- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Trek 520Disc_19_24000_A_Alt1 2Trek reveal updated 520 Touring Bike
Trek have launched a new version of their classic 520 steel touring bike, with a larger downtube to help cope with luggage loading, more comfortable geometry for multi-day rides and a lighter alloy fork.
13 of the best touring bikes
Review: Trek Checkpoint SL6
The 520 is actually the longest-running bike model in Trek's history, with the first introduced in 1983. Fast forward 35 years and the latest version still keeps it real with a sturdy custom-butted chromoly steel frame, however it's got plenty of modern adaptations to bring it up to date. The chromoly frame has a downtube with a larger diameter to make it extra stiff when loaded with gear. Geomtry changes include a longer wheelbase, taller headtube for a more upright and comfortable ride and a lower bottom bracket for more stability. The full bike as shown weighs in at 13.3kg
The new alloy fork is 318 grams lighter than the previous steel fork at 920 grams, and features Trek's new ThruSkew system that stops the wheel from dropping out unintentionally. Thruskew also means you needn't remove luggage from the front rack if you have to fix a front tyre flat.
The 520 has 38mm tyres fitted with enough clearance to run massive 29 x 2 tyres if you really plan on going off the beaten track. The Bontrager Affinity wheels are tubeless-ready, although the supplied tyres are clinchers. Proving the triple isn't dead yet, Trek have specced a 48/36/26 Shimano Alivio chainset with a chainguard up front and a 9 speed 11/36 cassette at the rear, and shifting is courtesy of the ever-reliable Shimano Sora.
Trek supply front and rear cargo racks with the bike so it's ready to go adventuring straight away. The heavy-duty racks can take up to 15kg at the front and 22.6kg at the rear, and there are also mounts for full mudguards and up to three bottle cages on the frame.
The new 520 is available to pre-order from some UK retailers, with sizes ranging from 51 up to 63cm. The RRP on Trek's website is £1,100, head over to trekbikes.com for more details.
Jack has been writing about cycling and multisport for over a decade, arriving at road.cc via 220 Triathlon Magazine in 2017. He worked across all areas of the website including tech, news and video, and also contributed to eBikeTips before being named Editor of road.cc in 2021 (much to his surprise). Jack has been hooked on cycling since his student days, and currently has a Trek 1.2 for winter riding, a beloved Bickerton folding bike for getting around town and an extra beloved custom Ridley Helium SLX for fantasising about going fast in his stable. Jack has never won a bike race, but does have a master's degree in print journalism and two Guinness World Records for pogo sticking (it's a long story).
Latest Comments
- mdavidford 53 min 31 sec ago
Both options are lacking a bit of innovative thinking. They should get someone creative to respray them as 'Lemon bikes'.
- slc 54 min 52 sec ago
No rounding - it was 26 minutes. Looks as though someone has walked it many times and found the mean to obtain such precision. Not just looked on...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 4 sec ago
I've put those on Mrs H's bike and keep meaning to put them on mine as well, they are really effective because not only can drivers see you clearly...
- Doug_D 1 hour 11 min ago
Another book suggestion - I can highly recommend "Lost Summers and Half-Forgotten Afternoons: A Mint Sauce collection" - a beautifully presented...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 23 min ago
But... the last is only not the case with drivers on normal roads because driving on the cycle path / footway / rolling a vehicle up there is seen...
- mdavidford 3 hours 1 min ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
- chrisonabike 3 hours 26 min ago
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an...
- mdavidford 3 hours 34 min ago
Don't know what you mean. I thought my suggestion was entirely practical.
- Rapha Nadal 4 hours 9 min ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
Add new comment
25 comments
Interestingly, the weight limit in Trek's manual for touring bikes in category 1 bicycles which explicitly includes the 520 indicates a 125kg rider weight + 25kg luggage weight although the product page does indicate its 125kg total
http://bike-manual.com/brands/trek/om/touring/index.htm
Under "Use Conditions"
The weight limit that manufacters place is not an on/off switch. It doesn't mean that you will ride off-road for years with an 124 kg total weight and make a single ride with 126 kg and the frame will snap. Also bear in mind that a 125kg rider will stress much differently a bike than a 60kg driver with 65kg load as us rider have suspensions on our knees that luggage racks lack and the load distribution will be very different too.
Weight limits take various things into consideration apart from engineering, such as psychology, warranty policy and marketing. Many manufacturers avoid such problems simply by not giving any limits. I believe weight limits are mostly targeted at Americans where suing obsession meets excessive body weights that may stress beyond design limits some unlucky frames.
Indeed though BtB is right, 125kg for a long-haul touring bicycle with 35 years of history is really low. I haven't seen that many heavy cyclists that do touring but I have seen some really heavy loads that the combined weight would be much more than that. As I said before the alu fork seems totally out of place, especially in such iconic bicycle for Trek. Fortunately the paintjob is still single color with subtle graphics.
In general don't worry about weight limits in metal bikes from famous brands. Should you crack a frame, it will most likely be replaced without too much hussle, as it really rare and manufacturers don't want to jeopardise their reputation. But the most important thing is that in order to crack a frame you will have made really good use of this bike, so you will already have won too much!
Interestingly, the weight limit in Trek's manual for touring bikes in category 1 bicycles which explicitly includes the 520 indicates a 125kg rider weight + 25kg luggage weight although the product page does indicate its 125kg total
http://bike-manual.com/brands/trek/om/touring/index.htm
Under "Use Conditions"
BTBS back again with the usual brand of positivity. Proper ray of sunshine, that guy.
