Upgrading my Trek 520?

[Rex Kerr]

I have a Trek 520 that I use for loaded touring:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rexkerr/3030119147/

The bike is a 25" (~63 cm) frame (near traditional geometry), the largest that Trek made at the time.  It's too small for me (as a point of reference, my AHH is a 67 cm frame and I was debating between that and the 69).  I have the seatpost a touch higher than the minimum insertion line, a threadless stem extender, etc, and it's still just a mediocre fit.

During my last visit to RivHQ I rode the Hunqapillar and really enjoyed the ride.  After leaving I started to think about the possibility of upgrading and selling the Trek frame.  I'm thinking of switching over all of the parts (mostly LX level stuff).  The thing is, I really don't want this to turn into an expensive endeavor, so I'm trying to get a realistic picture of what it'd cost.

* Is the Hunqapillar suitable for loaded touring as shown in the linked picture?  How about the SH?  The SH is cheaper, but I'm afraid that it's too similar in ride to my AHH, and I do want some variety.

* Other than the stem and possibly handlebars (due to clamp diameter issues w/ quill stems), would the other parts be compatible?  I'm thinking that I might also have problems w/ the BB spindle length and the f-der clamp diameter.  Any other issues that I might be overlooking?  The Trek uses a 135 mm rear hub and has V brakes.

* Is the 64 cm Hunqapillar (largest size) notably bigger than the Trek?  Same question for the SH.  My guess is that it is due to the sloping top tube vs. the Trek's traditional geometry.  Since I was only riding the Hunqapillar for the fun of it while visiting I didn't really think much about the fit, and it had Albatross bars and Big Apples, so it wasn't really set up  the way my Trek is (though that might be worth considering as a touring setup).

* How much do you think that I could reasonably expect to get for the Trek frame?  It's is good condition, though shows the normal wear... a few minor scratches and light dings, nothing major, no dents, always stored in garage and parked indoors except while touring.

Anything else that I might be overlooking?

Thanks!

-Rex

[William]

Rex

That's exciting to plan out a touring bike that fits you properly!  My opinions:

Hilsen-->Hillborne-->Hunqa-->Bombadil in ascending order of "stoutness".  The Bombadil would be ideal, but it's the most expensive.  

You seem to have the parts compatibility stuff mapped right.  The front derailer aspect I overlooked on my first build was that there is so much BB drop and such a slack seat tube that a mountain bike front der hit the chainstay.  Get your front der from Riv when you get the frameset.  Another part might be the huge chainrings that road triple runs.  Most Hunqas get a 24 36 48 or thereabouts.  There might be a chainring clearance issue in your BB worries.  

Size, that's an empirical question.  compare the numbers.  Map them out on a huge sheet of paper.  Grant taught us how to do that last summer, and I do it for every bike now.  I'd wager the answer is yes, the big hunqa and big Bomba are much bigger than your Trek

That 520 frameset would probably get you $200-$300.  That's my vibe on the second hand market.  

[Rex Kerr]

Thanks for the thoughts...  

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM, William <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hilsen-->Hillborne-->Hunqa-->Bombadil in ascending order of "stoutness".

> The Bombadil would be ideal, but it's the most expensive.  

Yeah, and out of my price range! :-)  I already blew my budget on my AHH.

I forgot to mention that the picture that I linked is about four years old and there were a few changes...  I long ago replaced the stock 105 crankset [what a stupid choice on Trek's part!] with a compact triple (22-42), and an XT f-der, so that issue probably wouldn't matter.  Which f-der did you end up with to avoid the compatibility issue?  

Another issue that I saw mentioned on the rivbike site is that the seattube diameter might be different, requiring a different seatpost, but that's relatively inexpensive (or, at least, it can be).  

> Size, that's an empirical question.  compare the numbers.  Map them out on a huge sheet of paper.  Grant taught us how to do that last summer, and I do it for every bike now.  I'd wager the answer is yes, the big hunqa and big Bomba are much bigger than your Trek

Do you have a link with instructions on how to map between dissimilar geometries?  Did Grant post that somewhere?  In the list archives perhaps?  I'm quite familiar with my sizing needs with traditional geometry frames, but not so well versed in sloping TT frames.

 

That 520 frameset would probably get you $200-$300.  That's my vibe on the second hand market.  

That's what I was thinking.  Not much, but probably just enough to cover parts and shipping, leaving me with just the frame price as the upgrade cost.

[Smitty-A-Go-Go]

One of the main reasons I bought an AHH is because it fit me so well. I, like you have always had to fiddle with long seat posts, too short TT, stem extensions, etc to get a good fit. And It doesn't even sound like I'm as tall as you (I was on the 65/67 AHH divide... went 65 and happy about it). 

