I'm sure some of you are sick and tired of discussing the few touring bikes that major manufactures make but I noticed some changes in the '08 trek 520 and wondered if any of you had insight on the new parts in a touring application.

... is there any reason I wouldn't want an external bottom bracket on a touring bike?

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/2008/road/520/520/

I see they still haven't learned their lessons about gear ratios. Just imagine how many more bikes they'd sell if they used the proper chain ring sizes and cassette for loaded touring...

+1

They dropped the big and middle rings to 50 and 39, that gives a pretty healthy 123 inch top gear, but passed on the opportunity to go to a smaller small ring.

I'm only just noticing that the past couple of years they've been using the V-brakes. I prefer cantilevers, and that would make a greater variety of brake levers possible.

Speedo

Its no problem to swap to a mountain bike crankset. In the 2007 catalog, the hubs and rear derailleur is listed as Shimano LX. So you've got good quality touring components and I think gear setup should be left up to the rider to customize to their particular situation.

My one man jury is still out on the External BB. I have it on my new bike and while it is simple, light and easy to use, I dont think it is very well sealed. My old cartridge bb's lasted a few years at least and that was year round riding. I installed my first set of externals on my new bike in April 06 and in one year one side was not spinning freely. When I took them both off to replace I was quite surprised to find a fair amount of water pooled in the STEEL bb shell. So we will see how long this new set lasts. Other than that, I do like the new crank style and how it assembles. I should add that I am running and LX crank set with LX/XT bearings. Dont know what the other companies have in the way of quality. Consider to that it probably wont be long before the old style cartridge bearings and cranks are mostly obsolete.

Most likely the water found it's way in through the seat post collar. After you ride in the rain you should take the seat post out and flip the bike up-side-down.

Yes I have to agree that it would make sense to have a bailout gear or a lower gear than offered. I like having a 32 cassette and a front 26 on my 26" tourer. Granted you can swap the chainrings out, but why spec it like that? Trek really needs to listen. On the other hand, I will be honest and say that if I wanted a Trek 520, changing gear ratios wouldn't be a big deal for me. Then on the other hand, I still can't help feeling they are losing some customers over this.

My only real complaint with that bike would be the rack... Why not put on a GOOD rack? One with added lower rear support for panniers and a rear mount for lights.

As far as gearing, that looks about perfect for me. There are all different types of riders out there... the only way they could possibly please them all is to offer the option of different cassettes and chainrings... and drive the cost up a bit more for everyone.

They are getting so close but still no cigar! I like the external bearing crank. Simple to fix and adjust on the road but why not spec it with the Shimano trekking crank? Shimano makes an external bearing set of about the same level as the Tiagra. With a 48/36/26 it's almost perfect. If not all you have to do is swap the 26 inner for anything down to a 22.

They are so close. Oh and the rack does suck. Why bother?

I think the only logical reason they don't put the low gears on them is that people who test drive low gear bikes without a load (as most bikes are test riden), do not prefer them to high gear bikes. It is about selling bikes, and what works on tour is a distant issue at the time of the sale. The solution is to build your own bike which isn't as impossible as it sounds given the number of parts that are crap, and the number of parts that are not to one's preference.

To the tips thread please.

Trek is obviously listening since this year's model doesn't have a 52/11 for a high. A 50/11 is reasonable for touring and for daily riding. But I'm not sure they even think about low gears. Low gears are for mountain bikes. Road bikes don't need low gears...or so their thinking goes. I think that touring bikes at Trek are where they put the new guy. "Hey, you ride a bike. Go design the touring bike. Use the same old tired frame as we've used for the past 15 years because that's what we want to sell. Put some parts on it. Those crabby touring types have complained about the gearing for years. Do something to shut them up! May be if you do something right, kid, we'll move you over to real road bikes next year. Now go away!"

The guy is a racer dude and thinks, "I'll just put a compact on it with a granny gear. Hey Shimano rep, what you got? No, I don't need that low of gearing. Nobody needs anything lower than a 27" gear. That's just silly." No thought goes into the process and obviously the parts designer's only touring experience is in riding some big state ride where all you do is go fast, party and repeat. If they had really ever ridden a loaded touring bike for even a week end, they'd see the problems with the bike straight off.

I have the 520 and love it. Admittedly I haven't ridden it fully loaded so can't comment on how it performs then. But your comments about the "same tired old frame" seem unwarranted. Why change something that works?

Sorry about that crack but I have issues with their frame design. Trek had a great touring bike in the early 80s...the 728...very long stays, lots of clearance, well designed and thought out. Then they introduced the 520 which they wanted to be 'sportier' so they shortened the stays and took a great touring bike and made a hohum touring bike out of it. For loaded touring, a shorter wheel base bike handles much differently than a longer wheel base bike. You have to move the load further back over the axle and that affects handling. Makes the tail wag the dog and at speed that's not a good thing.

