520 or T800 touring bike?

[Stephen Harding]

David wrote:

> In article <XmP4e.6524$7b.1044@trndny03>, Stephen Harding
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Come on, things like this happens all the time even with the best of
>>>equipment. Many doom and gloomers here like to point out that you
>>>should have the best Chris King hubs, Phil Wood BB, Mavic A319 (40
>>>spokes if possible), XT derailleur (for sealed bearings) and plus more
>>>and more just so that you don't get stuck.
>>
>>Probably a function of a bad wheel build exacerbated by
>>a heavy load.
>>
>>But I'm not claiming you need the highest end equipment
>>in order to have a guaranteed problem free experience.
>>
>>I am claiming that a bike built for the purpose of carrying
>>heavier loads, i.e. longer wheelbase, more lateral stiffness,
>>lower gearing, heavier duty wheels, lower gearing, places
>>to attach stuff, etc., is going to do a better job at hauling
>>loads than a lighter, non-purpose built bike. Such a bike
>>could break down before you're out of the driveway, but law
>>of averages says it will more likely take you around the
>>world without problems.
>>
>
>
> Please check this link out --
> http://www.pedalmag.com/index.php?module=CustomPage&action=view&custompa
> ge_id=22
>
> I personally know these 2 cyclists, 2 French Canadians who had racked
> up more miles that many of us here on the forum could ever dream of
> doing. They had done many other world tours in the past on mountain
> bikes, last ones were a pair of Kona Calderas.
>
> With the usual survival gear, they also carry video equipment, very
> heavy camera equipment, computer laptop and I believe a satellite
> phone.
>
> They were the ones who instrumentally convinced me that you don't need
> a dedicated touring rig like a Cannondale T800 or a Trek 520 to do
> things like they do.

Well then there's the mountain bike.

MTBs already have many of the attributes of a touring bike.
The low gears, the wider range of tire sizes and treads, usually
fairly robustly built. People bolt drop bars on them and you
pretty closely have a touring bike (at a cheaper price generally).

I have an MTB I use for touring along with my 520. My only
objection to it as a touring bike is the shorter wheelbase. My
heels are always brushing up against the rear panniers.


SMH

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

"Toadman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Right now my wife and I both have a Cannondale Adventure 400. We ride a
lot
> on the local trails. I've been riding more on the roads lately. Riding

<snip>

I would not get the Trek 520, due to the threadless headset, and the wheels.
You'll want a slightly more upright position for touring (yes, I know that
you can add a stem extender) You'll want a 40 spoke rear wheel.

I would not get the Cannondale, because you really want a chro-moly frame on
a touring bicycle that will be fully-loaded. Yeah, probably you'd get away
with aluminum, but why risk it (even Trek has not gone to aluminum for their
520).

Check out http://bicycleshortlist.com. There are several other options. The
Fuji Tour/Windsor Tourist is a good choice, and is only around $700. Moving
up-market is the Bruce Gordon BLT, and the Koga-Miyata Randonneur. All are
chro-moly steel, all have a threaded headset.

You probably want to avoid taking a road bicycle and "converting" it. A
touring bicycle has a longer wheelbase, stronger wheels, and is almost
always chro-moly steel, as opposed to aluminum (even Trek has not gone to
aluminum for their 520). Sure, a chro-moly steel road bike would probably
stand up to touring if you replaced the wheels and the drive-train, but it
wouldn't be comfortable, wouldn't have the braze-ons for a front rack, and
you'd end up spending more money than if you just bought the right product
to begin with.

Steve
http://bicycleshortlist.com

 

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email protected]>,
Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Toadman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Right now my wife and I both have a Cannondale Adventure 400. We ride a
>lot
>> on the local trails. I've been riding more on the roads lately. Riding
>
><snip>
>
>I would not get the Trek 520, due to the threadless headset, and the wheels.
>You'll want a slightly more upright position for touring (yes, I know that
>you can add a stem extender) You'll want a 40 spoke rear wheel.

_ Personally, I think this is largely fallacy. You can get the
bars as high or higher with a threadless headset. The problem
with threadless headsets is not in the design, it's in cutting
the fork before you know where the rider wants the handlebars.
For a touring bike, threadless headsets have some significant
advantages.