BTBS; if you struggle with weight limits then you could always lose some yourself and avoid any issues. Think of all the nice bikes you could then buy (but probably wouldn't).
Yet another example of downgrading everywhere and adding a premium (10%) over the outgoing model. No, exchange rate is no different to last year to the far east so guess they are just scrimping.
Cheaper alu fork, cheaper chainset M591 (same ratios) to cheap arse Alivio, cheaper rear mech Deore to Alivio, cheaper cassette, Deore - Acera.
It had foolproof Dura Ace bar end shifters too.
I also wouldn't say the ability to fit a 50mm tyre is "massive", it's an acceptable width for this type of bike and that will be without mudguards.
The outgoing model was 13.08kg for a 57cm, it's notable that Trek won't specify what frame size the 13.18kg refers too. Granted the weight of the outgoing model was not including a front rack so that's where the difference is and why they've gone to the cheaper alu fork instead of a proper chromoly touring fork.
And lastly, and this is the kicker for a supposed touring/trekking bike, a ridiculously low 125kg rider/bike AND luggage limit. Basically if you put even a mid range load on this say 12kg, don't be over 90kg including shoes, clothing, bottles etc otherwise the warranty is invalid.
Why did the reviewer not mention this very essential bit of information??
It is not a review.
What is it then?
Whatever you want to call it the person running the advert/introducer has missed off a very vital bit of information that will before the 'reviewer' even gets to ride the bike is something people need to know about, particularly how low it is for a steel frame and how that the bike is aimed at loaded touring!
Giving that info straight up means punters can, before the reviewer gets their hands on it for a full review, instantly dismiss it because it's not fit for purpose in one of the most basic requirements.
Some information on the update of a model?
While I get your point on the missing weight limit, it isn't hard to find. The article finishes with a link to 'more information' where the weight limit is displayed.
It isn't always necessary to look for the bad in everything.
I don't think that's entirely fair. The brakes have been significantly upgraded over the Hayes CX5 and the STI Sora levers are much more expensive than the bar ends were. The dura ace bar ends are also much harder to find now that TT bikes are moving to electronic shifting. I would personally stick with the bar ends though - particularly with 38c tyres now stock. The brifters would be more welcome on the older model with the 32c tyres. The chainset downgrade was likely forced since deore level is 10 speed now and not compatible with Shimano road levers. Very old model Deore is probably not much better than a recent Alvio anyway.
I also wonder whether the low weight rating is primarily a function of the wheelset. This seems to have been the case with the previous model which broke rear spokes regularly, but replacement with a decent wheelset has seen no problems for me - and I spend the vast majority of my riding of it over 125kg.
And if there's a failure you're scuppered, it's an arse covering threshold that is very low for the type and one that you find on carbon racing frames. Canyon for example have a 120kg weight limit on ALL their frames/bikes for example including the weight weenie ones so your 'it's the wheels' doesn't hold water.
In any case why should you have to swap the wheels out to get some notional and unproven weight limit gain which wil still invalidate a warranty if anything goes wrong?
Perhaps it's because he can do sums. 13.18 + 12 + 90 = 115.18
I said OVER 90kg as you'll be pushing towards the max designed limit, so that could be someone like me who is circa 100kg, I ride with around 1.5-2kg of clothing/shoes (incl cleats), another 1.5kg in filled bottles and I'll carry 20kg easily whilst touring.
You know those racks are stated as being able to carry 37kg, prettu pointless if you'd be busting the weight limit because you had the temerity to not being a rake! For someone like me, and I'm by no means near the top end of rider weights I'd be looking at less than 9kg of bags and luggage, never mind lights and a lock etc.
Whatever way you want to look at it the 125kg total weight limit for a trekking/touring bikes is pony and needs to be highlighted.
Well, pat yourself on the back then. You've now well and truely highlighted it.
What you said was "if you put even a mid range load on this say 12kg, don't be over 90kg including shoes, clothing, bottles etc otherwise the warranty is invalid."
This is incorrect. If someone is 91kg (say) with all that stuff, the total would be 116.18kg.
(This number is less than 125kg, by the way).
Here's a little present for you...
44.jpg
I guess you won't be buying it then? You write as though it's the only available touring bike in the world. I might buy one. I weigh 77kg fully kitted up. By Trek's reckoning I can carry almost 50kg of gear. I don't often tour with a kitchen sink but think I could with this setup (and maybe a fridge too).
Stop the whining, get off your high horse (or are you over the weight limit for that too?) it's a perfectly acceptable weight limit for most people.
Would have been nice to see a fully exposed headset cup too. Dislike the hidden look on some newer bikes, this one at least has a flair from a narrowish headtube.
...and mud guards...
and a rear Speedhub
I was honestly just thinking that myself...
Is it just me, or is there a strange functional beauty to this machine?
Skinny steel tubes. We all claim to love big fat carbon, but deep down we all know slim steel is where it’s at.
Skinny steel may look akward in large sizes, especially with huge headtubes.
But at the size displayed it is really a beauty.
At this bike, I believe a steel fork would be more apropriate.
The drivertrain is also what most people really need. Cheap and with lots of range. The brifters instead of barends are really welcome, we will not all try to get lost in the jungles of Burma for months.
Try it, you might like it. It's a bit too touristy out of the jungle.