# Compare Jamis Aurora to Trek 520 & C'dale T800



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

Opinions requested on whether it's worth the extra $$$ for the 520 or T800, please.

This is for commuting to school in the rain w/ 30-40 lbs. of textbooks, change of clothes & a smelly, moldy lunch.

No off-roading whatsoever.

I'm familiar w/ Shimano's component levels (Tiagra, 105, etc.). But the LBS kind of lost me when they told me that their model was better because it had better wheels, hubs, etc. 

Jamis Aurora spec's:
http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html

Cannondale T800 spec's:
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/07/cusa/specialty/touring/model-7TR8.html

Trek 520 spec's:
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/2008/road/520/520/

The 520 would have to be converted to brifters (no, this is NOT a thread for why you like bar-end shifters); the LBS would give me credit for the bar-ends.

Same w/ the Ludite toe clips- they'd be replaced w/ clipless SPD's.

I doubt that any of them have a decent saddle, so I would probably upgrade it, too.

Given that 40 lbs is the max weight I plan to carry, and I only weigh 135-145 lbs., I might also go to a thinner tire (700 x 23).

Fenders and a rack for panniers would go on, too.


----------



## khill (Mar 4, 2004)

Some differences I noted:

1. Trek and Cannondale spec MTB hubs on their bikes (Shimano LX). The Jamis has road hubs (Tiagra). This means the Trek and Cannondale have 135mm rear spacing and have slightly stouter wheels.

2. The Cannondale has an aluminum frame. I like steel frames but I'm sure it rides fine.

3. The Trek and Cannondale are made in USA and probably cost more as a result.

4. The Jamis and Cannondale have cantilever brakes (Tektro in both cases). The Trek has side-pull MTB brakes. You should probably budget new brake pads (Koolstops are good) for better stopping.

5. Cannondale and Trek come with racks.

6. The Cannondale has lower gearing - a 26/36/48 crankset with 11-34 cassette compared to 50/39/30 to 11-32 on Trek and 52/42/30 - 11-32 on the Jamis.

7. Trek and Cannondale have a better rear derailleur (LX compared to Deore on the Jamis).

I think any of them would work. I didn't look at the geometry but see if one of them fits you better. Otherwise go by price or which LBS you like best.


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

khill said:


> 1. Trek and Cannondale spec MTB hubs on their bikes (Shimano LX). The Jamis has road hubs (Tiagra). This means the Trek and Cannondale have 135mm rear spacing and have slightly stouter wheels.
> 
> 4. The Jamis and Cannondale have cantilever brakes (Tektro in both cases). The Trek has side-pull MTB brakes. You should probably budget new brake pads (Koolstops are good) for better stopping.
> 
> 7. Trek and Cannondale have a better rear derailleur (LX compared to Deore on the Jamis).


Khill,

Thanx for the quick feedback.

Regarding:

1)- Given that my weight is only 140 lbs., & my max load will be 40 lbs., are the stronger wheels really that big of a difference as far as preventing flats, broken spokes, etc.?

4) Which would bring me to a stop quicker, side-pull MTB or canti brakes?

7) How much would it cost to upgrade from Deore to LX, just so that I'm comparing apples to apples?


----------



## smokey422 (Feb 22, 2004)

I'm not sure it would be a wise idea to go to 23c tires, I've found that wider ones ride better and have less flats. Probably either brake would be strong enough to stop you quickly enough, although I would also recommend Koolstop salmon pads. The gearing on the Cannondale would definitely be an advantage for me, I'd need it for the steep hills around here in central MO. Trek's 520 is a great bike, but I really wish they'd go for a lower set of gears on that crankset. Shifters are your preference, personally I've had great luck with my bar-ends and like them a lot.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

lx93 said:


> ..., I might also go to a thinner tire (700 x 23).......


:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

MB1 said:


> :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:



I have to agree with MB1 on this one. If I have learned nothing else in my years of commuting, I have learned this: You don't always get to pick your line. Skinny tires can get caught in pavement seams, drop into storm drain covers, get torn up while riding through a patch of gravel/glass mix, snakebite on potholes, not protect your rim if you hit something with an edge (curb), don' t allow you to take a shortcut around traffic that might involve jumping a curb, will beat the crap out of you on torn up side streets, and are usually not as flat resistant. You can find a flat resistant 23mm or you can wrap your rim in duct tape, the ride would be the same. IMHO, no smaller than a 25mm for a road bike, and no smaller than a 28mm for the bikes you describe. You won't notice a difference in speed, the wheel will just feel a little heavier when you first take off from a stop.


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

bigbill said:


> IMHO, no smaller than a 25mm for a road bike, and no smaller than a 28mm for the bikes you describe.


Not what I wanted to hear- I like the speed & less rolling resistance that thinner tires offer over fat tires. But you make some good points, & I'd rather be learning these things BEFORE the purchase instead of AFTER.