>
>I would not get the Cannondale, because you really want a chro-moly frame on
>a touring bicycle that will be fully-loaded. Yeah, probably you'd get away
>with aluminum, but why risk it (even Trek has not gone to aluminum for their
>520).
>
>Check out http://bicycleshortlist.com. There are several other options. The
>Fuji Tour/Windsor Tourist is a good choice, and is only around $700. Moving
>up-market is the Bruce Gordon BLT, and the Koga-Miyata Randonneur. All are
>chro-moly steel, all have a threaded headset.
>
>You probably want to avoid taking a road bicycle and "converting" it. A
>touring bicycle has a longer wheelbase, stronger wheels, and is almost
>always chro-moly steel, as opposed to aluminum (even Trek has not gone to
>aluminum for their 520). Sure, a chro-moly steel road bike would probably
>stand up to touring if you replaced the wheels and the drive-train, but it
>wouldn't be comfortable, wouldn't have the braze-ons for a front rack, and
>you'd end up spending more money than if you just bought the right product
>to begin with.
>


_ This is a very conservative point of view. I'm not saying it
isn't worth looking at but I've checked out that page several
times and I think you need to take it all with a grain of salt.

_ People tour with just about any bike you can imagine. Heck
last summer I say people heading across high sierra mountain passes
with kick bikes and panniers. Gear can make your trip harder
or easier, but ultimately it's just gear. Enjoying the trip
happens in your head.

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

_ Booker C. Bense




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQlWRM2TWTAjn5N/lAQGZPwP/eyDFvW2OxORya90kMrJLGlGeN536T4+K
BPX+fLa6DG7hozCA0Ghc+J8sG51quw2Eb3rrnUCRSdl0qNlpFekFIY+Zii0qFsgI
15WtsaNBCeKbeUsJsyKTE8a8Dr5cEJwYz7p0/FgnJ4sPzn8fH88ReTa8bD0N3N6V
fvePy8/drxg=
=+OBY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Peter Cole]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> I would not get the Cannondale, because you really want a chro-moly
frame on
> a touring bicycle that will be fully-loaded. Yeah, probably you'd get
away
> with aluminum, but why risk it (even Trek has not gone to aluminum
for their
> 520).
>
> Check out http://bicycleshortlist.com. There are several other
options. The
> Fuji Tour/Windsor Tourist is a good choice, and is only around $700.
Moving
> up-market is the Bruce Gordon BLT, and the Koga-Miyata Randonneur.
All are
> chro-moly steel, all have a threaded headset.

I have both the Cannondale and the Fuji, plus an 80's Fuji (lugged)
frame. The Cannondale is the stiffest and lightest by far.

The new Fuji is threadless, the Cannondale, old Fuji are threaded.
Threadless is much stiffer, and stronger. I broke a very nice (Nitto)
quill stem and had to machine out the corroded remnants (the major
hassle with quill stems). I think I'll swap the Cannondale fork out one
of these days.

Threadless headsets and oversize aluminum frames are ideal for touring,
they'll take the load without flopping all over the place.

The most important thing for touring isn't the frame or stem though,
it's the wheels. I've had good luck with the Mavic T519/520, especially
nice when laced to MTB hubs. Sun rims are a better value and don't have
the silly machining, though.

 

[Gooserider]

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Toadman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Right now my wife and I both have a Cannondale Adventure 400. We ride a
> lot
> > on the local trails. I've been riding more on the roads lately. Riding
>
> <snip>
>
> I would not get the Trek 520, due to the threadless headset, and the
wheels.
> You'll want a slightly more upright position for touring (yes, I know that
> you can add a stem extender) You'll want a 40 spoke rear wheel.
>
> I would not get the Cannondale, because you really want a chro-moly frame
on
> a touring bicycle that will be fully-loaded. Yeah, probably you'd get away
> with aluminum, but why risk it (even Trek has not gone to aluminum for
their
> 520).
>
I agree that steel is the ideal choice, but Cannondale has been serious
about touring bikes since their inception. A T800 or T2000(or whatever they
call it now) is a fine choice. They even come with Brooks saddles!

 

[Bartow W. Riggs]

Loaded the t-2000, though alumnium with a cro-moly fork, is fine and not too
stiff at all. The gearing though could use fine-tuning, depending on how
strong you are...

