Unsure about commuting bike, advice requested



Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
I need something more like a road bike, but tough.

So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
and practical.

On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.

Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
on my commute.

One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?

As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
reasonably. Should I be concerned?

-Steve
 
R

Richard B

Guest
[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
> and practical.
>
> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort
> of in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e.
> the riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would
> have been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.
>
> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?
>
> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry
> about skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
> reasonably. Should I be concerned?
>
> -Steve
>
>


Many cyclists ride road bikes with much narrower tires at similar or
higher pressures and they take sharp turns at high speeds without the
rear wheel losing traction. I suspect that you just had bit of bad luck.
Keep your eye on the road looking ahead for debris and hazards and avoid
them, you should be fine.

Rich
 
H

herve

Guest
My advice would be to go with bigger tire (maybe 37) if it makes you
feel more confident with it. On a one hour commute in a urban area you
will not loose much time (5/10 minutes at most)and this will probably
help with both handling the bike on bad road and preventing flats.
Comfort will also be slightly better. But you should still look at the
road and avoid potholes and other cracks...

Herve (I should buy 25 instead of 23 next time).

ps: with improving my physical condition and going from 28 (heavy)to
23(light), my daily commute went from 55 minutes to 45 minutes. I guess
tires are only responsible for a part of it.
 
E

Earl Bollinger

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
> and practical.
>
> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.
>
> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?
>
> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
> skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
> reasonably. Should I be concerned?
>
> -Steve
>

I think you might have had some bad luck. But new tires tend to have some
releasing agent on their surfaces that may make them a bit slippery at first
too.
I regularly commute using a touring bike with 700c32 tires on it. I prefer
the lower rolling resistance I get with the narrower tires versus the wider
tires.
But I do have a 700c37 folding tire that works good too, but I only use it
if I have some bad luck and slash or cut a tire riding to or from work.
Now if you prefer wider larger tires there isn't anything wrong with the
thought of going wider. So if you wanted to put on 700c35's it won't really
hurt anything.
I prefer the tires with little to no tread on them that are as smooth as you
can get, for maximum traction on the paved roads. Those roads get slippery
when wet from rain or the stuipid automatic sprinkler systems that spew more
water on the roads than the grass.
But I do try to watch out for potholes, cracks, and expansion join gaps in
the road slabs.
My commuter bike does not do well jumping on and off of curbs so i do not do
those things.
But if you ride aggressively on the streets jumping curbs and such, a
mountain bike with street slicks may be the way to go.
 
C

catzz66

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
> and practical.
>
> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.
>
> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?
>
> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
> skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
> reasonably. Should I be concerned?
>
> -Steve
>


Traction is a dodgy thing that I am still trying to figure out, but I
took my worst spill on a mountain bike using what I thought were safer
street tires on slick pavement. You have to always be on the lookout
for ruts and joints in the concrete, moisture, uneven surface changes,
potholes, manhole covers, gravel and other loose surfaces etc. Common
sense and being aware of what's ahead will get you over most of these
things. That is more important than tire size, in my opinion.
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
> and practical.
>
> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.


Maybe. This is the most common type of bike crash. Skinny tires require
much more vigilance for road hazards, although slippery surfaces are
equally bad.


> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high?


Probably not.

> Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem?


Probably not.


> Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?


Maybe. One thing to consider about any bike is the range of tires it can
accept. Especially for someone like you who doesn't know their
preferences yet.

> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
> skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
> reasonably. Should I be concerned?


Sure. I like touring type bikes for general use (have 3), but I wouldn't
recommend them for everyone. Some people may be better suited by another
style bike like a no-suspension mountain bike with slick tires or a
"city bike".
 
C

Claire Petersky

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.
>
> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?
>
> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
> skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
> reasonably. Should I be concerned?



I think it's just a matter of getting used to the bike. I had some problems
with slipping out, dealing with cracks in the pavement, and so forth, when I
went from commuting on a mountain bike to a road bike. I might have even
fell a couple times myself. After a few hundred miles, I didn't have these
problems anymore. I don't think 100-110 psi is too high and I don't think
fatter tires are the answer. I think you just need more practice on the bike
you have.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
P

Pat Lamb

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
> and practical.


That's the class of bike I'd recommend, too.

> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.


Concerned? Heck, yeah! Watch where you're going! Should that keep you
from buying this bike? Probably not.