I don't have a Hunq but I do remember reading somewhere that if an Atlantis is too small go Hunq or Bomba for loaded touring. 

I think about a Hunq for loaded touring or just to have a fat tire off road bike, but the reality is that anything more than one or 2 night out is not in the cards for a while and the off roading I'm interested in is do-able with AHH with 40mm tires. 

In the spirit of spreading out the cost... I bought the AHH as a frame and got components from donor bikes and have been upgrading slowly. 

Proper fit and being suitable for the intended purpose are equally paramount criteria in my mind. Thinking my bike is "cool" is a close second.    

  

[William]

I used the Campy Triple that Riv sells (on Sale right now!), on a Hillborne and a Bombadil.  

The Hunqa takes a 27.2 seatpost

Grant's frame drawing tutorial was probably archived by somebody.  It was all pdf's.  I saved them somewhere, but it will be days before I get a chance to look.  

[René Sterental]

When I built my original Bombadil, I used mountain bike drivetrain components exclusively. Front external BB with RaceFace cranks and XT front derailer with no issues at all. A MTB FD may not work with road/touring cranks, but if you stick to a MTB crankset and 22/32/44 chainrigns, it should be fully compatible although your high gearing will not be as high.

 

Here's a photo: http://tinyurl.com/7hxya6f

My Hunqapillar has the Sugino triple crankset that RBW sells with (I believe) the Micro FD they were selling at the time since they were out of the Campagnolo. I bought a spare Campagnolo tripple FD on the sale but when I got it, it was marked as 10speed. I'm guessing they are fully compatilbe with 9 speeds, but I'll have to check with them.

 

I guess you also left the Atlantis out of consideration due to its cost, right? As a hefty rider, I can tell you that the Hunqapillar is wonderful to ride loaded. Right now it's my default option for heavy loaded rides such as S24Os.

 

Go for the Hunqapillar, you won't regret it.

 

Some Hunqapillars take 26.8 posts; mine does. I believe some may take the 27.2. My Betty was supposed to use the 26.8 but it slipped too much as soon as the bolt was loosened so I'm using a 27.2 instead; a bit of a tight fit but much better.

 

René

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/2JAmrLaqxLMJ.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[William]

Crap!  My apologies for claiming 27.2 on the Hunqa.  

[Roger]

I saw a 2008 Trek Catalog that shows geometries on the next to last
page. The 62cm Hunqa (largest size) is indeed a larger bike than a 25"
Trek, but the 64cm Bombadil is more similar in size to your 67cm Homer
and especially closer to the 69cm Homer you considered.
http://www.trekbikes.com/pdf/2008/catalog/road/road_en.pdf

By the way, beautiful color on the Homer! What's that shade called? I
notice in your photos that you have racks front and back now on your
Homer. Have you ever tried it fully loaded? I'd be curious how well it
would compare to the 520.

[Rex Kerr]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Roger <rogerd...@gmail.com> wrote:

I saw a 2008 Trek Catalog that shows geometries on the next to last
page. The 62cm Hunqa (largest size) is indeed a larger bike than a 25"
Trek, but the 64cm Bombadil is more similar in size to your 67cm Homer
and especially closer to the 69cm Homer you considered.
http://www.trekbikes.com/pdf/2008/catalog/road/road_en.pdf

Yeah... too bad the Bombadil is more expensive. :-)  Actually, I noticed that the SH isn't cheaper than the Hunqa in the larger sizes, so that factor is removed from the equation.  Maybe I should just keep my eye out for a used 64 cm Bombadil frame...

Looking at the link that you sent (thanks), it looks like the effective height of the top headset bearing would be almost 6 cm higher, which would be a HUGE improvement, especially when combined with a threaded stem for adjustability and a Nitto Technomic!

 

By the way, beautiful color on the Homer! What's that shade called?

Thanks.  I fretted over the color for 2 months while waiting to receive it, and still fret now and then wondering if I could have found a better color. :-)  It's 5031, Phantom Grey Metallic.  I think that it works well with the shiny bits, a good complement to the chrome/polished aluminum.

 

I notice in your photos that you have racks front and back now on your
Homer. Have you ever tried it fully loaded? I'd be curious how well it
would compare to the 520.

To be honest, I haven't actually carried much on the front rack, and my loads have been just commuting loads in the rear panniers.  An occasional jacket/sweater, my light bar, etc is all that I've carried on the front... I mostly like the fact that it stabilizes the front fender so that it doesn't rattle nor sway and rub the tire! :-)

[William]

+1 that your phantom grey metallic Homer is really a great color.  