Bartow


"Gooserider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Toadman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Right now my wife and I both have a Cannondale Adventure 400. We ride a
>> lot
>> > on the local trails. I've been riding more on the roads lately. Riding
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I would not get the Trek 520, due to the threadless headset, and the
> wheels.
>> You'll want a slightly more upright position for touring (yes, I know
>> that
>> you can add a stem extender) You'll want a 40 spoke rear wheel.
>>
>> I would not get the Cannondale, because you really want a chro-moly frame
> on
>> a touring bicycle that will be fully-loaded. Yeah, probably you'd get
>> away
>> with aluminum, but why risk it (even Trek has not gone to aluminum for
> their
>> 520).
>>
> I agree that steel is the ideal choice, but Cannondale has been serious
> about touring bikes since their inception. A T800 or T2000(or whatever
> they
> call it now) is a fine choice. They even come with Brooks saddles!
>
>

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

"Booker C. Bense"
<[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Toadman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Right now my wife and I both have a Cannondale Adventure 400. We ride a
> >lot
> >> on the local trails. I've been riding more on the roads lately. Riding
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >I would not get the Trek 520, due to the threadless headset, and the
wheels.
> >You'll want a slightly more upright position for touring (yes, I know
that
> >you can add a stem extender) You'll want a 40 spoke rear wheel.
>
> _ Personally, I think this is largely fallacy. You can get the
> bars as high or higher with a threadless headset. The problem
> with threadless headsets is not in the design, it's in cutting
> the fork before you know where the rider wants the handlebars.

Yes, this is exactly the problem. I've noticed that on some of the Jamis
bicycles they leave the steerer tube pretty long, and just put spacers over
the stem, if the rider wants a lower riding position. But most manufacturers
leave very little room for adjustment; maybe they think it looks dorky to
have the stem lower than the top of the spacer stack. You can always buy a
headset extender to compensate. I see that on so-called "comfort bicycles"
that many manufacturers are still using the quill headsets with the greater
height.

> _ People tour with just about any bike you can imagine.

> Heck
> last summer I say people heading across high sierra mountain passes
> with kick bikes and panniers. Gear can make your trip harder
> or easier, but ultimately it's just gear. Enjoying the trip
> happens in your head.

I agree. But the original poster was asking about buying a touring bicycle,
so the response was based on the original premise. You can tour on a hybrid,
mountain, whatever. But if you go into the selection process looking for a
touring bicycle then you may as well get a touring bicycle rather than
something else. It's too bad that self-contained bicycle touring has largely
lost its appeal, with the resultant decrease in the availability of mass
market, inexpensive, touring bicycles.

 

[Stephen Harding]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> "Toadman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Right now my wife and I both have a Cannondale Adventure 400. We ride a
>
> lot
>
>>on the local trails. I've been riding more on the roads lately. Riding
>
>
> <snip>
>
> I would not get the Trek 520, due to the threadless headset, and the wheels.
> You'll want a slightly more upright position for touring (yes, I know that
> you can add a stem extender) You'll want a 40 spoke rear wheel.

My ~12 year old 520 came with threaded headset. I still ended up
putting a longer one on it.

I've run fully loaded on my 520 problem free for years with just
36 spokes. I don't see the need for 40.

The stock Trek wheels lasted only about 3-4 years before starting
to crack along the sides. Replaced with Mavic 217 and flawless,
perhaps only 3 truings in about 8 years!


SMH

 

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>
> I've run fully loaded on my 520 problem free for years with just
> 36 spokes. I don't see the need for 40.

Same here, with my Cannondale touring bike.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

"Stephen Harding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:tQi5e.131$nt3.50@trndny04...

> My ~12 year old 520 came with threaded headset. I still ended up
> putting a longer one on it.

Maybe Trek has a thing about shorter headsets. My Specialized Expedition
came with a very long quill stem. Also, I find that many riders end up
buying touring bicycle that are too small for them, and one result of this
is the need for a longer stem to try to correct the sizing error.

> I've run fully loaded on my 520 problem free for years with just
> 36 spokes. I don't see the need for 40.

Usually it's okay, but the 40 spoke wheel is much stronger, and is usually
used on the higher end touring bicycles.

 

[[email protected]]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "Stephen Harding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:tQi5e.131$nt3.50@trndny04...
>
> > I've run fully loaded on my 520 problem free for years with just
> > 36 spokes. I don't see the need for 40.
>
> Usually it's okay, but the 40 spoke wheel is much stronger, and is
usually
> used on the higher end touring bicycles.