It's too bad really. The Trek touring brand could be so much more too. They've got the name recognition and with the proper design and component selection, they could be blowing the doors off Surly.

For instance the issue with toe overlap, when riding low speed, and trying to turn, the front wheel or fender will touch the shoe.
This is something that Trek can fix if they were listening.

Works?
Rack don't work for loaded touring.
Gearing are not low enough.
Request Shimano to build gearing that can do front 22 3.. 5.. speed and granny.
Invent another patent for touring gearing.
Bring the weight of the frame down and keep the strength intact.
I can go on...

Any discussion of Trek's 520 around potential buyers should feature a warning of limited tire size due to their choice in fork. At least until Trek thinks about it long enough to realize that a bike they're pushing for use in remote places should be able to *easily* mount true 35mm tires and the rider's choice in fenders. The cheesy rack is a laugh too but can be removed and replaced by just about anyone who buys the bike.

From visiting their website you don't get the feeling they really care about touring. They do happen to have supported tours but these feature a profit for them and your opportunity to ride the tour on either their latest carbon fiber race bike or a 7.5 FX Hybrid. Wow, they don't even use their own touring bike for a National Park tour.

Cannondale seems to really enjoy the prospect of touring. You'll have a hard time of even getting the "Touring" link off the top of the screen while visiting their site. On the page featuring their latest race bike; the Touring link is still up there. Cannondale
And as they say... "TOURING - A testament to Cannondale craftsmanship. Our first bike was a touring model, revolutionary for its time. Its lightweight, aluminum design—combined with painstaking attention to detail—met the demands of touring enthusiasts globally. Today, little has changed: Fender-ready with generous clearance, three sets of bottle mounts, rear rack, and puncture protected tires with reflective sidewalls. Cannondale Touring—for panoramic views since 1983."

I doubt I could concieve a bike I was more happy with loaded (45kg)

2007 model (standard gearing)

Yeah but you're Dr. Awesome and I'm not sure the average potential 520 buyers feel as awesome as you do. Let's give it another 10 years and see if you change your gearing.

I agree, the bike works very well for me. I've had no serious problems, the rack even lasted me through a 3100 mile trip without breaking (I did replace it later). The gearing worked well for me going over several mountain ranges as well. My only real complaint with it was the stock seat. The bike may not be perfect for all to start out, but I love mine.

what an odd thing to say

I think the issue with toe overlap is something that would annoy me. Hats off to Surly for going with a 26 inch wheel in the smaller sizes to avoid this issue. And I always assumed the 520 could run 35mm tyres with fenders, so that's a bit of a surprize -guess I was wrong?

I really like the look of the Trek 520 -but I just think they'd be better off doing some obvious changes (well at least obvious to me and some other posters on this board at least) such as gear selection and a better rack. That's not to say the 520 isn't an excellent bike, just that with a smidgeon of thought it could be more attractive to a touring cyclist. And since Trek doesn't do that, you have to think what do they think of touring? Looking at the Cannondale touring bikes, they seem to be better thought out spec wise.

Looking at the 520 geometry, I was impressed right up to the part where I saw the headtube length. Way too short for this application. Everybody is having to stuff 3 or more headset spacers under the stem, and then run 6 degree or more rise stems. For a loaded application, why not support the fork steer better with a proper headtube. Spacers are a much flexier way to go to achieve the equivalent stem height.

IMO, when I see someone with a bike that's got more than 1.5" of spacers under the stem, it just screams "bad fit".

Also, it would be nice if the fork had forward and rearward eyelets for racks and fenders. This would be inexpensive fix for Trek and would make it easier to set up with various front racks.

Components are easily changed and eventually wear out but changing the headtube is anything but easy.

Lastly, it's still steel (no Alu like Cannondale) and still has a nice bar con and sturdy wheel spec, and the price is reasonable. They'll continue to sell and all we can hope is they continue to improve.

As to marketing decisions, I think touring bikes should be built to be the best touring bikes, period, and not have components that feel good to potential buyers when they're trying out the bike - people who don't know much about touring.

The touring market is a small one, but people who want a touring bike usually know a lot and have very specific wants - brazeons, long chainstays to prevent heel strike, a ride that's comfortable for lots of miles day after day, a frame that handles a big load and handles well, and a drivetrain that is effective for carrying a big load up a steep, long hill.

If a potential buyer wants something that feels sporty, there are tons of other choices on the showroom floor. If fact, you often can't find a tourer to test ride at all.

A few people mentioned toe overlap...
Is that really an issue with the 520? I haven't had that issue myself.

I have an '06 model in the 19" size and I have large size toe clips, the stock 700 x 32 tires and I'm running fenders. No toe clip overlap and the 19" is a fairly small frame. Maybe it's an issue with the 17" frame? I don't know.

Hmmm, good thought I will have to give that a look. Thanks.