Comparing Geometries, Volpe vs. Trek 520

[Rex Kerr]

Strongly considering the Bianchi Volpe because it appears to be a great
deal compared to the Trek 520. One problem is that the Volpe doesn't
have a very long seat tube, and I've got long legs, I'd have a lot of
seat tube exposed. That said, I rode one and it was able to accomodate
me comfortably with the stock stem and seatpost. The LBS is willing to
swap out the STI stuff on the Volpe for bar-end shifters and Shimano
R-400 or similar brake levers making them even more similar.

I intend to use the bike for spirited commuting with full gear (about
22 miles R/T with panniers full of clothes, food, batteries, etc),
faster lunchtime rides (about 18-20 MPH average), with an ocassional
loaded (though not fully loaded) longer jaunt.

Anyhow, comparing the geometries, I'd like to ask a bit about how each
of the differences would affect the ride (numbers shown are Volpe, then
Trek 520):

Size, cm
61, 63.5 -- the seat tube can accomodate the difference of 2.5 cm

Top Tube-virtual, mm
596, 590 -- turns out that the Volpe is actually more stretched out,
I suspect that stem
swaps could account for this 6 mm difference without
a noticable affect on
handling. Agreed?

Chainstay, mm
425, 450 -- either one is long enough to handle any tire/fender
combo. Any comments on
ride difference? I suspect that the Volpe will
feel sportier?

Fork Rake, mm
50, 52 -- I had to infer this from the two web sites... I'm not
sure how this affects the ride.

Head Tube Angle, º
72.5, 72.5

Seat Tube Angle, º
72.5, 72.0 -- is .5 degrees a notable difference? I doubt it, but
could be wrong. I guess
this'd make the Trek a bit less sporty/nimble?

Wheelbase, mm
1047, 1062 -- how would I feel this?


How would I find out the type of steel used by each frame? Any
comments on that? How about build quality (joint brazing, etc) of
Bianchi vs Trek?

Thanks!

[Rich Clark]

"Rex Kerr" > wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

>Chainstay, mm
>425, 450 -- either one is long enough to handle any tire/fender
>combo. Any comments on
> ride difference? I suspect that the Volpe will
>feel sportier?

Maybe, but be sure to account for the actual sizes of your feet and your
panniers and your rack to make sure this dimension is long enough to prevent
heel contact.

2.5 mm is enough to make a difference.

I've ridden both of these bikes, and several other similar ones, and when
loaded as you suggest you will not notice a helluva lot of difference in
ride that can be attributed to chainstay length. The primary way to make one
of these trucks feel "sporty" is to use skinnier tires and leave the
panniers at home.

RichC

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

=================
Strongly considering the Bianchi Volpe because it appears to be a great
deal compared to the Trek 520. One problem is that the Volpe doesn't
have a very long seat tube, and I've got long legs, I'd have a lot of
seat tube exposed. That said, I rode one and it was able to accomodate
me comfortably with the stock stem and seatpost. The LBS is willing to
swap out the STI stuff on the Volpe for bar-end shifters and Shimano
R-400 or similar brake levers making them even more similar.
=================

In general, the Trek is a bit more of a classic touring bike, with its
longer chainstays giving a *very* stable feel. The 520 really hasn't had a
geometry change in... well, forever's a long time, but it sure seems like
it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 520 is also pretty much bombproof.
Nothing ever happens to those frames. Still built in Waterloo WI.

As far as how the two bikes would fit you, the main issue might be in the
need for a taller stem on the Bianchi. It's one thing to use a longer
seatpost, but that's often an indication that you're going to have too much
drop from the seat to the bars.

Sorry I can't make any direct comaprisons to the Volpe though, aside from
the geometry you provided. It's not a bike we see too many of (probably
because we sell Trek and not Bianchi).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Rex Kerr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
Strongly considering the Bianchi Volpe because it appears to be a great
deal compared to the Trek 520. One problem is that the Volpe doesn't
have a very long seat tube, and I've got long legs, I'd have a lot of
seat tube exposed. That said, I rode one and it was able to accomodate
me comfortably with the stock stem and seatpost. The LBS is willing to
swap out the STI stuff on the Volpe for bar-end shifters and Shimano
R-400 or similar brake levers making them even more similar.

I intend to use the bike for spirited commuting with full gear (about
22 miles R/T with panniers full of clothes, food, batteries, etc),
faster lunchtime rides (about 18-20 MPH average), with an ocassional
loaded (though not fully loaded) longer jaunt.