I wouldn't bet on a MTB being immune to slides on the road, either.
When I ride a MTB on the road, cornering with sand or gravel feels much
less secure than the already insecure feeling of taking the same corner
on a road bike. The knobs get in the way, and if the knob that's making
contact on sand, you have less grip than you would with a smooth road
tire. The MTB may be less susceptible to expansion joints, although
I've seen some huge cracks between concrete slabs. (Didn't go down, I
rode around them.)

> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?


One of the nice things about the Trek is that you can go wider. I'd
probably wear the original tires out, then go looking for 32-25 width
replacements. 100 psi is a good compromise between low rolling
resistance and shock absorption, it isn't too high.

Pat
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
> and practical.
>


That's *perfect*. If you can get a good deal on it, get the bike.


> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.


You should be concerned about your riding technique more than anything
else. Perhaps you're a lot more gonzo than I am on the street, but
even then, prudence is the order of the day. You're commuting, not
racing in keirin....

>
> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?


If you ran them at lower pressure, you would likely get more snakebike
puncutres and/or invite sidewall damage. And there's the matter of the
rolling resistance, which is a drag.

Go ahead and run 35mm or 37mm tires if you have the clearance. You'll
feel a little more secure (since you're coming from fat-tire land,
anyway). You'll also run less risk of snakebite-puncturing, and
benefit from a cushier ride. The cafe-racerboys and the messengers
will snicker at you, but you don't need to care about them.

You should make sure you have enough clearance to fit full-coverage
fenders--NOT roostertails/shockboards/clip-ons....REAL fenders. A shop
that sells Trek 520s should have them. You should be able to run 35mm
tires with fenders easily. 37mm tires with fenders might be possible,
also.

>
> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
> skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
> reasonably. Should I be concerned?


No, you shouldn't be concerned. Riding "reasonably" is a function of
suiting yourself to the situation and the bike. "reasonable" riding
on the velodrome would be idiotic on a busy highway. Your spill was
likely a combination of bad luck and unfamiliarity with the bike.

I ride a touring bike--a Jamis Aurora--on the street all the time with
32mm tires. It's a blast.

-Luigi

>
> -Steve
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
> and practical.
>
> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.


You probably had three things happening here. One - smaller tire, but
just as importantly
new bike - so you were not used to its handling characteristics and
three a much more responsive even 'twichier' bike that again takes some
getting used to. I commute using both mtb and road bike and they both
work fine.

>
> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?
>
> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
> skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
> reasonably. Should I be concerned?
>
> -Steve
 
W

Werehatrack

Guest
On 18 May 2006 20:30:26 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
>longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
>mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
>I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
>So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
>like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
>kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
>and practical.


I had one; I pretty much agree with that assessment.

>On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
>in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
>riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
>been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.


Depending on the road's irregularity, you might have spilled on the
mountain bike as well, but fatter tires are a little less likely to
grab seams in the road and cause you to dump it. I find that I prefer
to ride my wierd hybrid with its 26x1.5 tires over the roadie with its
700x28 rubber because of just the sort of thing that happened to you.
We have *lots* of linear seams in streets around here, and I can
quick-flip across the cracks easier with the fatter tires.

>Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
>on my commute.


The view under there is not too scenic.

>One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
>100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high?


Maybe. I'd expect a pressure under 100 for a 30, but there are some
rated that high.

>Wouldn't a lower psi provide
>more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
>to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?


Lots of things go into choosing the tire pressure that's right for
you. Rider weight, road conditions, vibration tolerance, desire for
speed, rated maximum pressure and riding style all have a bearing.
Based on what you describe, though, I'd tend to agree that a 37 might
be a better size.

>As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
>skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
>reasonably. Should I be concerned?


You know your area's road surfaces better than I do. Bear in mind
that you'll get better at coping with the junk in the path as you gain
experience and confidence on the bike, and decide as seems prudent for
you.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
Thanks to everyone who replied, this is exactly the kind of advice I
was looking for. I think I'll get the 520, but also go try a bike with
35 or 37 mm tires and see if I feel more confident on them, and get
larger tires for the 520 if those seem better.

-Steve
 
P

Paul Turner

Guest
Steve wrote:

> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>
> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
> and practical.


I think a touring bike like the 520 makes an excellent commuter and weekend
bike. I ride a similar bike every day. It's good for year-round commuting
because it's built to accept fenders and a rack, but still it's a road bike
with a more comfortable and efficient position for riding distances than the
old mountain bike.

> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>
> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
> on my commute.
>
> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?