Thanx.


----------



## mhinman (Mar 27, 2004)

On the Trek 520 you will need to replace the brakes with cantilevers, because the stock levers are designed for linear pull brakes. Road levers pull about half of amount cable and will work miserably with the brakes. A travel agent is an option but the cost is about the same as some decent Avid cantis.

I brought a new commuter two weeks ago and I considered the 520, but instead selected the Portland. You get disc brakes, 105 shifters and a stout frame. Points of concern would be the 24 spoke wheels (they are cyclocross wheels, so they should be strong) and there are no mounts for a front pannier.

The brakes suck at first, but once they seat themselves they work great. I upgraded the Fenders to some Freddy Fenders, and put a nice carbon seatpost in it because the one that came with was splined, and I could not get the angle I wanted. So far I put about 175 miles on it, and it very comfortable.


----------



## Sledgehammer03 (Mar 7, 2006)

*23 mm tires for commuting*

Definitely :nono: 

I have used 25mm and 23 mm Armadillo tires on my ride, and there is NO noticeable speed difference. Next tire, probably a 28mm. Why? Cause it will handle the crap and gravel better, will last longer, so why not.


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

*Trek Portland- the Dark Horse Candidate*



mhinman said:


> I brought a new commuter two weeks ago and I considered the 520, but instead selected the Portland. You get disc brakes, 105 shifters and a stout frame. Points of concern would be the 24 spoke wheels (they are cyclocross wheels, so they should be strong) and there are no mounts for a front pannier.
> 
> I upgraded the Fenders to some Freddy FendersQUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*A couple of things (BTW you are overthinking this way too much)*



lx93 said:


> mhinman said:
> 
> 
> > .....The Portland's colors (orange for 2007, white for 2008) are very high-viz, which is a good thing in traffic. The T800's blue is "stealthy", NOT a good thing for urban cycling. As cute as E.R. nurses are, I'd rather avoid another accident for as long as possible.
> ...


----------



## mhinman (Mar 27, 2004)

lx93 said:


> mhinman said:
> 
> 
> > I brought a new commuter two weeks ago and I considered the 520, but instead selected the Portland. You get disc brakes, 105 shifters and a stout frame. Points of concern would be the 24 spoke wheels (they are cyclocross wheels, so they should be strong) and there are no mounts for a front pannier.
> ...


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

If you are riding in the rain, you'll definitely want bigger tires than 23s- Bigger tires won't give you any better traction in the rain, but they will absorb the punishment you get when you ride in the rain- think of all those water-filled potholes that you can't see untill you're already in them... That big fat tire will help prevent you having flats (which REALLY suck to repair in the rain. Ask me how I know...)

As for bigger tires being slower, It's been discussed to death, but all the objective evidence I've seen says that bigger tires really aren't any slower than skinny tires. I ride 32s on my commuter and it's really no slower that when I rode 28s. The difference in speed is gonna be your gears- if you're running a 48-38-28 triple in front, you aren't going to be quite as fast as if you're running a 53-39 double. 

All the choices you've selected look like good bikes. My advice is to buy the one that makes you feel happy when you look at it. 

Now put down the spec sheets, put down the magazines, turn off your computer and get yerself a bike!


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

mhinman said:


> 40 lbs is a lot of weight, are you hauling bricks or something.


It certainly feels that way.

Right now I'm using a backpack & quick-release rack on a Bianchi CDI (sort of like a Cro-Moly Cannondale CAAD 9 or Specialized Allez) to haul 3-4 textbooks at 5 lbs each, plus change of shoes & clothes & a brown-bag lunch. It feels like driving an Acura RSX while towing a huge boat, definitely not stable & has already caused 1 wreck.

Take less textbooks? Not really an option- I wouldn't be able to study between classes (like I SHOULD be doing right now), would fail and have to repeat the classes, thus delaying my being able to buy a C-F bike for credit card touring.


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

MB1 said:


> lx93 said:
> 
> 
> > #1-Frame color doesn't really help drivers see you. Wear bright clothes and lots of reflective stuff everywhere. Blinking lights from twilight on and a solid and bright headlight.
> ...


----------



## mhinman (Mar 27, 2004)

lx93 said:


> MB1 said:
> 
> 
> > I am, or am going to buy, according to the advice you give on lighting, reflective clothing, etc.
> ...


----------



## ispoke (Feb 28, 2005)

*you're definitely overthinking this, but...*



lx93 said:


> ...I like the speed & less rolling resistance that thinner tires offer over fat tires...


This is nonsense. With forty pounds of gear loaded on your bike (we carry less when tent camping), there is no such thing as minimizing rolling resistance. That's akin to worrying about aerodynamics on a Honda Civic with a brahma bull bungeed to the roof. You should abandon the speed racer brainwashing and get something that will really work.

