and longer ETT compared to road bikes. I have colnago road bike with 53.7ETT but the reach is above 380, and must touring frame with the same ETT, are below that.

For touring... for most things but racing actually, I'd avoid more than 8 sprockets in the back.

Friction shifters are a big plus IMO.

Brakes? I'd look for a frame that has a V-brake option as well as a disc mount one. Put some mechanical disks and long pull brake levers (there are drop bar versions as well), so in case of emergency, I can put any V-brake on the bike and continue.

Then again, I am a jinx. You'll probably do fine with any bike and any equipment.

Elad, welcome to the forum.
I have read your thread a few times. Seeing you have done a bit of touring in Europe, I am looking at this from that point of view.
I understand a more "everyday" bike rather than your road bike. I too have a road bike for zipping around, but do a lot more riding on my heavy bikes (touring and commuter).
Both of your choices are very comparable in my opinion. So it comes down more to your perspective, and preference. I, like you think the Cenelli is a very attractive bike. With your size, and touring gear weight the 32 spoke wheels, and cantilever brakes will be all you ever need. For a larger cyclist the 520D has slight advantages.
As for the gearing, you will love it packing a little, or a lot of gear, running errands, or touring.
As for size to order in, you are right in between a Med and a Large on the Cenelli site. By your measurements you seem to be long in the leg for your height. If so, I take it you are short in the Torso, and long legs and arms. If this sounds like you, then lean towards the Large frame. You can get a shorter stem if the bike is a bit of a stretch for you.

Well, hope this might help. Enjoy your new ride. Let us know how it works out.



-Snuts-

bending in no where ?

more likely is getting the disc bent , while the wheel is off the bike, and the bike is boxed up to ship the bike with you, when you fly somewhere else.

.. then You would remove the disc from the wheel , pack it separately, then put it back on when you re assemble your bike at your destination.

Yes, cinelli hobo has toe overlap. Size 53 and my feet are size 41 European number. I had this bicycle but I had to sell it cause I didn't like how it rode. Very beautiful,yes,but it was not worth its price at all.

Thank's for your opinion.
I have short torso and maybe short arms ass well(685mm), but from my perspective if you have short torso it means that the upper body are sort = short reach to the handelbar, and stack is more impact for the long legs. am I wrong?

"letibell" have you mention the Toe overlap. I have different bike that have the problem but I feel fine on the bike. so not sure if it's rule that point the frame is too small.
I have kind of big feet is 44 eurpean.
You are a taller guy?

There is the kind of advice with weight.
It is a rather short wheelbase bike in all sizes.
You can't go wrong with a 520. I near bought one myself a couple of months ago. I did ride it, loved everything about it short of the bar-end shifters. Not my style, the test ride proved that for me (and a Kona).

Good luck with your decision. Keep us informed.




-Snuts-

Indexed shifting is 30+ years old at this point. 3 decades to adjust and improve.
And 9sp is over 20 years old at this point.

Basically, 9sp and indexed, which is whats on the bikes, have 20-30 years of refinement and time to get into the mainstream so repair components can be had.

As mentioned, the microshift 9sp shifters can adjust between indexed and friction. Best of both worlds so the .001% of miles ridden where indexing doesnt work, friction can be used.

I love friction and have it on a couple bikes still, but 9sp simply shouldnt be called unreliable or less reliable than 8sp. Neither should indexed shifting, especially when friction is available if needed.

The only way the OP is going to know how each bike performs with the typical load out the OP generally carries is after they choose to order one or the other. Your center of balance will be the key and will determine how comfortable the ride is under load as well as its handling predictability. The Trek would be the safe choice for heavy, self contained touring, but the Cinelli may have more responsive handling for light to medium loads. It's a compromise the OP has to decide what's more desirable for their requirements/expectations.