# Touring bikes: new higher-end Trek model?



## linhud (Jan 21, 2006)

Hi all,
I have a 1983 Trek 620 touring bike and would like to upgrade. The Trek 520 and its competitors don't offer the features I'm looking for fully-loaded, long-distance touring and the custom bikes (Bruce Gordon, Sakkit) are too expensive and have long wait-times.

My local bike shop's owner is encouraging me to write to Trek's CEO and encourage them to bring out a higher end touring bike, like the classic Trek 720 Touring bike that was produced from 1983 to 1985. I believe that there are many baby-boomers with the interest, time and bucks to finally upgrade our 20+ year-old touring bikes. Plus, a true touring bike is the ideal commuting bike. Time for a Trek 720 25-year anniversary model?

I'll be suggesting features such as: a classic steel touring frame, ultra-low hill-climbing gears, disk brakes (if no rear rack problem), higher-end components than 520, Dupont Imron paint finish, and a WSD women's model.

I'd appreciate comments from fellow touring and commuting cyclists, particularly those who would be interested in seeing Trek bring out a higher-end touring bike than the 520.


----------



## nbrennan (Feb 19, 2007)

Semi-horizontal drops, a pump peg, and big tire clearance. And a lugged fork! no nasty tooth-paste unicrown forks on my nice touring bike. Come to think of it, I guess they could just go ahead and change their name to Surly while they are at it.


----------



## akatsuki (Aug 12, 2005)

I agree with nbrennan, why wouldn't you just buy a Heron, Surly, Kogswell, or some other brand if you want something higher end with vintage details? Women's model is definitely missing though in that list....


----------



## Andy M-S (Feb 3, 2004)

linhud said:


> Hi all,
> I have a 1983 Trek 620 touring bike and would like to upgrade. The Trek 520 and its competitors don't offer the features I'm looking for fully-loaded, long-distance touring and the custom bikes (Bruce Gordon, Sakkit) are too expensive and have long wait-times.


What is it you don't like about your 620? The differences between that bike and the 720 were rather small.


----------



## Scot_Gore (Jan 25, 2002)

Linhod,
Here's a link to Adventure Cycling's buyers guide:
http://www.adv-cycling.org/features/buyersguide_bikes2004.cfm
That might give you an idea on some brands beyond Trek. Many have filled the niche you describe. If you like the Gordon's take a good hard look at the (non-custom) BLT line. I think it's in the place you describe, better speced than the Trek at only a slightly higher price point. 

The Long Haul Trucker now comes as a complete bike, I've had mine a little over a month now. I think it has an attractive price point, but I wouldn't say that it's "better" speced than the 520, only comparably speced. 

Good luck 
Scot


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

*other options*

Check out the new Salsa Casseroll. Very nice frame with eyelets for fenders and racks. Compact geometry, but not extremely so. Frame and fork retail for about $540, not bad for a new F&F that weigh less than 6 lbs. You could easily build one of these up as a tourer for $1,500 to $2,000.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*How much better does a touring bike need to be.*



linhud said:


> ..... and a WSD women's model.
> 
> I'd appreciate comments from fellow touring and commuting cyclists, particularly those who would be interested in seeing Trek bring out a higher-end touring bike than the 520.


IMHO a touring bike is more like a truck than a sports car. I really like the Trek 520 as the ideal touring bike for folks that are going to actually do loaded touring. I don't think you can actually get more functional components than what are already speced although you can get more expensive stuff (although the function for loaded touring won't be any better).

I do take your point about a WSD model and agree that there may be some market for this.

If you actually want a better bike than the Trek 520 Waterford will build you a beautiful custom in a couple of months or as akatsuki noted there are several other brands of nicer stock touring bikes available.

OTOH if you want a 70's style "Sport Tourer" for supported or credit card touring there are actually lots of bikes to choose from including WSD models.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*That looks like a "Sport Tourer" to me.*



tarwheel2 said:


> Check out the new Salsa Casseroll. Very nice frame with eyelets for fenders and racks. Compact geometry, but not extremely so. Frame and fork retail for about $540, not bad for a new F&F that weigh less than 6 lbs. You could easily build one of these up as a tourer for $1,500 to $2,000.


Only 2 bottle fittings, no low rider fittings on the fork, caliper brakes, fairly small OD and moderately short chainstays.

A nice looking bike but still only a Sport Tourer.


----------



## Chris H (Jul 7, 2005)

MB1 said:


> Only 2 bottle fittings, no low rider fittings on the fork, caliper brakes, fairly small OD and moderately short chainstays.
> 
> A nice looking bike but still only a Sport Tourer.


Perhaps, but it looks like it would make one heck of a commuter!


----------



## undies (Oct 13, 2005)

Chris H said:


> Perhaps, but it looks like it would make one heck of a commuter!


For some maybe. Personally, my "commuter" must also serve grocery shopping duties, and the 425mm chainstays make panniers incompatible with my size 13 US (Euro 48) feet. I like the Casseroll otherwise, but it seems like Salsa is needlessly limiting its appeal with the stay length.


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

*sport tourer*



MB1 said:


> Only 2 bottle fittings, no low rider fittings on the fork, caliper brakes, fairly small OD and moderately short chainstays. A nice looking bike but still only a Sport Tourer.


I'm used to carrying just a small seatbag, so the Salsa would qualify as a touring bike for me! You are right though, but it sure would make a nice "sport tourer" or commuter.


----------



## benInMA (Jan 22, 2004)

Ask Trek to make something with a more sane geometry regarding the head tube so the bikes don't require huge spacer stacks + riser stems to get a decent position for touring?

