kopzr
Peloton Rider
Posts: 4
|
Post by kopzr on Apr 10, 2017 11:24:22 GMT
Hello Everyone,
I am currently working in Portugal for a period of 6 months. I really enjoy cycling and would like to get myself my first road bike (having only ridden MTB in my home country as roadies there are quite expensive).
I am torn between the Triban 500 and the 520, but there is a catch: I will have to pay 150 euros to take the bike back with me to my country, so I would like to ask, which is the better 'bang for the buck', including the 150 euros transport:
A Triban 500 at 450 euros. A Triban 520 at 650 euros.
I also plan on doing a little touring with the bike (500k) this summer. Cheers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 5:47:16 GMT
Hi kopzr and welcome. I'll stick my neck out and suggest you go for the 520. If as you said road bikes are expensive back home, you should have no worries about selling it if need be.
|
|
|
Post by jondxxx on Apr 11, 2017 6:44:41 GMT
With the future touring in mind I would suggest that the 520 with it's better tyre and mudguard option and front pannier mounts is the better choice.
|
|
kopzr
Peloton Rider
Posts: 4
|
Post by kopzr on Apr 11, 2017 10:05:39 GMT
Yes, the cheapest Sora bike i can get in my country is about 842 euros right now, no carbon fork, and not available on my size aswell. Think I'll stretch my budget and get the 520 then, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Scott M on Apr 11, 2017 17:19:17 GMT
I second the 520 suggestions for touring due to it having fixing points for racks and mudguard clearance.
|
|
kopzr
Peloton Rider
Posts: 4
|
Post by kopzr on Apr 16, 2017 15:13:28 GMT
Went to the store, and the new 500 have the same frame as the 520, and a carbon fork! But it is costing 400 EU.
The only difference i see between the bikes is the gearing (Microshift 3x8 vs Sora 3x9), is the Shimano Sora group worth the extra 100 EU?
|
|
|
Post by chas on Apr 16, 2017 17:26:07 GMT
They are 2 completely different bikes, personally I don't think the 500 should be called that, maybe 120 or 300 as the frame is the same as the new 100 with only 1 set of bottle cage bolts and no replaceable mech hanger. They both have new better wheels with deeper section rims but only the 520 has cartridge bearings. The 520 is a much better bike if you can afford it.
|
|
kopzr
Peloton Rider
Posts: 4
|
Post by kopzr on Apr 23, 2017 19:59:49 GMT
Hello and sorry to bother again. After deciding to go for the 520, another problem has arisen: they only have it up to the L size (while the triban 500 is available in XL size).Both sizes have basically the same Headtube and Seattube.
But, while the 520 L's toptube is 564 mm, the toptube on the 500 XL is 580mm. I've done a bikefitting at competitive cyclist, these are my results:
The Eddy Fit (cm) Seat Tube Range c–c: 58.8 - 59.4 cm Seat Tube Range c–t: 60.6 - 61.1 cm Top Tube Length: 57.8 - 58.2 cm Stem Length: 11.1 - 11.7 cm BB–Saddle Position: 77.8 - 79.8 cm Saddle Handlebar: 59 - 59.6 cm Saddle Setback: 8.1 - 8.5 cm
Accordingly, the Triban 500 felt like a glove, while the triban 520 not so much (I mean, it wasn't bad, but didn't feel as good). Now, i REALLY want the 520 due to its carbon fork and Sora Group. Would it be possible to get a better fit from it by swapping the stem for a 12-13cm one (currently @ 11cm)? Or should i just give up and get the 500? By the way, both are the 2016 models.
|
|
|
Post by r0b1et on Apr 25, 2017 9:36:07 GMT
its always easier to make a small bike fit a bigger person than the reverse.
I'd say the 520 was a significantly better bike... but then, no bike is better if it doesn't fit.
|
|
arranj
Peloton Rider
Posts: 281
|
Post by arranj on Apr 25, 2017 14:58:16 GMT
Isn't the head tube higher / longer on the bigger frame? Could be why it is more comfortable as there is less downward reach? Why not just wait until they have an XL 520 in stock? especially since the new 520's are coming in next week, and they have the new updated better SORA?
|
|
|
Post by chas on Apr 25, 2017 18:13:15 GMT
Biggest difference with the new 520 vs old are the new cartridge bearing wheels which are worth paying the extra for if you can afford it and it means you can get the right size.
|
|
arranj
Peloton Rider
Posts: 281
|
Post by arranj on Apr 25, 2017 19:08:43 GMT
Biggest difference with the new 520 vs old are the new cartridge bearing wheels which are worth paying the extra for if you can afford it and it means you can get the right size. Pretty sure the new Sora shifts more like Tiagra 4700? Not to mention aesthetically makes the bike look a lot better with cables under the bar tape!
|
|
|
Post by chas on Apr 25, 2017 22:29:32 GMT
Biggest difference with the new 520 vs old are the new cartridge bearing wheels which are worth paying the extra for if you can afford it and it means you can get the right size. Pretty sure the new Sora shifts more like Tiagra 4700? Not to mention aesthetically makes the bike look a lot better with cables under the bar tape! Yes the new Sora is another plus for the new 520 and looks like the more expensive groupsets but I'd argue stronger wheels with easily changed bearings is a bigger benefit.
|
|
|
Post by utriban on Apr 26, 2017 9:54:50 GMT
Pretty sure the new Sora shifts more like Tiagra 4700? Not to mention aesthetically makes the bike look a lot better with cables under the bar tape! Yes the new Sora is another plus for the new 520 and looks like the more expensive groupsets but I'd argue stronger wheels with easily changed bearings is a bigger benefit. Well chas, since you mentioned it a couple of times - I would not agree that at this price level, cartridge bearings are obviously better choice. Taking a Shimano hub from R501 as a reference, I find it more reliable than Fulcrum's cartridges found in twice the price wheels. After 8000 km, all weather London commute, front cartridges are pretty much gone (once re greased - very odd job). Under same conditions, Shimano's grease did not even change the color. Maintenance wise, cup and cone is 15 minutes clean and re-grease, vs. 30 pounds local shop charge to replace the bearings (labor and parts for 1 wheel). And, at that price level, 60 pounds is half price of the new wheel set. Set of cone spanners is a few quid while decent toolset for bearing replacement costs as a set of new wheels. Also, before cup and cones are irreparably gone, rim brakes will take care of rim so that new wheel set will be in order anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by chas on Apr 26, 2017 20:26:38 GMT
I don't disagree that good cup and cone bearings can be better than some cartridge bearings, I've got several pairs of Shimano wheels which are double sealed and expect as you suggest that the hubs will outlast the rims.
My comments were really aimed at the B'Twin wheels. Historically we had a lot of problems with the Triban 3 wheels partly due to poor initial assembly at the factory (some overtight or not enough grease) partly people using them to commute through winter with no maintenance then expecting them to be replaced under warranty. It was a victim of it's own success as it was intended as an entry level bike but was so good people used it for so much more. Quality control was improved on later models but as many owners never service them by the time they bring them back they're scrap, with the new ones we can just pop in new bearings.
I think the Fulcrums may need special tools, but I didn't need any to change the bearings in a track wheel of mine, I just found a small socket the size of the outside of the bearing and used the axle to press it in. It cost about £6 for the bearings and was quicker and cleaner than adjusting and regreasing a cup and cone hub.
|
|