700x23 plus 40# dead weight on the rear wheel = pinch flats and very bumpy, jarring ride that will put a lot of stress on your wheels/spokes.

700x28 plus 40# for a rider of your weight would be the first reasonable tire size for hauling loads.

Thank goodness your choices all appear to offer 36 spoke wheels. Or maybe this isn't so important - I just noticed your statement about what you carry and it sounds like 20# of books plus 5# of clothes and lunch. Are you studying math? Sorry I'm a wise guy...


----------



## MDGColorado (Nov 9, 2004)

Recent tests by Bicycle Quarterly, conducted on actual roads and not on steel drums, have shown that rolling resistance is basically unrelated to tire width. Try something like a Panaracer Pasela TG 700x32--actual width is a couple mm less.


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

MDGColorado said:


> Recent tests by Bicycle Quarterly, conducted on actual roads and not on steel drums, have shown that rolling resistance is basically unrelated to tire width. Try something like a Panaracer Pasela TG 700x32--actual width is a couple mm less.


MDG,

Thanx for the feedback. It's always good to hear from someone w/ factual, objective info when one isn't quite familiar w/ all of the lingo.


----------



## MDGColorado (Nov 9, 2004)

lx93 said:


> MDG,
> 
> Thanx for the feedback. It's always good to hear from someone w/ factual, objective info when one isn't quite familiar w/ all of the lingo.


You are welcome. As others have said, those are all nice bikes. I have had a Cannondale T700 for about 10 years and it is great for touring and commuting.


----------



## superjohnny (May 16, 2006)

I like Trek's Portland. It has disk brakes, which are great in the rain. I guess living in Portland I'm biased, but it seems to be pretty feature rich bike. Too bad you can't buy your textbooks in electronic format (.pdf's would be great). Can you store them in a locker @ school? Didn't work for me when I was in college... 

For commuting big fat tires beat the heck out of changing flats in the rain. Change one flat in the pouring rain and I guarantee you'll be buying some fatties the very next day.


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

superjohnny said:


> I like Trek's Portland. It has disk brakes, which are great in the rain. I guess living in Portland I'm biased, but it seems to be pretty feature rich bike. Too bad you can't buy your textbooks in electronic format (.pdf's would be great). Can you store them in a locker @ school? Didn't work for me when I was in college...
> 
> For commuting big fat tires beat the heck out of changing flats in the rain. Change one flat in the pouring rain and I guarantee you'll be buying some fatties the very next day.


I like the Portland, too- 105 components, lighter aluminum frame, discs & a white frame, which I think is more visible in traffic even though more experienced posters don't concur w/ me. But it's 2x the Jamis Aurora in price (at least in MSRP- $1,699 vs. $849), and from what I can tell, the Aurora offers considerably more bang for the buck.

I don't think I'd want to risk storing the textbooks in a locker- they'd prob wind up stolen.

Believe it or not, I've not had 1 flat ever since I swallowed my pride & stopped changing them myself. Yes, I know, that means I'm lazy in some people's eyes. As far as "why", I never hop curbs, avoid potholes, only weigh 135-145 lbs., and the roads around here are in terrific shape, many of them being fairly new.

Having said that, I think I'll probably wind up going w/ at least a 25mm tire. One LBS actually did feel that I could go w/ a 23mm, though.


----------



## BenWA (Aug 11, 2004)

Weird. I had a Jamis Aurora, back when it was a mountain bike instead of a touring bike. It was actually my first ever mountain bike, bought it new in '95, came with Rock Shox Mag 10 and LX... and I broke the derailleur hanger in '98. Got a brand new warrenty replacement frame that is still sitting in my garage in it's original packing. Anybody want it? 1" headtube tho, good luck with that.


----------



## kvojr (Jul 17, 2007)

BenWA said:


> Weird. I had a Jamis Aurora, back when it was a mountain bike instead of a touring bike. It was actually my first ever mountain bike, bought it new in '95, came with Rock Shox Mag 10 and LX... and I broke the derailleur hanger in '98. Got a brand new warrenty replacement frame that is still sitting in my garage in it's original packing. Anybody want it? 1" headtube tho, good luck with that.


What size is it? Not that I could afford it now, but I may be able to talk the wife into letting me.


----------



## Barabaika (Jan 15, 2007)

lx93 said:


> But it's 2x the Jamis Aurora in price (at least in MSRP- $1,699 vs. $849), and from what I can tell, the Aurora offers considerably more bang for the buck.
> 
> I don't think I'd want to risk storing the textbooks in a locker- they'd prob wind up stolen.


It's strange that you worry about your books being stolen and don't worry about a $1699 bike locked on campus. 
I would just upgrade your old bike with new components as they wear, it would look old but ride nicely.

Look through the catalog at www.aebike.com They have a lot of stuff if you want to upgrade.


