Trek 520 discontinued?
11-09-22, 01:21 PM
#51
Senior Member
Back in the day I had a 46-36-24 triple with a 11-34 cassette. Later I got rid of the triple and changed to a 36-22 double with a 10-42 cassette. On the bike I built this year I went with a 36t 1X with a 11-50 cassette.
If you compare the low end gear inches, my progression went from 19.2 in the triple, to 14.2 in the double, to 19.6 in the 1X. Anything under 20 gear inches is generally considered adequate for touring. Some people prefer a little lower but that 14.2 I have with the double is just ludicrous. The 19.6 gear inches is almost the same as what I had on the old school triple setup. I'm happy with it.
Then on the high end I prefer to look at MPH speed at 100 leg RPM. Here the progression was 33.8 mph with the triple, 29.1 mph with the double, and 26.5 mph with the 1X. On a loaded touring bike, even when I have a strong tailwind, my speed maxes out at about 20 mph. Other people might have stronger legs but this is me. If I am going faster than 20 mph, it means I have a downhill. If I have a downhill, it means I'm coasting. Therefore, on a touring bike I have no use for a 26.5 mph top gear, let alone anything faster. Again, that's me, someone else might have an impatient personality and feel the need to pedal on even steep hills.
In summary: I think there is a place for 1X. I think there is also a place for 2X if you require an extremely low climbing gear. I think there is pretty much no place for 3X in 2022 on touring bikes. Touring bikes don't get ridden at very fast speeds so that large chainring in a triple is excessive. A 36 or 38 chainring on a double is more than fast enough, especially if you use a cassette with a 10t small cog.
You say you use that 44-11 combination a fair amount, so clearly our riding styles are simply different.
If you compare the low end gear inches, my progression went from 19.2 in the triple, to 14.2 in the double, to 19.6 in the 1X. Anything under 20 gear inches is generally considered adequate for touring. Some people prefer a little lower but that 14.2 I have with the double is just ludicrous. The 19.6 gear inches is almost the same as what I had on the old school triple setup. I'm happy with it.
Then on the high end I prefer to look at MPH speed at 100 leg RPM. Here the progression was 33.8 mph with the triple, 29.1 mph with the double, and 26.5 mph with the 1X. On a loaded touring bike, even when I have a strong tailwind, my speed maxes out at about 20 mph. Other people might have stronger legs but this is me. If I am going faster than 20 mph, it means I have a downhill. If I have a downhill, it means I'm coasting. Therefore, on a touring bike I have no use for a 26.5 mph top gear, let alone anything faster. Again, that's me, someone else might have an impatient personality and feel the need to pedal on even steep hills.
In summary: I think there is a place for 1X. I think there is also a place for 2X if you require an extremely low climbing gear. I think there is pretty much no place for 3X in 2022 on touring bikes. Touring bikes don't get ridden at very fast speeds so that large chainring in a triple is excessive. A 36 or 38 chainring on a double is more than fast enough, especially if you use a cassette with a 10t small cog.
You say you use that 44-11 combination a fair amount, so clearly our riding styles are simply different.
I've spun out that 44-11 too. More than once.
Likes For elcruxio:
11-09-22, 01:26 PM
#52
Senior Member
I went from a triple to a 1X to a double and now I'm firmly in the triple camp again. A double sucked but the 1X sucked even more. I was constantly spinning out the 1X even on a moderate downhill. The double felt like I was cross chaining 90% of the time. And still spinning out. And if I'm going to go through the trouble of having a front mech, i'd better have the range to make up for it.
I've spun out that 44-11 too. More than once.
I've spun out that 44-11 too. More than once.
Last edited by Yan; 11-09-22 at 01:30 PM.
11-09-22, 01:43 PM
#53
Senior Member
Likes For elcruxio:
11-10-22, 11:06 AM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: San Diego
Posts: 703
Bikes: 1978 Bruce Gordon, 1977 Lippy, 199? Lippy tandem, Bike Friday NWT, 1982 Trek 720, 2012 Rivendell Atlantis, 1983 Bianchi Specialissima?
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 345 Post(s)
Liked 175 Times
in
107 Posts
I hear you on the 1X gear jump spacing but in this particular case a modern 12 speed 1X drivetrain actually has tighter spacing jumps than the 9 speed cassette Trek put on this 520. See the charts below. Back when we all toured on 8 speed cassettes nobody ever complained about spacing tightness. 8 is better than 7, 7 is better than 6. People get spoiled as time passes so I think this may be a case of imagination causing flawed memory.