Anyhow, comparing the geometries, I'd like to ask a bit about how each
of the differences would affect the ride (numbers shown are Volpe, then
Trek 520):

Size, cm
61, 63.5 -- the seat tube can accomodate the difference of 2.5 cm

Top Tube-virtual, mm
596, 590 -- turns out that the Volpe is actually more stretched out,
I suspect that stem
swaps could account for this 6 mm difference without
a noticable affect on
handling. Agreed?

Chainstay, mm
425, 450 -- either one is long enough to handle any tire/fender
combo. Any comments on
ride difference? I suspect that the Volpe will
feel sportier?

Fork Rake, mm
50, 52 -- I had to infer this from the two web sites... I'm not
sure how this affects the ride.

Head Tube Angle, º
72.5, 72.5

Seat Tube Angle, º
72.5, 72.0 -- is .5 degrees a notable difference? I doubt it, but
could be wrong. I guess
this'd make the Trek a bit less sporty/nimble?

Wheelbase, mm
1047, 1062 -- how would I feel this?


How would I find out the type of steel used by each frame? Any
comments on that? How about build quality (joint brazing, etc) of
Bianchi vs Trek?

Thanks!

[just another biker]

Rex Kerr wrote:
> Strongly considering the Bianchi Volpe because it appears to be a great
> deal compared to the Trek 520. One problem is that the Volpe doesn't
> have a very long seat tube, and I've got long legs, I'd have a lot of
> seat tube exposed. That said, I rode one and it was able to accomodate
> me comfortably with the stock stem and seatpost. The LBS is willing to
> swap out the STI stuff on the Volpe for bar-end shifters and Shimano
> R-400 or similar brake levers making them even more similar.
>
> I intend to use the bike for spirited commuting with full gear (about
> 22 miles R/T with panniers full of clothes, food, batteries, etc),
> faster lunchtime rides (about 18-20 MPH average), with an ocassional
> loaded (though not fully loaded) longer jaunt.
>
> Anyhow, comparing the geometries, I'd like to ask a bit about how each
> of the differences would affect the ride (numbers shown are Volpe, then
> Trek 520):
>

I have an old 520, maybe 80's, that has been fondly called my Truck.
The long chainstays keep my big feet from colliding with rear paniers
and it rides better loaded than without a load. It's a durable, go
anywhere ride with really low gears, but just based on the gearing and
geometry, I could never call it spirited. It's a an excellent full
touring bike with a position suited for that purpose. Hammering for any
length of time like I might do on a sport/touring bike, has left me
hurting and aching. For just grinding out the miles regardless of load
or incline, it's great. My pick for sport/touring like you suggest
would be a Bridgestone RB-1 or older steel Trek. Just my two-cents.

[[email protected]]

Rex Kerr wrote:
> Strongly considering the Bianchi Volpe ..... The LBS is willing to
> swap out the STI stuff on the Volpe for bar-end shifters and Shimano
> R-400 or similar brake levers making them even more similar.
>
> I intend to use the bike for spirited commuting with full gear (about
> 22 miles R/T with panniers full of clothes, food, batteries, etc),

You weren't asking this but my commuting experience makes me question
your removal of the STIs. I own 12 bikes, four have STIs, two have
bar-ends and I commute (and ride) a lot. (My commute is 25 miles each
way).

I feel that STIs are only necessary for two applications, racing and
commuting. If you commute on quiet low traffic roads then STIs
probably have no benefit. But I commute in heavy traffic. It's nice
to shift quickly and sprint out of a hole. I have commuted with one of
my bar-end bikes (cuz it rides *really* nice). I do it just enough to
realize I need to stick with STIs.

Just my experience,
Tom

[Matt O'Toole]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:28:34 -0800, just another biker wrote:

> Rex Kerr wrote:

>> Strongly considering the Bianchi Volpe because it appears to be a great
>> deal compared to the Trek 520. One problem is that the Volpe doesn't
>> have a very long seat tube, and I've got long legs, I'd have a lot of
>> seat tube exposed. That said, I rode one and it was able to accomodate
>> me comfortably with the stock stem and seatpost. The LBS is willing to
>> swap out the STI stuff on the Volpe for bar-end shifters and Shimano
>> R-400 or similar brake levers making them even more similar.
>>
>> I intend to use the bike for spirited commuting with full gear (about
>> 22 miles R/T with panniers full of clothes, food, batteries, etc),
>> faster lunchtime rides (about 18-20 MPH average), with an ocassional
>> loaded (though not fully loaded) longer jaunt.
>>
>> Anyhow, comparing the geometries, I'd like to ask a bit about how each
>> of the differences would affect the ride (numbers shown are Volpe, then
>> Trek 520):
>>
>>
> I have an old 520, maybe 80's, that has been fondly called my Truck. The
> long chainstays keep my big feet from colliding with rear paniers and it
> rides better loaded than without a load. It's a durable, go anywhere
> ride with really low gears, but just based on the gearing and geometry,
> I could never call it spirited. It's a an excellent full touring bike
> with a position suited for that purpose. Hammering for any length of
> time like I might do on a sport/touring bike, has left me hurting and
> aching. For just grinding out the miles regardless of load or incline,
> it's great. My pick for sport/touring like you suggest would be a
> Bridgestone RB-1 or older steel Trek. Just my two-cents.

Actually most cyclocross bikes, like the Volpe, are pretty well suited
too.

As you mentioned, the biggest difference with chainstay length is heel
clearance. Compared to the circumference of even the tightest corner,
differences in wheelbase are moot. Handling characteristics come mostly
from steering geometry, which is a *combination* of head angle, fork rake,
and trail. No single factor determines a bike's handling characteristics.

The Volpe is a great all around bike, but if you're carrying big panniers
you might want the extra clearance of the 520. The 520's stability would
be better for heavier loads. It seems you're carrying relatively light
loads though. Small panniers, or even a big saddlebag
(http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/bags/originals.htm) should be fine, on
the Volpe.

I'm a fan of STI/Ergo too. The only issue is having them fail in the
middle of nowhere, which is why many long distance riders don't use them.
In general they're reliable, but if failure is critical then barends or
downtubes may be a better choice.

Matt O.

[Rex Kerr]

wrote:
> You weren't asking this but my commuting experience makes me question
> your removal of the STIs. I own 12 bikes, four have STIs, two have
> bar-ends and I commute (and ride) a lot. (My commute is 25 miles each
> way).

I appreciate your input, but the bike that I'm replacing also has
bar-ends, friction no less! Yes, I do sometimes fall behind when my
coworkers break away during our lunchtime rides, but for general
everyday usage, I like the fact that bar end shifters just always work
(in friction mode)... if a bike is down I can grab any wheel off of any
bike and with a few turns of the limit screws I'm on my way!

My old commuter has a $15 el-cheapo 7 speed r-der that is about 8 years
old, yet I can stick a 9 speed wheel from another bike in, change the
chain, and everything just works (I know, I've done it). That's
elegant!

Maybe the traffic that I commute in isn't as bad as yours, but it is in
the fourth largest metropolitan area in CA (according to Wikipedia),
and even my fixed gear does OK in the traffic that I encounter -- and I
don't shy away from busy roads like some that I know.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> My pick for sport/touring like you suggest
> would be a Bridgestone RB-1 or older steel Trek. Just my two-cents.

There has never been a Trek 520 made in anything other than steel, for what
it's worth. Nor is there likely ever to be one. Back in the Trek engineering
department, they've been basically told they have only one job to do in
updating that bike each year, and that's choosing which shade of green it
will be. Internally it's referred to as their "entitlement bike." It will
always be there, and with very, very minor changes from year to year.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"just another biker" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Rex Kerr wrote:
>> Strongly considering the Bianchi Volpe because it appears to be a great
>> deal compared to the Trek 520. One problem is that the Volpe doesn't
>> have a very long seat tube, and I've got long legs, I'd have a lot of
>> seat tube exposed. That said, I rode one and it was able to accomodate
>> me comfortably with the stock stem and seatpost. The LBS is willing to
>> swap out the STI stuff on the Volpe for bar-end shifters and Shimano
>> R-400 or similar brake levers making them even more similar.
>>
>> I intend to use the bike for spirited commuting with full gear (about
>> 22 miles R/T with panniers full of clothes, food, batteries, etc),
>> faster lunchtime rides (about 18-20 MPH average), with an ocassional
>> loaded (though not fully loaded) longer jaunt.
>>
>> Anyhow, comparing the geometries, I'd like to ask a bit about how each
>> of the differences would affect the ride (numbers shown are Volpe, then
>> Trek 520):
>>
>
> I have an old 520, maybe 80's, that has been fondly called my Truck.
> The long chainstays keep my big feet from colliding with rear paniers
> and it rides better loaded than without a load. It's a durable, go
> anywhere ride with really low gears, but just based on the gearing and
> geometry, I could never call it spirited. It's a an excellent full
> touring bike with a position suited for that purpose. Hammering for any
> length of time like I might do on a sport/touring bike, has left me
> hurting and aching. For just grinding out the miles regardless of load
> or incline, it's great. My pick for sport/touring like you suggest
> would be a Bridgestone RB-1 or older steel Trek. Just my two-cents.
>

[Rex Kerr]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> There has never been a Trek 520 made in anything other than steel, for what
> it's worth.