[Rex Kerr]

BTW, just found a more recent picture of the Trek 520, which I uploaded here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rexkerr/6638127641/

Shows the current setup better...

[Marty]

Rex, looking at the photos of your Trek, are you sure it's a 25"? Most of my bikes are that size, and they all seem to have a much longer head tube. If not, that would explain a lot. 

Marty

[Rex Kerr]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Marty <mgi...@mac.com> wrote:

Rex, looking at the photos of your Trek, are you sure it's a 25"? Most of my bikes are that size, and they all seem to have a much longer head tube. If not, that would explain a lot. 

I haven't measured it, but I did buy it new, and it feels and looks about the same as other bikes that I have measured which I know to be ~62 cm. Now you've got me wondering... I'll measure it tonight, but perhaps it looks small because of the uncut steerer with extension and the long seatpost extension?   It could also be an illusion... when I look at my AHH the headtube looks short to me, but when I measure it it's within a centimeter of the length of the headtube on my old Schwinn, yet the Schwinn looked insanely long, which I think had to do with the color and the fact that it used traditional diameter tubing for the downtube, but the Trek and AHH both use oversized tubing for the downtube.

[Bill Carter]

Rex,
I watch the old Treks on ebay pretty closely, and I think your plan
makes great sense economically. The 520s with tig welded frames like
yours are very popular, sell quickly, and I am always amazed that
framesets in general seem to sell pretty close in price to fully built
bikes. I checked my saved list and saw two built up bikes that
recently sold, one for $785 and another for $520. The $785 bike had
very low miles (300-400) on it. Yours looks to be a very nice color
and well cared for, so I would say you shold be able to sell the frame/
fork with bottom bracket and headset for somewhere in the $350 - $450
range. If you can hold off til early spring when the itch to ride
kicks in, you may be able to do a bit better. I see no reason that
most of your parts could not be reused on a new Riv frame. Good luck,
and let us know how it works out.
Bill Carter

[Leslie]

Rex, that's a great color on your Hilsen....


Wasn't the bike-design class archived over on Cyclofiend's site somewhere?

[Leslie]

Found it, bottom of the pdf page:

http://www.cyclofiend.com/rbw/pdf/index.html

[Rex Kerr]

 On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Leslie <leslie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Found it, bottom of the pdf page:

http://www.cyclofiend.com/rbw/pdf/index.html

Great, thanks!

[Rex Kerr]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Bill Carter <billc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...] The 520s with tig welded frames like yours are very popular, sell quickly, and I am always amazed that framesets in general seem to sell pretty close in price to fully built bikes.

Good to know... that's one thing that I'm constantly telling people of when they're shocked by the price of my AHH (I wish they'd just stop asking!!), that building up a bike from parts is MUCH more expensive than a pre-built bike, and that if I'd been content with an off the shelf mixture of parts it would have probably been cheaper to just buy a compatible bike, strip it, and sell the frame... it's good to see that I'm not completely off base when I say that!

 

If you can hold off til early spring when the itch to ride kicks in, you may be able to do a bit better.

????  I'm itching to ride right now, but agreed to drive since I was working late today! 

[Bill Carter]

On Jan 4, 10:52 pm, Rex Kerr <rexk...@gmail.com> wrote:
" I'm itching to ride right now, but agreed to drive since I was
working late today!"

I hear you, Rex. Of course I meant the "itch to ride" for potential
buyers might fetch you a higher price, but only if you can control
your own itch and time it right! Much easier said than done.
Bill

[Steve Hemmelgarn]

I have a Trek 520 that I used as a commuter and loaded tourer for many years. When I bought it in 1989 I had the LBS switch out the 105 cranks for MB cranks as it too thought it didn't have sufficiently low gears for touring. Over the years I made lots of upgrades and made it as close to a Rivendell ride as possible. The original Bontrager rims developed cracks at the spoke holes so I built Dyad wheels with a SON hub for generator lights. Can't say enough positive things about having headlight and tailights available at all times!

 

 

 

Last summer I bought a Hunqapillar for these duties and modified the Trek to be a city bike, with flat bars and a single chainring.

 

The Hunq is a vast improvement over the Trek. It has that "Rivendell" ride where the Trek was solid but kind of dead.

 

Still keeping the Trek as it has a lot of sentimental value and was there before I drank the Rivendell Kool-aid.

 

Steve 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[Rex Kerr]

On Jan 5, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Steve Hemmelgarn <trekco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The original Bontrager rims developed cracks at the spoke holes so I built Dyad wheels with a SON hub for generator lights.

