Originally Posted by
speyfitter
Does anyone in here think a big reason why others are eating the trek 520s lunch is because of the aluminum fork ? I’ve been a trek fan since I got back into biking several years back and the aluminum fork is a deal breaker for me. I just can’t reconcile it in planning my next bike build/purchase.
What specifically is it about the aluminum fork that you don't like?
I own two bikes that came with aluminum forks. I have been happy with the forks. Both bikes were 1990 vintage Cannondales (bought new) and are now very high mileage bikes. The ride characteristics are great on both bikes as far as I can tell. I have always really liked both bikes.
Both have held up to normal wear and tear well. The road bike is very high mileage. I don't know the total mileage, but it had a number of 10,000 mile years back in the day and regular usage since then. The mountain bike saw lots of off road use on the rough trails of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, as well as a good bit of travel to other states for wountain biking. It also did some touring on mixed road/trail surfaces.
The fork on the road bike did ultimately break in a crash. I squarely hit a car at maybe 20-25 mph. The fork was bent and had a crack at the bend. A carbon fork probably would have failed too. Steel
might have been able to be straightened, but maybe not. The frame was okay and I'd have happily put on an original aluminum fork if I could have found one, but I wound up putting on a carbon one. The bike has since gone coast to coast, done a few years of daily commuting (on loan to a family member), and done a bunch of recreational day rides. I tried to estimate the mileage on the bike and my best guess is 100,000 miles