If you want to fine tune your cadence on the 3X9 to beat the tightness of a 1x12, you'll have to shift the front, then shift the rear several cogs and pray you end up with a combination that is in between what the 1x12 guy has available. You'll have to do this every time your speed changes slightly. I don't know anyone who rides in this way. People just stay in the same front chainring that suits the local geography, only moving between chainrings when they bottom out or top out.
Note all the distinct gears. Note, that I have a lower low than you, a higher high than you and much smaller steps available without much mind bending. Win, win, win. I might agree with you otherwise if one limits themselves to using poorly designed stock triple cranksets but it is so easy to experiment with the gear calculator and then customize your chainrings. Yes, I shift a lot. I like to. I do ride that way and don't find it too trying to shift once up front and then maybe a couple in back to get my perfect cadence. Did 2800 miles fully loaded with this set up. Though I will admit to not liking the 34 to 19 drop, having those few sub 20 gears was well worth it. I always like to have one more low than I ever need (a mental thing) and I will report that there were not many days where I achieved that goal. I get that you like what you like but, I feel, you often then equate that to the only thing that makes sense for anyone with use of some extraneous comments that really aren't accurate (e.g. People just stay in the same front chainring that suits the local geography, only moving between chainrings when they bottom out or top out.). 3x's can be extraordinarily useful tools when designed and used for what one wants to accomplish. Maybe much less so if just slapped together without thought.
One memorable grade of 1.4 miles of gravel with average grade of 7.9% and max of 14.5% (last half mile at 9+) I did at 3.6 avg mph in my lowest gear. I think the gear calculator puts my avg cadence at about 79 for that climb, with a low of 70 for my lowest speed of 3.1mph. With your low, I think my cadence would be about 60 and my 69 yr old knees can't sustain that - I'd be walking. Nothing wrong with that but I prefer to ride.
Likes For L134:
12-16-22, 12:07 PM
#55
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Northeastern Oregon
Posts: 249
Bikes: 2021 Trek Verve 2 Disk
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times
in
80 Posts
To bring this thread back on topic. Trek shows the 520 Classic (not Grando) in stock for sizes 54”-60”.
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...?colorCode=red
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...?colorCode=red
12-16-22, 11:36 PM
#56
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: San Diego, California USA
Posts: 353
Bikes: 1974 Masi GC, 1982 Trek 728 (aka 720), 1992 Trek Multitrack 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked 221 Times
in
140 Posts
For me, your 1x steps are huge and unacceptable. I prefer this gear chart because I find it easier to visualize the steps and shift patterns (doing 1x I suppose makes no difference):
Note all the distinct gears. Note, that I have a lower low than you, a higher high than you and much smaller steps available without much mind bending. Win, win, win. I might agree with you otherwise if one limits themselves to using poorly designed stock triple cranksets but it is so easy to experiment with the gear calculator and then customize your chainrings. Yes, I shift a lot. I like to. I do ride that way and don't find it too trying to shift once up front and then maybe a couple in back to get my perfect cadence. Did 2800 miles fully loaded with this set up. Though I will admit to not liking the 34 to 19 drop, having those few sub 20 gears was well worth it. I always like to have one more low than I ever need (a mental thing) and I will report that there were not many days where I achieved that goal. I get that you like what you like but, I feel, you often then equate that to the only thing that makes sense for anyone with use of some extraneous comments that really aren't accurate (e.g. People just stay in the same front chainring that suits the local geography, only moving between chainrings when they bottom out or top out.). 3x's can be extraordinarily useful tools when designed and used for what one wants to accomplish. Maybe much less so if just slapped together without thought.
Note all the distinct gears. Note, that I have a lower low than you, a higher high than you and much smaller steps available without much mind bending. Win, win, win. I might agree with you otherwise if one limits themselves to using poorly designed stock triple cranksets but it is so easy to experiment with the gear calculator and then customize your chainrings. Yes, I shift a lot. I like to. I do ride that way and don't find it too trying to shift once up front and then maybe a couple in back to get my perfect cadence. Did 2800 miles fully loaded with this set up. Though I will admit to not liking the 34 to 19 drop, having those few sub 20 gears was well worth it. I always like to have one more low than I ever need (a mental thing) and I will report that there were not many days where I achieved that goal. I get that you like what you like but, I feel, you often then equate that to the only thing that makes sense for anyone with use of some extraneous comments that really aren't accurate (e.g. People just stay in the same front chainring that suits the local geography, only moving between chainrings when they bottom out or top out.). 3x's can be extraordinarily useful tools when designed and used for what one wants to accomplish. Maybe much less so if just slapped together without thought.
