akansaskid

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

Price is the same as 2009, and the only change in the specs I see at first glance is that it drops the ugly Portland fenders, and lists "shorty fenders" instead, but none are shown in the picture. So, the picture has changed very recently (no fenders shown), as have the fender specs (what are "shorty fenders"?). Anyone in the know, know if this is the 2010 520? If it is, any word on when it will be available (as in shipping)?

wahoonc

Looks like that is what they are selling for 2010. For that kind of money I think I would rather have the Raleigh Sojourn. Better equipped and comes with disc brakes and lists for a hundred or so less.

Aaron

CCrew

That' s the 2010. They lost the 2009 fenders because they had issues with the rear banging the underside of the rack.

I'd rather have the Trek for the way they handle warranty issues and it comes with rims made for loaded touring.

John Nelson

The 2010 is identical to the 2009 except for the missing fenders in the 2010 picture.

Bacciagalupe

And don't be surprised if the Raleigh bumps up in price or down in component quality. AFAIK bike prices jumped up a little bit again this year.

yeamac 

No color change? I thought all manufacturers change colors from year to year.

BengeBoy 

Love the way they raised the seat for the photo on the 2010 model.(That's just what I'm looking for in a touring bike - a bike with about a 10-inch seat-to-handlebar drop.)

Must be somebody's idea of a joke, or maybe they were partying a little too hard in the photo studio that day.

I thought this was the dumbest picture of a touring bike seatpost ever:

https://www.co-motion.com/single_bikes/pangea.html

or this:

https://www.co-motion.com/single_bike...ertour_cp.html


...but I think the 2010 520 shot is even dumber.

NormanF

The Trek 520 is still made with double butted cro-moly steel. The rear cassette is actually quite good for touring. I'd swap out the crankset for an MTB 42/32/22 for extended range.

NormanF

No biggie. Nice aftermarket fenders are available to be added for a reasonable price.

NormanF

The Trek rack is decent but I would rather get a Tubus Cargo and Tara matched set. Wayne at the Touring Store has great deals on them and they are German made and built for a touring expedition. Trek had to cut corners somewhere by not outfitting the 520 with them.

Bekologist

nows about the time to start looking for next years touring bikes to show up in the stores too. 2010 is already being displayed in some shops, not sure if 2010 (wow) Trek 520s are on the floors yet.

Trek got away from the diamond frame, a big mistake asthetics wise. but the LX trekking crank is spot on for loaded touring, less so for club and century riding IMO.

staehpj1

Different strokes, but I for one prefer my bars 4-5" below the saddle. Mine aren't much different from the pics you link. I find it much more comfortable on the long haul than the "sit up and beg" position.

probe1957

I just bought a 1991 520 in very good condition from the original owner. She thought she paid about $1300 for the bike back in '91. Anyone know if that is likely the case or is her memory faulty (like mine)?

John Nelson

I very highly doubt that the MSRP on the 1991 520 was anywhere near $1300. And you can usually buy it for $100 to $200 under MSRP anyway.

The 2009 and 2010 520s are much better set up for touring than the earlier year models. If you buy an earlier year model, you'll be tempted to make a number of upgrades to the drive train (depending on where you tour) which will add to the cost.

John Nelson

Maybe different in your area, but it is quite unusual for a shop to keep 520s on the floor. The volume is just too low to make it worthwhile. You almost always have to special order them. And don't wait too long if you want one--they almost always sell out by spring, and then you have to wait at least 6 months for your next chance.

sonatageek

According to bikepedia the 1993 had a list price of $899, so it is unlikely that the 1991 was more then that.

probe1957

Thank you.

BengeBoy 

No criticism of riders intended - I think I've read your set-up preferences before.

I was probably overly cranky when I criticized their photo, though I do think that most prospective touring bike owners would be more inclined to ride with a less dramatic seat-to-handlebar drop. I think Co-Motion and Trek just shoot their bikes that way to look cooler or speedier or something.

BengeBoy 

+1

We have one of the biggest Trek dealers in the country in Seattle (Gregg's) and I've never seen more than one 520 in their store, and usually not even that.

ricohman

That 520 has more bar to saddle drop than my Roubaix. Who would want to tour like that?
The later 520's have always had bars to low in relation to the saddle (thats why it was never on my short list) but this is ridiculous.

mtnroads

Not the bike it used to be, that's for sure. However, not totally inconsistent - the darn things always had a low bar height relative to the seat - my 95 had a great ride quality but I couldn't get the bar height above the seat without a very long and silly looking stem. I eventually tired of the seating position and got a T2000 which is way more upright.

Bekologist

I've seen the full size run of Trek 520s at Greggs Greenlake in Seattle during the fall and winter, by spring/summer the bikes' availability is often limited.

Gregg's Greenlake Cycles may be one of the few shops in the country to bring in full size runs of 520s.

norwood

I agree with you. I think it looks really dumb.
And yet another fine example. This is Masi's "classic touring bike"
https://www.masibikes.com/gallery/p.p...8xMSc3Og%3D%3D