Really? "Usually"? I've heard of only a very few that use 40. I'd be
curious to see your "usually" list.

I'd agree with staying away from 32 spoke wheels for touring. But if
you go to 40, you're getting into non-standard parts for, IMO, no good
reason.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[David]

In article <kn95e.662$Fm5.513@trndny09>, Stephen Harding
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
> MTBs already have many of the attributes of a touring bike.
> The low gears, the wider range of tire sizes and treads, usually
> fairly robustly built. People bolt drop bars on them and you
> pretty closely have a touring bike (at a cheaper price generally).
>
> I have an MTB I use for touring along with my 520. My only
> objection to it as a touring bike is the shorter wheelbase. My
> heels are always brushing up against the rear panniers.
>

Not a problem here either..

This is solved with using proper racks. The Old Man Mountain Sherpa
rear rack that I use has the proper setback mount that would eliminate
my heels always brushing up against my Aqua-Not waterproof panniers.

David.

 

[David]

In article <[email protected]>, Patrick Lamb
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:49:21 GMT, David
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My question to you
> >is, are you really planning multi-day trips where you're be hauling
> >loads of stuff and be on the saddle 7 to 8 hrs a day? That's what a
> >touring bike is designed for.
>
> I'm not sure this logic is sound. Would you say no one should buy a
> racing "road bike" unless they're planning to ride at 30 mph 4-5 hours
> a day, for 20 days in July? That's what the road racers are designed
> for, isn't it?

Yes, except you are assuming that all cyclists have the same
flexibility and dexterity like a well seasoned or well experienced
cyclist does.

Unfortunately, the answer is "no". You are making an assumption based
on the fact that if Lance Armstrong can ride at this "racing position"
for hours, every cyclists in North America can ride just like him, bent
real low. The truth of the matter is that, most people don't or can't
ride like the pros or like us do without many many years of cycling
under our belts. You need time to develop body flexibility before you
can achieve these kind of aerodynamically efficient positions. Most
beginning cyclists always start with an upright position. In fact,
race bikes now are sold with several headset spacers built-in to
achieve this out of the norm upright position where the height of the
saddle is the same or close to as the height of the stem.

>
> If you can afford a bike for urban riding and commuting, one for
> country roads, one for mountain roads, one for mountain trails, and
> still another one for riding down mountain trails, fine. But a
> touring bike is pretty good at the first three, with the added bonus
> that you can hit the road for long, multi-day rides, too.
>

A hardtail mountain bike can do the same as well. And what's wrong
with switching to slicks to tour on them?

And smaller sizes of the Surly Long Haul Trucker uses 650cc wheels,
similar to 26" wheels found on mountain bikes. So, are you telling me
that Surly LHT will be running SLOWER than its bigger 700cc wheels
version?

 

[David]

I
> Good sound advice. Thank you. I've been riding more each year for about the
> last 6 years. I quit smoking April 26th 1999. Got into exercising and biking
> became a favorite. I rode a lot as a teenager, I'm now 44. I've rode every
> chance (no rain and the temp was above 50) I could so far this year. I
> looking to take things up a level or two this year. I find myself looking at
> roads completely different these days. Condition and width of shoulder
> amount of hills, steepness of hills. I have relatives in New York just south
> of Buffalo, I watched the shoulder the whole way there and back. I'm going
> to try loading up my current bike and going for a ride before making a
> purchase. The upright riding position just doesn't feel right at times and I
> think it may be worse loaded.
>
>

A too upright riding position may not be all that great for long hours
on the saddle -- you're placing way too much of your body weight on
your butt. Ideally, the weight should be equally distributed between
your back and your hands, but that's an ideal for a well seasoned
cyclist. In practice, you have to find a balance that's right for you.
The best place to do this is to find a local bike fitter that will do a
bike fitting session with you and your bike.

This will cost you something, but it's a trip worth spending.

David.

 

[David]

In article <[email protected]>,
Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:


There are chromoly steel touring bikes that are very affordable. Surly
and Soma make them -- in fact both frames are made at the same factory
that made the Bridgestone. So, these people aren't newbies in this
business.