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

Barabaika said:


> It's strange that you worry about your books being stolen and don't worry about a $1699 bike locked on campus.
> I would just upgrade your old bike with new components as they wear, it would look old but ride nicely.
> 
> Look through the catalog at www.aebike.com They have a lot of stuff if you want to upgrade.


If you read the beginning of the thread, you'll see that my current frame 

1) Has nothing where I can attach a rack to & expect it to be stable. I currently use a quick-release rack which, when I had 25 lbs of textbooks on it, swayed & caused a wreck. Had there been any cars behind me, my current bike would be listed in an estate sale.

2) Does not have the geometry needed to carry a 40 lb. load w/ stability, like a touring bike.

I appreciate the link, though- I might buy something off of there.


----------



## Barabaika (Jan 15, 2007)

I would say the lowest price is the major factor when you park on campus. You shouldn't cry if it's stolen.

So, you have *Bianchi Campione D'Italia* with Campy Mirage.
I found a picture from eBay:










It has a nice lugged steel frame with enough clearance for wider tires like 700x28. I assume it can easily handle 200lb. 

The problem is it has no eyelets for a rack and fenders.

Look here if you want to mount a rear rack:
https://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=30&action=details&sku=RK1262








_Dimension
Seatstay rack clamps for 14-16mm seat stays, plastic coated for secure attachment to frames without braze-ons, nuts and bolts included, sold as a pair (RK1262)
$7.99_
Check other P-clamps there if you need another size.

So, you connect a rack to the seat bolt and to the clamps around the seat stay tubes (at 45 degree):


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

*What About Fenders?*



Barabaika said:


> I would say the lowest price is the major factor when you park on campus. You shouldn't cry if it's stolen.
> 
> The problem is it has no eyelets for a rack and fenders.


Nice pic, I love the celeste-colored bottle holders. Bianchi Celeste is a love-it-or-hate-it color, there's no neutral ground!

You're right, a college campus is definitely not a low-risk environment to park a bike. It would also make sense to use a 10-year old, scratched-up ride instead of one that's brand new for riding on rainy days.

Which brings me to the more difficult question of whether or not fenders could be put on it. As often as we get rain here on the east coast, & as expensive as textbooks are, this is more than just a comfort factor. 

Looking at the brakes, my newbie mind says no, they couldn't be- but I'm willing to e-mail you a .jpg for your opinion.


----------



## Barabaika (Jan 15, 2007)

It's a pity, you won't be able to install full fenders on this bike, only plastic clip-ons.

Most caliper brakes are short reach, which means no fenders.
There are long reach brakes like these, but they are rare:









When a new bike allows to install full fenders, it usually has cantilever or V-brakes:

















You probably need waterproof panniers.
https://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=30&action=catalog&Category=3&type=T


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

Barabaika said:


> It's a pity, you won't be able to install full fenders on this bike, only plastic clip-ons.
> 
> You probably need waterproof panniers.
> https://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=30&action=catalog&Category=3&type=T


Even so, w/o full fenders, that means that rain would do more damage to the components.


----------



## Barabaika (Jan 15, 2007)

lx93 said:


> Even so, w/o full fenders, that means that rain would do more damage to the components.


The most vulnerable components are the chain, cassette and derailleurs.
A chainguard is very important if you ride in rain. You can't install it on any of the selected bikes because of the front derailleur.

There are commuter bikes with internal hubs for the bad weather.
Look at this European bike:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_1SmlJr0BbWc/Rt98atPN01I/AAAAAAAAAlI/AT7rrj73vy8/s1600-h/Eurobike+07+285.jpg


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

Barabaika said:


> There are commuter bikes with internal hubs for the bad weather.
> Look at this European bike:
> http://bp0.blogger.com/_1SmlJr0BbWc/Rt98atPN01I/AAAAAAAAAlI/AT7rrj73vy8/s1600-h/Eurobike+07+285.jpg


Wow, I really appreciate how you illustrate your points w/ these pix, it makes understanding them so much easier. :idea: 

I definitely don't want a flat-bar, though. And I really doubt that there's any road bikes w/ internal hubs.

I think the bottom line is, there's not going to be a perfect solution. But w/ all of the input that everyone's given, the learning curve for us newbies isn't as harsh, and we can spend our $$$ more wisely. :thumbsup:


----------



## Barabaika (Jan 15, 2007)

Actually, there is nothing against the use of internal hubs with the drop bars. It's just the lack of the compatible shifters.
But the 8 and 9 speed internal hubs are relatively new, we will see.

There are workarounds though.
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/bianchi-sanjos8/index.html









I think it would be easier to buy a flat bar commuter bike and install the drop bars.
I will check Gary Fisher Simple City when it appears.
https://www.bikegallery.com/trek-world-08-gary-fisher-simple-city.php


----------