Are you sure? I thought that there was an Al version made some time
back around 2000 when I first considered getting one -- I vaguely
remember considering a previous years' model for that reason.

[Rex Kerr]

Rex Kerr wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > There has never been a Trek 520 made in anything other than steel, for what
> > it's worth.
>
> Are you sure? I thought that there was an Al version made some time
> back around 2000 when I first considered getting one -- I vaguely
> remember considering a previous years' model for that reason.

To answer my own post... it was the Trek 540... I remember now.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> > There has never been a Trek 520 made in anything other than steel, for
>> > what
>> > it's worth.
>>
>> Are you sure? I thought that there was an Al version made some time
>> back around 2000 when I first considered getting one -- I vaguely
>> remember considering a previous years' model for that reason.
>
> To answer my own post... it was the Trek 540... I remember now.

Yep, you got it right. It was actually a darned nice machine. Truth is, it
wasn't even a Trek, it was actually a Klein (based on the Klein Navigator
touring bike). It was only in production for a year, most likely only as
long as needed to flush out the remaining Klein frames (it didn't seem to be
a good fit in the Klein line, although we sold quite a few of them).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Gooserider]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
.. .
> =================
> Strongly considering the Bianchi Volpe because it appears to be a great
> deal compared to the Trek 520. One problem is that the Volpe doesn't
> have a very long seat tube, and I've got long legs, I'd have a lot of
> seat tube exposed. That said, I rode one and it was able to accomodate
> me comfortably with the stock stem and seatpost. The LBS is willing to
> swap out the STI stuff on the Volpe for bar-end shifters and Shimano
> R-400 or similar brake levers making them even more similar.
> =================
>
> In general, the Trek is a bit more of a classic touring bike, with its
> longer chainstays giving a *very* stable feel. The 520 really hasn't had a
> geometry change in... well, forever's a long time, but it sure seems like
> it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 520 is also pretty much
> bombproof. Nothing ever happens to those frames. Still built in Waterloo
> WI.
>
> As far as how the two bikes would fit you, the main issue might be in the
> need for a taller stem on the Bianchi. It's one thing to use a longer
> seatpost, but that's often an indication that you're going to have too
> much drop from the seat to the bars.
>
> Sorry I can't make any direct comaprisons to the Volpe though, aside from
> the geometry you provided. It's not a bike we see too many of (probably
> because we sell Trek and not Bianchi).
>
>
Mike--

I remember hearing complaints from tourists that the 520 wasn't really
specced for touring. The crankset isn't right, what with the 52T big ring.
Why doesn't Trek set it up with something more appropriate for carrying a
load?

Mike

[Stephen Harding]

Gooserider wrote:

> I remember hearing complaints from tourists that the 520 wasn't really
> specced for touring. The crankset isn't right, what with the 52T big ring.
> Why doesn't Trek set it up with something more appropriate for carrying a
> load?

They had it right at one time.

My 1993 or 1994 Trek 520 came with a 46/36/24 although the
back end was a bit low at 7 speed 11-28.

I've had a 30 back there for years and it's great to have
available. Don't know why they ever decided a 52T was
better.


SMH

[Pat Lamb]

Gooserider wrote:
>
> I remember hearing complaints from tourists that the 520 wasn't really
> specced for touring. The crankset isn't right, what with the 52T big ring.
> Why doesn't Trek set it up with something more appropriate for carrying a
> load?

If Mike J. is right, and the 520 "product team" only gets to choose the
color every year, then somebody needs to make some color-coded cranks.
Blue crank = 52/42/30; yellow crank=48/36/26, etc. Then when the bike
can be color-coordinated with yellow cranks, they'll lower the gearing.

You don't think Trek could change the product spec without a good reason
like the color, do you?