A Surly LHT can be built-up with bar cons at less than the price of a
new Cannondale T800 and it's all customized to your specs. Same thing
with a Soma Double Cross (Nice light Reynolds 631/4130 rear steel) can
be built up for the same price.

Disregard the steel vs aluminium ride feel. It's a placebo effect.
Wheels, tires and tire pressure has more to do with ride feel than
steel and aluminium. And besides, touring frames are made extra stiff,
expecially the top tube section where thickness can be up to 3 times
that of a racing pedigree. The top tube section is reinforced to
eliminate the feeling of fish tailing when heavy loads are attached to
the rear of the bike. This is expecially pronounced on older touring
bikes, like my old Miyata LT 1000.

David.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:31:37 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I've noticed that on some of the Jamis
>bicycles they leave the steerer tube pretty long, and just put spacers over
>the stem, if the rider wants a lower riding position. But most manufacturers
>leave very little room for adjustment; maybe they think it looks dorky to
>have the stem lower than the top of the spacer stack.

Or maybe the shops cut the excess steerer off, as you're allegedly
supposed to...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 03:47:57 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Usually it's okay, but the 40 spoke wheel is much stronger, and is usually
>used on the higher end touring bicycles.

Really? I can't recall ever having seen a solo with 40-spoke wheels.
I have them on my triplet, though.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Pat Lamb]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> I would not get the Trek 520, due to the threadless headset, and the wheels.
> You'll want a slightly more upright position for touring (yes, I know that
> you can add a stem extender) You'll want a 40 spoke rear wheel.
>
....
>
> Check out http://bicycleshortlist.com. There are several other options. The
> Fuji Tour/Windsor Tourist is a good choice, and is only around $700. Moving
> up-market is the Bruce Gordon BLT, and the Koga-Miyata Randonneur. All are
> chro-moly steel, all have a threaded headset.

Oh, you mean the site that recommends:
"Mid: Trek 520, $1100. Chro-Moly frame. May need a headset extender or
Speedlifter. The included rear rack isn't as good as on the Fuji."

BTW, this site should be taken for what it is: one person's
recommendations. For other recommendations, see rec.bicycles.misc.

Pat

 

[Pat Lamb]

[email protected] wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>>"Stephen Harding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:tQi5e.131$nt3.50@trndny04...
>>
>>
>>>I've run fully loaded on my 520 problem free for years with just
>>>36 spokes. I don't see the need for 40.
>>
>>Usually it's okay, but the 40 spoke wheel is much stronger, and is
>
> usually
>
>>used on the higher end touring bicycles.
>
>
> Really? "Usually"? I've heard of only a very few that use 40. I'd be
> curious to see your "usually" list.
>
> I'd agree with staying away from 32 spoke wheels for touring. But if
> you go to 40, you're getting into non-standard parts for, IMO, no good
> reason.

And where do you find parts for 40 spoke wheels? Of hubs, spokes, and
rims, I'd expect you could find spokes most places without having to
order them. If you're afraid to go STI/Ergo because parts might break,
seems like 36 would be the conservative wheel choice.

Pat

 

[[email protected]]

David wrote:
>
> >
> > If you can afford a bike for urban riding and commuting, one for
> > country roads, one for mountain roads, one for mountain trails, and
> > still another one for riding down mountain trails, fine. But a
> > touring bike is pretty good at the first three, with the added
bonus
> > that you can hit the road for long, multi-day rides, too.
> >
>
> A hardtail mountain bike can do the same as well. And what's wrong
> with switching to slicks to tour on them?

Mountain bikes (esp. rigid ones) can be very versatile, of course.
People do all sorts of riding on them. But for long road rides, I find
them very unpleasant, even with slicks. The handlebars really do make
a big difference.

Everyone knows that the hand positions are limited, and everyone knows
that bar ends can help slightly. But I don't think that people realize
that the palms-down hand position on a mountain bike is lots less
streamlined than the palms-inward position on a road bike. Palms down
sticks your elbows out to the side, increasing frontal area and drag
coefficient. And if you're moving just 15 mph, half of what you're
fighting is aerodynamic drag.

I'd say, if your planned riding includes lots of off-road stuff with
some on-road stuff, or lots of slow-speed riding, the mountain bike is
fine. But if you're going to do serious road miles at reasonable
speed, the touring bike has the edge.

- Frank Krygowski