phughes

I did that as well with my dad. It was a lot of fun. I didn't keep up with it either, and of course I truly didn't learn to weld. Dad kept up with it though, and added an arc welder to his collection as well.

raria

Maybe this is a secret trek experiment to test how loyal there customers are ....

But $1500 for a 9 speed bike with lots of compromises*?

I could build up a better speced bike for. Well under $1200.

Tiagra groupsets cost $300
Vuelta Heavy Duty wheelsets $150

Pick the frameset.you want for $500 ...

An Alu fork is just weird on a touring bike

Ghazmh

raria

And they put STIs and an alu fork on it.

Beca

khutch

I doubt that. It is probably a move driven by marketing based on where they see the market heading or perhaps just which part of the touring market they feel Trek is most capable of doing well in going forward. There are a ton of steel framed touring bike builders these days. Based on many of the comments above it is unclear why any of you would buy the steel framed 520! If they feel that buyers like you are more attracted to other brands anyway and if they feel that the younger buyers are more attracted to bikes like their current range then it makes sense for them to make this move. If this does allow them to capture younger buyers, those buyers are going to be around for a while and it makes sense to make what they want to get them in the door at Trek. As I think I said above I think that at that price point other bikes, including some steel framed bikes, would have gotten my dollars. However when I realized I had a bit more to spend it was the 920 that won in the end. I looked at so many bikes it was making my head spin but I kept looking and eventually realized that the 920 was the best fit for my goals. And I am not a young buyer so the new 520 is not going to appeal to only young buyers.

I am just guessing that it appeals primarily to the young of course. It is also intended to be a better fit to the gravel/adventure/one bike to rule them all trend that has been all the rage lately (but perhaps peaked already?). It could end up being a mistake for them, it could be the right bike at the right time. We will see and since I am not a stockholder I am not worried! If they made a mistake here I would imagine that the steel framed 520 will reappear shortly. If not then yeah, it could be gone forever. But there are so many bikes like that you don't really have to fret, do you?

J.Higgins 

sERIOUSly

J.Higgins 

An Alu fork is weird on ANY bike.

raria

Sorry, but i think you misunderstood.

its still a steel frame, just an Alu fork.

Feim their website "520 has a road-smoothing steel frame and alloy fork "

djb

for me, its a bike that will still work for lots of people and work perfectly fine.
Its just the cost, especially when one knows about components and what price range of bikes these components are usually on.

J.Higgins 

Regarding the cost: A Salsa Marrakesh is $75 less than the 520, plus it comes with a Brooks saddle!

Also, it would not surprise me to find out that these new 520's are built in China. Can anyone here verify this?

elcruxio

If by china you mean taiwan, then definitely. Most frames today are built in taiwan as it is the bicycle capitol of the world and they produce by far the best stuff. They also produce every other level of bikes too. Surly frames for instance are made in tan.

If by China you mean mainland china I highly doubt the trek is made there

saddlesores

i would highly doubt your doubt. taiwan is expensive. cheap compared to the usa, not to mainland china.

any corporation with bean-counters worth beans would set up their own factories in shenzhen, then ship the nearly completed frames back to taiwan for final assembly (insert seatpost bolt, apply made in taiwan label). regardless, the taiwan folks would be running the factory using their equipment, so frame quality should be identical.

according to wiki "99% of Trek bicycles are manufactured outside the United States, in countries including the Netherlands, Germany, and China." no mention of taiwan.

hard to pin down where treks are made, which leads me to think they don't want you to know. which leads me to think....mainland china.

1-track-mind

Not to derail this thread, but...what year models of the 520 are most desirable for loaded touring ?

zze86

early 90's, The 520 was still lugged construction and had some of the more desirable touring specs and braze-ons like longer chain stays, cantilever brakes, mid fork and third water bottle cage.

before that they were more like sport touring models and flip flopped between caliper and cantis, 27" and 700c. I have a 86 model, Reynolds 531 mainframe with 700c and caliper brakes.

J.Higgins 

These are my thoughts almost exactly.

raria

You think the lack of bar end shifters and steel fork won't put lots of people? Besides the high cost?

djb

Naw, sti shifters are really nice to use, and other than internet bike nerds, I figure most people don't give a rats patootee about fork material.... But what do I know?

zze86

For most people I think this is true.

For those specifcally shopping a touring bike however, all the above matters (percieved or otherwise).

pakeboi

According to Trek customer service :

Key Factors behind the change to an alloy fork:
Strength/Stiffness – disc braking on a loaded touring bike is a tough job for a fork. We felt we could improve this by going with a strong alloy fork
Weight – With the shape a volume we were trying to achieve on the fork, having this in steel would have been very heavy. The new fork is 318g lighter than the previous bikes’s steel fork
Looks – with the integrated headset we wanted a larger diameter crown, that’s where we move in to the weight mentioned above.

raria

I think of the 520 as a touring bike.
So an alu fork will kill my tour if damaged.

But maybe its not used for touring by most buyers?

elcruxio

To me that fork looks like something straight out of a big box store bike. Also I haven't felt like my DT steel fork has been struggling with touring braking even with discs. The 520 disc model steel fork is ilso plenty beefy.

Sounds to me like a cost cutting procedure

raria

If your right. Saves them what? $35? Steel forks are cheap.

raria

If your right. Saves them what? $35? Steel forks are cheap.

khutch

No, I knew better, just lost sight of the fact that it was only the fork people were objecting too I guess. I've had a couple of long rides now on my 920 which is all aluminum and I am not seeing any reason to hate its aluminum fork. Ride wise I can't tell any difference between it and my aluminum Fuji with its CF fork. There are several other touring bikes that use aluminum fork although I think this Trek is unique to pair one with a steel frame. There are a few steel framed touring or bikepacking bikes that use CF forks. I suppose any fork failure could result in a bad accident but CF forks seem to cause the worst ones because of the way they fail. I've become leery of them, I'd rather take my chances with aluminum.

Now all the miles I have on the Trek have been on its stock 50mm offroad knobby tires and those rides have convinced me that I DO NOT want to run those tires for my planned century ride next weekend (anyone else doing the Harmon Hundred?). I'll be running the 38mm Vittorias have used on the Fuji for the last several years. Perhaps the narrower tires at higher pressure will produce some discomfort with the aluminum fork. I'll see next Sunday....

There is no mention of mainland China in the snippet that you quote either. It is ambiguous. A whole lot of people use "China" to refer to both countries so if neither mainland nor Taiwan is specified the text is ambiguous and potentially both were meant. Taiwan is officially the Republic of China, ROC, while mainland China is officially the People's Republic of China, PRC. Anytime neither of those abbreviations are used we cannot be certain of the author's intent unless the broader context makes that clear.

pakeboi

I'm running 38mm Schwalbe MARATHON ALMOTION HS 453 with tubes on my Trek Hybrid .
I think it would work great on your 920 .
It's been tested as having very low rolling resistance , even with tubes .