Rich Clark

Congratulations! I'm sure you've just purchased an heirloom you can plan to bequeath to your grandchildren!

The road triple in front with 12-34 in back is what I have on my Airborne. (I had an 11-32 which was OK too, but I never used the 11). It's fine for everthing I need, but -- terrible climber that I am -- I doubt I could do a loaded tour in hilly terrain with it.

Then again, it's sometimes amazing what we can do when we must.

Best of luck with the new bike!

RichC

sammer

Let the new 520 beast out of its cage today. Did 80km out to a little resort area and back. Big headwind outbound, no big deal. Man what a great bike. Drivetrain ultra smooth, clipless setup (my first time, too) simply amazing. Even had both loaded panniers on the bike for realism. I am a believer.

Thanks to all for your help and advice.

aerobat

Congrats on the new bike! Pedal out to see us at YAV some day!

Teding

Sammer, the 520 sounds great. Glad you’re enjoying it.

I’m also considering a trek520, BLT, Bianchi San Remo. I haven’t ridden any of then yet, hope to in the next couple weeks. Just on specs, I’m leaning toward the BLT, but hate to spend that much on a bike I can’t test ride. The San Remo is in the list because my LBS recommended it, and I trust them. It has Campy components…not sure if that’s an advantage. They don’t sell trek. All-in-all, seems the 520 does what I need.

I’d be interested in your opinion of the 520 after a few more miles. Probably won’t be serious about buying until late June or July. Hope to find some deals.

Thanks

Ted

Merriwether

Congratulations on the 520. I rode the one at the LBS and I thought it was a good bike. It's a good value in the U.S. market, too.

One advantage the Trek has compared to, say, the San Remo is that it's better suited for heavy touring right out of the shop. The front forks are solid, with heavy-duty threaded ports at both the end and mid points. It's got 36 spoke wheels, too.

The BLT's a good bike, and might be the thing to buy if you're attracted to 26" wheels. On the other hand, with all the hybrid bikes around today you can get 700C tires suitable for off-road touring without a lot of trouble. And, again, the Trek's cheaper. The BG racks are awesome, but others, like Jand's, are fine, too. You can outfit yourself with a suitable set for for the 520 for like $1C.

So, I guess the clincher for me would be the gearing. If the LBS would put a mountain crank on the 520 for free or for a nominal swapping fee I'd buy the 520.

catfish

got 12,000 loaded touring miles on my 520 still like it. of course i overhaul it completly every winter I noticed the new modles come with a threadless head set now mine is 2 years old and has a quill with this bad back of mine i like the ability to make adjustments on H B height depending on how good or bad i feel, also the wheels were bontreager fairlanes but i built up bontreaguer clydes instead probley over kill but i did have a problem with the rear wheel failure after 4,000 miles and decided right then to go with the clydesdale. mine came with conti top tour tires now they come with some other brand, the conties are long lasting i had 1 flat tire at 3,500 miles and no others i replaced them at 4500 miles but could have run them some more miles i sware by these tires

concerning the gears befor i took delivery i swaped the cassette for an XT 11-34 and the crankset for a XT also I tour in the mountians a lot and really enjoy waltzing up the passes i rarely use the 34 but the few times i needed it i was glad to have it. If i was just dooing th coast routes id probeley stick with a road triple though to get a faster top end.

its all personel preferance ya know
the 520 is a solid ride what did you decide for a saddle on your's
catfish

Flash

Rich, my 2002 Bianchi Volpe has a 28/38/48 on the front. I like it!

Rich Clark

I notice that the Cannondale T800 does, also. This is an excellent trend!

I also notice that both Bianchi and Cannondale have their own brand names on these cranksets. The only 48/38/28 Shimano makes is one of the Nexave units, which may not be the best choice for a touring bike (I don't thing the chainrings can be replaced individually).

RichC

Merriwether

Some more thoughts on 520 vs. BLT:

When you compare the bikes as they are sold the following differences leap out at you:

(1) Gearing. The 520's 105 setup isn't right for loaded touring, BLT comes with LX.

(2) Wheels. 520 owners have sometimes complained about wheel problems, BLT owners don't, or don't often. At any rate, BLT's a better bet out of the box here.

(3) Stem. One has to make sure the 520's not too low here. BLT's set up with threaded stem. But, the 520 can be set up for level riding if you buy the right frame size. BLT doesn't allow swapping on stems, either, so BLT doesn't clearly have an advantage here.

(4) Frames. BLT comes with a thick walled frame. According to BG's website, BLT's frame walls are thicker than Rivendell and Waterford. Trek won't release its specs so you can assume BLT's thicker too. Both Trek and BLT are made with 4130 ChroMo.

