Which frame is built better, new or 20 year old Trek 520?

[Michael]

I know Trek has kept the 520 frame pretty much the same over the years, but which is the better
built frame, my 20 year old lugged frame or a new 2004 one? I am looking at upgrading the drivetrain
on my old bike or getting a new bike, if I get a new bike, it will be a Trek 520.

I am looking at spending a few hundred dollars to do the upgrades that I want verses the $1,000 or
so for a new bike. I really don't see the need for a new bike, other than some upgrades, the frame
is fine and I just want to get some of the components out of the 80's and into the modern world.
After the upgrades, my 520 will be functionally close to a new 520, although it won't look as pretty
as a new one.

I am a heavy rider and my Trek does well for me. It may weigh more than other bikes, but on the
century I did last weekend, I passed people on much lighter bikes and finished before them. As you
may have guessed, I care more about how the bike functions and holds up than how it looks. Is there
any compelling reason to get a new 520?

Thanks for your opinions,

Michael

 

[Erik Freitag]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I know Trek has kept the 520 frame pretty much the same over the years, but which is the better
> built frame, my 20 year old lugged frame or a new 2004 one? I am looking at upgrading the
> drivetrain on my old bike or getting a new bike, if I get a new bike, it will be a Trek 520.
>
> I am looking at spending a few hundred dollars to do the upgrades that I want verses the $1,000 or
> so for a new bike. I really don't see the need for a new bike, other than some upgrades, the frame
> is fine and I just want to get some of the components out of the 80's and into the modern world.
> After the upgrades, my 520 will be functionally close to a new 520, although it won't look as
> pretty as a new one.
>

My Trek 520 is only 2.5 years old, but I can't see that I'd switch. The only obvious differences
are, as you say, in the drivetrain (back end is now an SRAM 11-34 instead of a Shimano 11-32). I
have occasionally wondered if I would be able to feel the difference between the LX and and XTR
derailleur.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> I am a heavy rider and my Trek does well for me. It may weigh more than other bikes, but on the
> century I did last weekend, I passed people on
much
> lighter bikes and finished before them. As you may have guessed, I care more about how the bike
> functions and holds up than how it looks. Is
there
> any compelling reason to get a new 520?

If you're willing to spend the money (and have an emotional attachment to the old bike, which isn't
such a bad thing), the upgrading the old 520 might make sense, provided the frame is up to the task.
I'd check it over very carefully, making sure that it doesn't show any signs of distortion from
crashes (particularly check for any buckling underneath the downtube, about 1-3 inches below the
head tube junction). The fork could be an issue; if it's heavily rusted, I wouldn't trust it, as
steel forks definitely have a lifespan.

If it's really 20 years old, then it doesn't have brazed-on brake bosses, which could be a
significant disadvantage when it comes to choosing new brakes. You just can't get high-quality side
or centerpull brakes anymore, and even the old ones don't come near the stopping power of new ones.
This could be either a show-stopper or yawner (since you've lived with whatever brakes are on there
for some time, but they may not be at all compatible with STI levers if you went that way).

Rear dropout width could be as narrow as 120mm, which will result in a slight amount of cosmetic
buckling (ok, it's physical buckling, but probably of no consequence in terms of strength) of the
seat stays if you try and spread it to the current 130mm standard found on most road bikes. If you
want a really strong wheel and wish to go to 135mm (as found on the current
520), that might be pushing things a bit too far. If the frame was originally 126mm, not a big deal
spreading it.

If there were no legacy issues associated with the frame, then I'd venture to say a new 520 wouldn't
represent much of an improvement (and it's certainly not as pretty as the earlier lugged frames!).

The other side of the coin is that sometimes a new bike just seems like a fun thing to have, and
somehow rides nicer, even if everything's actually the same.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Paul Southworth]

In article <[email protected]>, Michael
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I know Trek has kept the 520 frame pretty much the same over the years, but which is the better
>built frame, my 20 year old lugged frame or a new 2004 one?

The old frame is the genuine item, no question about that.

> I am looking at upgrading the drivetrain on my old bike or getting a new bike, if I get a new
> bike, it will be a Trek 520.
>
>I am looking at spending a few hundred dollars to do the upgrades that I want verses the $1,000 or
>so for a new bike. I really don't see the need for a new bike, other than some upgrades, the frame
>is fine and I just want to get some of the components out of the 80's and into the modern world.

Which upgrades are you talking about?

>After the upgrades, my 520 will be functionally close to a new 520, although it won't look as
>pretty as a new one.

The paint maybe, but the rest would be a matter of debate.

>I am a heavy rider and my Trek does well for me. It may weigh more than other bikes, but on the
>century I did last weekend, I passed people on much lighter bikes and finished before them. As you
>may have guessed, I care more about how the bike functions and holds up than how it looks. Is there
>any compelling reason to get a new 520?

A lot less work. No headaches. Better deal on the parts. (Depends on which parts you intend
to replace.)

 

[Mark Freedman]

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> I know Trek has kept the 520 frame pretty much the same

You may be able to compare the geometry - I recall some older Trek brochures online, geometry
might be one of the elements included.

OTTOMH

They went to a lugless welded frame, and adapted a slightly sloping top tube (I believe the
original was lugged with a horizontal top tube).

The newer models use threadless headsets. google groups for discussions of the pros and cons. IMO
They're ugly, and if the steerer tube is cut short you may need an extender or upriser stem to
raise the bars. But they have advantages as well.

I believe they tried several different types of brakes. You may want to check whether the new
model has canti's or mini-v's or whatever.

The new model has Shimano 105 crankset with 30-42-52 chainrings and an 11-32 LX 9 speed
cassette. At one time, touring bikes had smaller chainrings e.g. 26-36-46 (older RSX).

> which is the better built frame

google groups for discussions of welded versus lugged and sloping versus horizontal top tube, and
threaded versus threadless headset.

I have mentioned some other differences above.

You may have to have the rear triangle cold set (spread and aligned) if the hub is wider. You may
have a freewheel, versus a freehub. I believe the latter has better support for the axle.
www.sheldonbrown.com discusses such matters in depth.

OTTOMH If you can afford the $1000, you might as
well test ride the new 520, and buy it if you like it.

Sell the old one, or keep it as is for back-up. Spread over 20 years, that's only $50/year.

, my >
> a few hundred dollars to do the upgrades

I infer that you want freehub, 9 speed, indexed shifting. Not clear what other components you'd
change. Don't know what kind of brakes you have now.

Are you doing the work yourself ?

Assuming that everything is in good condition, you'd have to cold set the rear triangle, buy a
new rear wheel with freehub and 9-speed cassette, new chain, probably a new rear derailleur,
possibly new shifters. Not sure your chainrings work with a 9-speed chain. They may be worn, and
also need replacing.

> to get some of the components out of the 80's

> I am a heavy rider and my Trek does well for me.

I test rode one 5 years ago and found it stable and comfortable. You're preaching to the choir


hth

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>... I am looking at upgrading the drivetrain on my old bike or getting a new bike, if I get a new
>bike, it will be a Trek 520.
>
> I am looking at spending a few hundred dollars to do the upgrades that I want verses the $1,000 or
> so for a new bike. I really don't see the need for a new bike, other than some upgrades, the frame
> is fine and I just
want
> to get some of the components out of the 80's and into the modern world.

If it's a large 25 inch frame, I definitely think you should just buy a new bike and sell the old
one. Let me know when you decide to do this.