-)

Pat

[Gooserider]

"Pat Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> Gooserider wrote:
>>
>> I remember hearing complaints from tourists that the 520 wasn't
>> really
>> specced for touring. The crankset isn't right, what with the 52T big
>> ring.
>> Why doesn't Trek set it up with something more appropriate for carrying a
>> load?
>
> If Mike J. is right, and the 520 "product team" only gets to choose the
> color every year, then somebody needs to make some color-coded cranks.
> Blue crank = 52/42/30; yellow crank=48/36/26, etc. Then when the bike
> can be color-coordinated with yellow cranks, they'll lower the gearing.
>
> You don't think Trek could change the product spec without a good reason
> like the color, do you?
>
> -)
>
> Pat

I wonder how many 520s go out the dealership doors with bars set 3-4 inches
below the saddle and the 52T big ring, only to end up unridden because they
weren't comfortable or useful as touring bikes? People buy touring bikes for
three reasons---

They want a comfortable road bike
They want to tour
They want to commute

The 520, as it appears on Trek's website, would fail on the first two(at
least for me). If I tried to ride it with the bars that much lower than the
saddle, my hands would be numb a mile down the road. If I tried to carry 30
pounds of gear on a tour, it had better be a tour of the Florida panhandle,
or I would be pushing up a lot of hills. I don't understand the speccing of
the 52T. It makes no sense, especially for a company which has been making
the same touring bike for DECADES.

Bianchi specs the Volpe with a 48/28/38. Cannondale specs the T2000 and T800
with 48/26/36. What's wrong with Trek? Are dealers swapping out a lot of
cranksets?

Mike

[[email protected]]

That low handlebar look is cool and makes a bike look like the pro's
bikes. Only Rivendell has the b*lls to show bikes with the bars
slightly below or level with the seat. Part of the problem is the
$$#%$ threadless headsets and the %$!$% dealers and manufacturers that
cut steer tubes too short. There is nothing worse than spending $$$$$
on a new bike then having to spend more $$$$ just to raise the bars.
Luckily the 02 Lemond I bought has a longer steer tube and the dealer
offered to cut it after I rode it a while. I never went back. When I
put a carbon forkon my C'dale cross bike I used a couple inched of
spacers. May not look "racerish" but sure is comfy!!!!

Gooserider wrote:
> "Pat Lamb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >>
> >> I remember hearing complaints from tourists that the 520 wasn't
> >> really
> >> specced for touring. The crankset isn't right, what with the 52T big
> >> ring.
> >> Why doesn't Trek set it up with something more appropriate for carrying a
> >> load?
> >
> > If Mike J. is right, and the 520 "product team" only gets to choose the
> > color every year, then somebody needs to make some color-coded cranks.
> > Blue crank = 52/42/30; yellow crank=48/36/26, etc. Then when the bike
> > can be color-coordinated with yellow cranks, they'll lower the gearing.
> >
> > You don't think Trek could change the product spec without a good reason
> > like the color, do you?
> >
> > -)
> >
> > Pat
>
> I wonder how many 520s go out the dealership doors with bars set 3-4 inches
> below the saddle and the 52T big ring, only to end up unridden because they
> weren't comfortable or useful as touring bikes? People buy touring bikes for
> three reasons---
>
> They want a comfortable road bike
> They want to tour
> They want to commute
>
> The 520, as it appears on Trek's website, would fail on the first two(at
> least for me). If I tried to ride it with the bars that much lower than the
> saddle, my hands would be numb a mile down the road. If I tried to carry 30
> pounds of gear on a tour, it had better be a tour of the Florida panhandle,
> or I would be pushing up a lot of hills. I don't understand the speccing of
> the 52T. It makes no sense, especially for a company which has been making
> the same touring bike for DECADES.
>
> Bianchi specs the Volpe with a 48/28/38. Cannondale specs the T2000 and T800
> with 48/26/36. What's wrong with Trek? Are dealers swapping out a lot of
> cranksets?
>
> Mike

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I wonder how many 520s go out the dealership doors with bars set 3-4
> inches below the saddle and the 52T big ring, only to end up unridden
> because they weren't comfortable or useful as touring bikes? People buy
> touring bikes for three reasons---
>
> They want a comfortable road bike
> They want to tour
> They want to commute

If a dealer is setting the stem that low, there's not much Trek can do about
it. It comes with quite a bit of fork column and a moderately-high stem. We
always set them up as high as they can go, for what it's worth, and often
end up lowering them for a particular customer. And sometimes we install
taller stems as well. There's nothing about the layout of the 520 frameset
that prevents a high handlebar position if desired. And if a shop is setting
one up with a nose-in-the-gravel position, well, that's probably an
indication that they don't understand much of the market outside racing
bikes.

