Trek reveal updated 520 Touring Bike

cyclisto wrote:

 

Indeed though BtB is right, 125kg for a long-haul touring bicycle with 35 years of history is really low.

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"

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Why did the reviewer not mention this very essential bit of information??

It is not a review.

Sniffer wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Sniffer wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Yet another example of downgrading everywhere and adding a premium (10%) over the outgoing model.

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.

Tones0000 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Yet another example of downgrading everywhere and adding a premium (10%) over the outgoing model.

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?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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??

Perhaps it's because he can do sums. 13.18 +​ 12 + 90 = 115.18

Mat Brett wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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??

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.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mat Brett wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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??

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.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mat Brett wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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??

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.

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...

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mat Brett wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

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??

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.

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.

TheHungryGhost wrote:

  but needs a dynamo front hub

...and mud guards...

TheHungryGhost wrote:

  but needs a dynamo front hub

and a rear Speedhub

srchar wrote:

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.

vonhelmet wrote:

srchar wrote:

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.

cyclisto wrote:

[ 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.