Trek's New Gravel Bike , 520 Grando
 

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...rCode=bluedark


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4a37ab8d2.jpeg

The aluminum fork is a head-scratcher.

Late to the party, someone has already posted about this. https://www.bikeforums.net/touring/1...20-grando.html

Might have saved some weight using aluminum. 31 lbs is a beast. Pass.

Au contraire mon frère ; I'm the one who posted that last week . :)

Spamming

Spamming is the multiple posting of an identical or similar post on one or more of our Forums.

Not my intention . I posted first before the release under touring as the 520 is a touring bike .
Seeing that it was released as a 520 "Gravel" variant , I then posted to that forum .

What are you currently riding and how does it compare to the Trek?

BTW, the Soma Saga disc frame I bought late last year takes 55mm tires (2.17") with room to spare, and has a steel fork.

I had a 520 for many years, back from when it was a made-in-the US lugged frame, and it was a great bike. The Soma Saga is definitely a significant improvement, and the frame with fork was $500, and by building it up, I was able to put better components on it that trek now puts on the 520. So there are other options...

According to Trek on-line Chat Support the Grando is the same frame / fork as the 520 "Classic"
They said 29 x 2.0 without fenders is max tire size , 700 x 38 with fenders .

Tire size is certainly a consideration. What are you running now?

Oh my gosh. This looks beautiful but sounds rather dreadful when you get to the details. You can get a steel Jamis Renegade with GRX 400 derailleurs AND shifters, carbon fork and 5 pounds lighter for less money. Is Trek trying to rip-off very poorly educated bike shoppers with this? At that price and just basic Chrome Moly, not even Reynolds 520... What is that monstrosity of a front rack and giant Ortleibs doing on a bike with no rear rack? What were they thinking? Was this designed by committee instead of people that ride bikes?

https://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/renegades3.html

The older 520s were great bikes, so I'd recommend grabing one on CL or ebay instead for $600.

Some clarification is good.

- The Trek comes with a versatile $90 high/low and top mount front rack. That is something to keep in mind with regard to pricing and weight. The front rack will weigh 2.25 or more pounds. Also, what size Jamis is weighed?...they dont specify.

- The trek's standard gearing is a bit better(wider range) for loaded touring and off-pavement bikepacking. 42/28 with an 11-36 cassette.

- You seem to think Reynolds 520 tubing is better than unbranded 4130 tubing. Why? They are the same thing as 520 is 4130 tubing made in Asia under contract for Reynolds. Both Trek's tubing and Jamis' tubing are butted. Maybe I am missing something here, or maybe you don't know what 520 tubing is.

- Many like cable disc brskes for touring setups due to the simplicity/ease of in field fixes.
- The last 6 times I have did loaded touring, I used a front rack with rear panties mounted to it. Half the time I had a rear rsck with just a compression dry bag strapped down and half the time I have nonrack and use a 7.5 liter wedge bag with the front panniers.
It is a proven setup that is simple and stable, given my preferred trail. It also isn't exactly unheard of, based on short tour setups I've seen online.


I would choose the Jamis because of the carbon fork, actual thru axles instead of the proprietary thru-skew, and hydraulic brakes.
Your post is riddled with questionable commentary though.

That is actually a pretty good way to distribute the weight, except maybe for that red bag, unless it has your underwear and socks in it.

As a 520 owner there is something about that picture I just can’t like. My initial thought is it was envissioned by a focus group and speced out by a committee. Most companies show their bikes kitted out with their own brand bags not 3 separate brands including incorrectly folded Ortliebs.

OP seems to be trying very hard too get some discussion going on the bike. Sort of fizzled when he tried it on the Touring forum. Sort of fizzling here too.

It's known as "buzz marketing".

^^^ Yep. I gather from the guys frequenting the Touring section that OP does not ride, much less tour, but has been deluging that forum with posts about bikes and stuff he has no intention of using. When I saw he had double posted about this bike, I was concerned that he might see fresh victims in this sub forum. Hence the questions about his current bike, which he has ignored. Guess that confirms. We'll see....

The front rack alone is probably 3 pounds and is an extra $100USD of value.

What they were thinking, is panniers up front plus a bumble-bee bag in back is a common configuration....and even if they did include it--you'd be here making references to it costing more compared to a bike that does less off the shop floor.

I fail to see the issue of posting news of this bike in two forums .
I think it’s big news when a modern classic like the Trek 520 releases a new variant .
And the 520 is now a gravel bike and a touring bike , thus the cross posting .

As far as my bikes , I currently have 3 .
I briefly owned a 2018 Trek 520 but it wasn’t exactly what I was looking for .
Below is a photo of my Brompton M6L on tour in Japan .


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...19ca7d540.jpeg

Good to hear. Guess they are all wrong over in Touring....

"They" is "my good friend" fiestbob , and well ... he's just being fiestbob :)

I just saw the marketing picture has resin toe clips on the pedals.
Thats...unique.

Not having thru axles, and hydraulic brakes is a deal breaker to me, I love my hydraulic brakes, have had 0 issues with them over the years and at least here in Brazil upgrading from mechanical do hydraulic on a drop bar bike is incredibly expensive. I like Trek, love my checkpoint ALR but this bike is weird to me and misses the mark. If it was basically a Steel checkpoint with a full GRX group i'd be interested as I love the ride feel of my steel bikes and love the Checkpoint.

Not just bob, nobody reads those posts.:rolleyes: Anyway, if you are actually interested in changing to a full size gravel bike, post some of your requirements and folks can better direct you.

Commentary is, well, yes commentary.
You can agree with it, question it, disagree with it, have your own opinions, ignore it and that all is welcome as well.

Unbranded chromoly tubing is, well who knows the quality... Reynolds, Columbus, Tange, etc. assures specific fabrication methods, PSI strength, precise metalurgical content wall thickness, tempering, butting quality etc. and assueres the buyer of the quality of the product. I have in fact seen a Trek steel frame bike (generic chromoly as a matter of fact) where the down tube failed with a fatigue crack all the way around about 1/4 of the way up from the bottom bracket at the internal butting. The frame looked like someone cut through it nice and neatly with a hacksaw. From experience it is my opinion that the quality of the tubing does in fact matter and name brand bicycle tubing is likely to be of better quality than generic tubing.

You are of course entitled to the opinion that generic tubing is just as good. Heck, Schwinn uses unbranded chrome moly so it must be pretty high quality stuff right?

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...cc29940de6.gif