I've got 32 mm tires on mine, which is what I believe the 520 comes with. I
switched from wider tires (35s or 37s, I forget which) a couple of years
ago. I haven't felt any less secure on turns. I haven't fallen with them (or
if I did, I must have hit my head real hard). In my subjective opinion,
there was little difference. It's still wide for a road tire. I like it
better because you can inflate the 32s to a higher pressure and I feel (or
imagine I feel) slightly less road resistance. However, I don't have them
inflated anywhere near 100-110. Doesn't anyone else think that's high for
32s? My tires specify a maximum pressure of 80 or 85, if I recall correctly.
I typically inflate them to 90, but 100-110 seems more like what you'd put
in a narrower tire. You might want to check the side of the tire and reduce
it to the recommended pressure.

--
Paul Turner
 
M

Mike Kruger

Guest
"Michael Warner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 18 May 2006 20:30:26 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
>> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
>> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
>> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?

>
> Yes, that sounds too high for such wide tyres. I'd try 70-80psi - you'll
> get a much more comfortable ride, too. Even the standard 23mm tyres
> on road bikes are best run at no more than 100psi IME.
>
> 37mm is far wider than necessary for road riding.
>

1. Whatever pressure it says on the tire is probably a safe bet to be pretty
much correct.
2. I typically ride a bicycle with a wider tire when I am going to be riding
in the dark or on rough pavement. Sure, 37mm is "wider than necessary for
road riding", but if the original poster feels more confident with a 37mm
tire, he should go for it (as long as it will fit in the frame; ask the
dealer).

If he feels confident, he will ride more. If he rides more, the tires will
eventually wear out, but with the experience of riding a few thousand miles
on the first set of tires he will be able to make an informed decision as to
what he wants to try next. If a bike like a Trek 520 sits in the garage,
unridden, this would be a real shame (unless this is a 25 inch frame, and he
decides to sell it cheaply to me).
 
R

Ron Wallenfang

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
>> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
>> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
>> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>>
>> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
>> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
>> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
>> and practical.
>>
>> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
>> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
>> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
>> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>>
>> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
>> on my commute.

>
> You probably had three things happening here. One - smaller tire, but
> just as importantly
> new bike - so you were not used to its handling characteristics and
> three a much more responsive even 'twichier' bike that again takes some
> getting used to. I commute using both mtb and road bike and they both
> work fine.
>
>>
>> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
>> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
>> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
>> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?
>>
>> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
>> skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
>> reasonably. Should I be concerned?
>>
>> -Steve

>


I use my TREK 520 for all my long trips and frequently for commuting.
You're not committed to narrow tires. Mine are 700 x 35
 
C

chuck

Guest
On 2006-05-26, Ron Wallenfang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm looking for a solid, versatile bike for commuting and for the odd
>>> longish weekend ride. I thought the rolling resistance of my old
>>> mountain bike (stolen) was too much for commuting - it just seems like
>>> I need something more like a road bike, but tough.
>>>
>>> So on the advice of a knowledable friend, I've been looking at bikes
>>> like the Trek 520. I test rode one recently and loved it - it's the
>>> kind of bike that seems like it'll last forever, and it's still light
>>> and practical.
>>>
>>> On the test ride I took a spill after I hit a crack in the road sort of
>>> in parallel to the crack at moderate speed turing a corner, i.e. the
>>> riskiest way to take an obstacle like that. On my MTB it would have
>>> been no problem but the 520's rear wheel slipped and I went down.
>>>
>>> Should I be concerned? I'd rather not slide under a bus or something
>>> on my commute.

>>
>> You probably had three things happening here. One - smaller tire, but
>> just as importantly
>> new bike - so you were not used to its handling characteristics and
>> three a much more responsive even 'twichier' bike that again takes some
>> getting used to. I commute using both mtb and road bike and they both
>> work fine.
>>
>>>
>>> One thing I noticed was the 520 has 30mm tires that were inflated to
>>> 100-110 psi. Isn't that a little high? Wouldn't a lower psi provide
>>> more road contact and maybe have prevented this problem? Or if I were
>>> to buy this bike, should I go buy 37mm tires?
>>>
>>> As much as I like this bike, it's not worth it if I have to worry about
>>> skidding out on normal urban roads, with potholes, etc, riding
>>> reasonably. Should I be concerned?
>>>
>>> -Steve

>>

>
> I use my TREK 520 for all my long trips and frequently for commuting.
> You're not committed to narrow tires. Mine are 700 x 35
>
>


I'm thinking of getting a touring bike to replace my hybrid. Will the
520 fit 700x42 tires or is 38 the max? I always used to run 28mm Conti
TT's, but got different rims and these 42mm, and I really love the
cushioning the bigger tires provide on dirt/gravel. Oops, I guess the
question should be biggest tire size with full fenders.
 

Similar threads