(5) Price. BLT is $500 more right away, and the price would increase to the extent you have the LBS build the thing.

However:

(1) LBS will swap out the 105's for LX at no charge on the 520 (here anyway). I mean both the cranks and the deraillers. One can get appropriate touring gearing, and the same set-up as on the BLT, for no charge.

(2) Maybe wheels would be a problem on the 520, maybe not. To be certain, one might upgrade the rims _at purchase_ and have LBS build up the wheel. Like $100 per wheel, but LBS might cut a deal if done at purchase. And one might rebuild only the rear, too. $200 max leaves one with at least $300 between the 520 and the BLT. Doing the rear alone leaves $400.

Then again, one might get by with the LBS just tensioning and truing the wheels themselves at purchase. They'll probably do that for free.

(3) Threadless is no big deal as long as the bike fits initially. Most of the complaints come from the Trek photo, which sets the bars too low for touring. But that's not a significant problem. Don't set the bike up that way.

(4) BLT's frame is probably thicker, and thus to that extent stiffer than the 520's. However, the 520's not just a theoretical entity. It's been ridden as a loaded bike by thousands of riders over several years. I've not come across complaints that the bike shimmies at speed, or is wobbly, because of an insufficient frame. In fact, the most common remark is the opposite: the 520's solid at speed even with a load. So, while the BLT seems to have a paper advantage here, the 520 frame's good enough.

I leave aside the rack issue since it's fair to consider both bikes as coming without racks for loaded touring.

In sum, comparing the two bikes is answering the following question: why pay more for the BLT? What, specifically, justifies this? That is not so obvious. In thinking about common comparisons, including some remarks on this thread, there's a bit too much throwaway reasoning here: one is built by a small shop dedicated to touring, the price of the 520 "approaches" the BLT, etc.

Well, when one does the math even with complete wheel rebuilds the 520 comes out about $300 to the good-- and again that assumes that one doesn't spend any money to have the BLT built at the shop. On the other hand, you'd have to pay tax at the LBS, however, and BG doesn't charge it for interstate sales, so there's between $100 and $150 added to the purchase of the 520.

So that leaves the price gap at about $150-$200, if you're building BLT yourself. If you're going to build the BLT yourself, the question, I guess, would be whether the BLT's frame is worth an extra $150 - $200. If LBS charges less for wheel work at purchase of a 520 than I assumed above the price gap increases. If you're going to pay for a shop to build the BLT you have to add that in too.

It seems to me reasonable to go either way here, with the purchase of the BLT being perhaps a bit on the high-ended side of things. But the Trek 520 with a gearing change and other modifications is by no means a clearly inferior bike, and it will likely be at least a couple hundred bucks cheaper, and perhaps more.

cycletourist

Something I just discoverd yesterday... The Trek520 has a 73 degree seat tube angle (Was it always like that or did they switch recently?) The BruceGordon BLT has a 72 degree seat tube angle which for most adults will be more comfortable, especially after an 80 or 100 mile day.

sammer

Could someone take a minute and explain how or why a 1 degree difference in seat tube angle would be noticeable in the comfort department? Seems insignificant numerically.:confused:

MichaelW

And the wide range of seatpost laybacks means that saddle position is not determined by that angle.

Phatman

mmm...i like BLTs...Bacon...lettuce...tomato. So good but so bad for you.

sammer

Hello all
Been gone a while due bad computer and work and riding, thought i would say hello. I have been catching up with Dwagenheim, pretty awesome. Did my first century in August, it hurt a bit more than I expected, but based on waht 1 of my ride partners went through, I am pretty sure that my BG saddle literally save my behind. Quite an experience overall, ride time 6:39, average 26 kmh with 2 (official) rest stops, leaders did 4:35.

Later that month I rode the local MS150 (which I extended to 210 km) and it was fun but of course seemed fairly easy after the century. I did the ride with loaded rear panniers to see how it felt - a bit unbalanced in the turns with nothing on the front. I am wondering now about front panniers vs a Yak trailer?

Someone had posted earlier that they wanted to hear progress with mu new Trek520. Mileage is over 2200K/1300 miles at this point and it has performed beautifully. There was a problem with one of the stock IRC Duro tires that I was unable to rectify - would you believe 8 or 9 flats in a row. I gave up and threw away the "bad" tire, kept the other IRC as my spare, and installed a new set of Conti TT2000s. The bad IRC did spoil a couple of rides but neither I nor my ridemates were ever able to find the fault that kept holing the tubes.

I love the bike - strong, secure, great drivetrain, reliable. Did not get to do any multi-day tours this year, but hopefully next year will be better.