Interesting. Same thing happened to mine, but Trek paid for the wheel under warranty, so I had the LBS that dealt with the claim put an Alex Adventurer rim on, which had a close enough diameter to just move over the spokes without even unlacing it, and the rest they put on my account as a store credit.   (in my second picture you can see that the rear wheel is black)

Can't say enough positive things about having headlight and tailights available at all times!

I did put a dynamo on my AHH, but went with a cheap 1W light because I wasn't sure if I'd like the hub. I'll probably upgrade the light, as it works well. 

The Hunq is a vast improvement over the Trek. It has that "Rivendell" ride where the Trek was solid but kind of dead.

Yes, exactly!!  I've always felt like it was dead. No spirit at all, just flat. 

Still keeping the Trek as it has a lot of sentimental value and was there before I drank the Rivendell Kool-aid.

 

Funny. For years the Trek was the bike to get on many forums.  I wanted one for years. I remember a trip to Seattle once, sitting in the car waiting for somebody, and watching all of the bikes go by in the rain and noticing that a not insignificant number if them were 520s. When I finally got it, I was a bit disappointed. 

Rex 

[islaysteve]

Well, these last few posts are interesting in that I'm keeping a watch out for a touring bike (or f/f) for my daughter.  Of course the 520 has been high on the list, but maybe overpriced in the used market.  A Riv is out of the question for economic reasons, so are there other older tourers that you folks would suggest?  We're not in a position to buy immediately, and I will probably repost a similar question down the line.  But I  thought I'd bring it up since it seems relevant here.  Steve

[Jeremy Till]

Rex, I have basically the same Trek, same size--mine is slightly older, a 2002 model.  It has been a great bike for me--it got me into cycling "seriously" back in high school, got me coast-to-coast when I was 17, and has basically been whatever bike I needed it to be since then without much of a complaint.  However, its fit--esp. since I discovered Riv--has been somewhat questionable.  I've never really been sure what was up, but it is definitely the smallest "62cm" frame I have ever seen; namely, it's head tube is super short for that size.  I think part of it is overly generous measurement on the part of trek (center to way top of seat tube, maybe?), and also that, at least in my model year, it was one of the first years that they spec'ed a threadless headset, and I think the product designers hadn't quite wrapped their head around how switching to threadless removes a few cm's of stack height from the front end.  The headtube still ends exactly at the top tube junction, as was common on frames for threaded headsets.  I think there's an interview with Richard Sachs by Grant in an old Reader where they discuss this issue, with Sachs explaining that this is why he designed lugs for extended head tubes when he started using threadless headsets.  For sure, if you look at bikes designed after the dominance of threadless, they tend to have a few more mm of headtube above the top tube junction. 

Anyways, that's my theory about the wonky fit of the TIG-welded 520's.  I'll probably never sell mine because of its sentimental value--i'll hang the frame on the wall if i'm not using it.   Recently, I've been thinking about putting upright bars--like an albatross--on it to deal with the fit issues without using some kind of crazy stem.  Or maybe I'll put on the Nitto Trekking bar I picked up at the garage sale a little while back...although my fiance looks at me like I'm crazy when I say that. 

[Rex Kerr]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jeremy Till <jerem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyways, that's my theory about the wonky fit of the TIG-welded 520's.  I'll probably never sell mine because of its sentimental value--i'll hang the frame on the wall if i'm not using it.   Recently, I've been thinking about putting upright bars--like an albatross--on it to deal with the fit issues without using some kind of crazy stem.  Or maybe I'll put on the Nitto Trekking bar I picked up at the garage sale a little while back...although my fiance looks at me like I'm crazy when I say that. 

Here's one option that I considered:

http://www.somafab.com/archives/product/quillinator 

This plus a Nitto Technomic would probably look cleaner and get the bars higher than the cludge that I've got on there now, but the price gives some sticker shock. :-)

Interesting thoughts on the threadless geometry switchover...

[Steve Palincsar]

Some other good touring bikes include:
- Bruce Gordon Rock 'n Road Tour, BLT and Taiwanese BLT
- Kogswell P/R
- Cannondale touring model (people forget, but their first bikes were
loaded tourers, and they made them for many years)

[Kelly Sleeper]

Friend of mine rides this one and it's great..
http://www.raleighusa.com/bikes/steel-road/sojourn-12/

My wife has this one before the atlantis and my uncle is riding it now..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tksleeper/6645448539/in/photostream

Both are steel and both are under 1000 dollars complete. Then there is the Long Haul Trucker that everyone I know practically rides and they rave about them. The look good and frame set is 500 or less .. well it was when we bought one for a friend after a theft.

All good solid long term inexpensive touring specific bikes.

Kelly

[islaysteve]

Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I appreciate it.  Steve