The gearing is a continuing issue. One of the problems has been Shimano's
reluctance to make a front derailleur that will work with a normal seat
angle & bottom-bracket drop without bottoming out on the chainstay when set
up for a smaller-than-52t chainring. But doesn't matter, there are some
creative ways around it, and as dealers, we get on Trek's case about the
crank all the time. Until recently though, Shimano didn't have a suitable
alternative, but I believe they're now offering road triples with 50t large
chainrings. As for the smaller chainring, it's easy enough to change at the
store, and we do it frequently. A 26 front/32 rear combo will generally be
low enough for most requirements. The fact that it's got a
higher-than-needed gear really isn't a huge issue when you have 9 sprockets
in back. It might be a bit dumb (having the highest-geared bike on your
floor be a touring bike), but it really doesn't get in the way of its
utility.

> The 520, as it appears on Trek's website, would fail on the first two(at
> least for me). If I tried to ride it with the bars that much lower than
> the saddle, my hands would be numb a mile down the road. If I tried to
> carry 30 pounds of gear on a tour, it had better be a tour of the Florida
> panhandle, or I would be pushing up a lot of hills. I don't understand the
> speccing of the 52T. It makes no sense, especially for a company which has
> been making the same touring bike for DECADES.
>
> Bianchi specs the Volpe with a 48/28/38. Cannondale specs the T2000 and
> T800 with 48/26/36. What's wrong with Trek? Are dealers swapping out a lot
> of cranksets?

The Volpe is pretty much a straight 'cross bike, with shorter chainstays and
possibly a higher bottom bracket (although that isn't listed in the geometry
specs). The Cannondales are much closer to a classic touring machine, and I
think they do a good job with them. Unfortunately, they lose a huge chunk of
the market that believes the only reasonable material to make a touring
frame out of is steel. That's very unfortunate, and I say that even though I
sell steel-framed touring bikes, not aluminum. You'll also note that the
overall wheelbase of both the Trek and Cannondale models are longer than the
Volpe, which adds stability, not just heel clearance, to the ride.

But yes, I'd vote (and have voted for in the past) in favor of the 520
having a crank that tops out at either 48 or 50t. But geez, you have no idea
how many people we get who think a 50t front isn't going to be big enough
for them. They will actually say "I can only go 25mph with the 50t. If I had
a bigger chainring, I could go faster!" Strange but true.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Rex Kerr]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> But yes, I'd vote (and have voted for in the past) in favor of the 520
> having a crank that tops out at either 48 or 50t. But geez, you have no idea
> how many people we get who think a 50t front isn't going to be big enough
> for them. They will actually say "I can only go 25mph with the 50t. If I had
> a bigger chainring, I could go faster!" Strange but true.

Wow... even with the 48/11 I calculate that I'd be going 35 MPH at 100
RPM. They must pedal really slow! I'd guess that few of the few
people that can actually ride 25 MPH on the flats pedal that slow.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> But yes, I'd vote (and have voted for in the past) in favor of the 520
>> having a crank that tops out at either 48 or 50t. But geez, you have no
>> idea
>> how many people we get who think a 50t front isn't going to be big enough
>> for them. They will actually say "I can only go 25mph with the 50t. If I
>> had
>> a bigger chainring, I could go faster!" Strange but true.
>
> Wow... even with the 48/11 I calculate that I'd be going 35 MPH at 100
> RPM. They must pedal really slow! I'd guess that few of the few
> people that can actually ride 25 MPH on the flats pedal that slow.

I'd guess that few of the people who think they can ride 25mph on the 50t
probably can't even do that.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Rex Kerr" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> But yes, I'd vote (and have voted for in the past) in favor of the 520
>> having a crank that tops out at either 48 or 50t. But geez, you have no
>> idea
>> how many people we get who think a 50t front isn't going to be big enough
>> for them. They will actually say "I can only go 25mph with the 50t. If I
>> had
>> a bigger chainring, I could go faster!" Strange but true.
>
> Wow... even with the 48/11 I calculate that I'd be going 35 MPH at 100
> RPM. They must pedal really slow! I'd guess that few of the few
> people that can actually ride 25 MPH on the flats pedal that slow.
>