I know I couldn't fit anywhere near comfy on the current geometry. They have short reaches but look like also have very short head tubes, shorter even then the Madone.


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

*trek geometry*



benInMA said:


> Ask Trek to make something with a more sane geometry regarding the head tube so the bikes don't require huge spacer stacks + riser stems to get a decent position for touring? I know I couldn't fit anywhere near comfy on the current geometry. They have short reaches but look like also have very short head tubes, shorter even then the Madone.


As far as I'm concerned, Trek just doesn't get it with regard to frame geometry. Nearly all of their frames have short head tubes and long top tubes. I haven't even considered Trek frames for years, for that reason. Even their old frames that you see on eBay have the same geometry. However, there must be plenty of riders who like that geometry -- or a lot of uncomfortable ones. They are now making a Pilot model with slightly longer head tubes, but they don't have eyelets and other touring features.


----------



## StageHand (Dec 27, 2002)

There are a lot of nice touring bikes out there. Fuji and Jamis have touring bikes that are pretty nice for the money. Bike shops don't like selling the fully loaded bikes because there's not as much accessorizing ($$), but there are a few of them out there. Broaden your search and you might be surprised at what you find.


----------



## Andy M-S (Feb 3, 2004)

*Of commuters and shoe sizes.*



undies said:


> For some maybe. Personally, my "commuter" must also serve grocery shopping duties, and the 425mm chainstays make panniers incompatible with my size 13 US (Euro 48) feet. I like the Casseroll otherwise, but it seems like Salsa is needlessly limiting its appeal with the stay length.


I'm beginning to wonder. I, too, wear size 13s (and use 175mm cranks, if that matters). My Kogswell Model D has 43cm chainstays (IIRC) so I didn't even try full panniers on it...instead, I picked up an '85 Trek 620, which has Loooong (46cm, again, IIRC) stays. Cool.

But one day, just for the heckuvit, as I had found a nice old Blackburn rack that worked without seatstay eyelets, I slapped a pannier on Kogswell. And I didn't have heel strike! Given the size of my feet, I don't know why. The MEC panniers I'm using DO have a corner cutaway in front, and that almost certainly helps--fortunately, they're still capacious.

So the 620 sits in the garage, awaiting the winter, when its extra-extra-clearance will make studded tires work well, and my Model D is my all-around, all-day, all-night bike. Even with my size 13 feet. Go figger.


----------



## undies (Oct 13, 2005)

My concern pertains to grocery panniers, which by design are more prone to heel strike. I find my grocery panniers to be incredibly useful, but they mandate long chainstays. Thus the Casseroll wouldn't be real useful to me. But if you don't use grocery panniers and don't have sasquatch feet it should be an excellent commuter.


----------



## Spinfinity (Feb 3, 2004)

*grocery bag panniers*

I was given a Jandd grocery bag pannier and was constantly hitting my heel and often knocking it off the rack. I drilled two holes in the plastic that forms the inside of the pannier and moved the hooks so I could mount it further back. Fixed the problem.


----------



## Paladin (Sep 4, 2006)

*Touring bike...*



linhud said:


> Hi all,
> I have a 1983 Trek 620 touring bike and would like to upgrade. The Trek 520 and its competitors don't offer the features I'm looking for fully-loaded, long-distance touring and the custom bikes (Bruce Gordon, Sakkit) are too expensive and have long wait-times.
> 
> My local bike shop's owner is encouraging me to write to Trek's CEO and encourage them to bring out a higher end touring bike, like the classic Trek 720 Touring bike that was produced from 1983 to 1985. I believe that there are many baby-boomers with the interest, time and bucks to finally upgrade our 20+ year-old touring bikes. Plus, a true touring bike is the ideal commuting bike. Time for a Trek 720 25-year anniversary model?
> ...


I bought a brand new Fuji World. Last made in 2005, there may be one at an LBS not too far away from you. I went to Fuji's website, did the dealer locater thing, and called everyone. Found one about 3 hours away that fit me (54cm) and went up and grabbed it. Did some tweaking, new saddle, cables, bar end shifters, and so on. Really love this bike. With a little luck you might find one close. I paid less that $1100.

http://www.fujibikes.com/2005/bikes.asp?id=23


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

If Trek were to make a High End touring bike it would (and should) be carbon fiber. Why would they build a 70s throw-back when CF is what they are good at? - TF


----------



## schwinnrider32 (Aug 22, 2004)

Scot_Gore said:


> Linhod,
> Here's a link to Adventure Cycling's buyers guide:
> http://www.adv-cycling.org/features/buyersguide_bikes2004.cfm
> That might give you an idea on some brands beyond Trek. Many have filled the niche you describe. If you like the Gordon's take a good hard look at the (non-custom) BLT line. I think it's in the place you describe, better speced than the Trek at only a slightly higher price point.
> ...


The advantage the Long Haul Trucker has(and Rivendell Atlantis does as well) is that smaller frame sizes come with 26 inch wheels. Of course, I ride a small frame so I'm biased.


----------



## consciouspilot (Feb 25, 2004)

I have only toured on the 520, so I suppose I am naive about what other bikes are out there. I know the boutique bikes sure look nice but for my money I cannot imagine a more comfortable ride. Other than a brooks saddle, the bike is all original (2001) model. Over 17000 miles with no issues at all. Well, one broken spoke. I would happily buy another one if I can ever manage to wear this one out. Why mess with something so great?


----------

