|
|
Post by dcacooper on Jun 12, 2019 11:05:45 GMT
Hi there,
Been a satisfied rider of an early model 500SE (with the Sora cranks) for going on 5 years/10,000 miles and considering an upgrade to the RC520 (although would really like the non-gravel version in the gravel version paint job).
In most respects it fits exactly what I want ... mostly 105 groupset, comfort over all-out speed, more relaxed geometry, all of that. However, I do like the feel of the 500SE, and how easy it is to cruise along at reasonable speed (16-18 mph) through town with minimal real effort. My 500SE is stock apart from the wheels which I switched out for Shimano R501s.
Anyone rode both and able to offer an opinion on how the RC520 compares in that respect?
Thanks,
David
|
|
|
|
Post by derekv4 on Jun 12, 2019 16:56:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dcacooper on Jun 12, 2019 20:17:11 GMT
I have seen those reviews. Probably just wasn’t quite clear enough. I was just wondering whether anyone here has ridden the 500SE and the RC520 road version and can offer an opinion on how the ride compares cruising through town.
|
|
|
|
Post by derekv4 on Jun 12, 2019 20:21:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chas on Jun 13, 2019 12:06:43 GMT
As Derek says, I've done a few miles on my RC520 but I didn't reply to this initially as I've not got a lot of experience riding the 500se and also my 520 is set up more as a tourer with rack, mudguards and dynamo hub. However as no one else has replied...
The 500se was the last model to use the frame of the much loved Triban 3 which started this forum many years ago. They were initially made and designed by Deda (early models had a 27.2mm seatpost) but we subsequently made our own version with a 29.8mm post. It followed usual practice at the time with 23mm tyres, narrow rims, fairly close clearances and short wheelbase, whilst not the lightest frame it was fairly stiff and rode very well. Many on here have upgraded the components and are still using them today.
The trend in more recent years, particularly with the introduction of disc brakes is for wider rims and tyres, which also means a longer wheelbase. The new Tribans have also been designed with a more relaxed stable geometry which makes them less demanding to ride, but also maybe a bit less lively.
I would suggest that whilst the 500se was a budget 'race' bike the RC520 is more a 'luxury sports tourer' with more comfort and higher spec components. The microshift works ok but is a bit clunky compared to slick 105 and the disc brakes are reliable wet and dry.
So to try to answer your original question, if your city streets are dry and smooth, you may possibly be a bit quicker on a 500se but in the real world of puddles and potholes I think you would be quicker, safer and more comfortable on an RC520.
|
|
|
|
Post by joek1973 on Jun 14, 2019 9:20:43 GMT
I've recently bought the RC500 so can give my account of the frame, the groupset is different so can't vouch for that though.
I've had my 500SE for a few years; it did a full winter, a full summer, and another full winter again before I'd bought my second (the summer) bike. The Microshift R8 rear derailleur gave up spectacularly on me at the top of a 17% hill which was fun but you get what you pay for and it had given me warning signs to be fair, I wrongly ignored them. A Claris rear mech went on and the bike has been bulletproof ever since. As a budget bike (£299) it's been great and still gives good service as a turbo trainer bike. I wouldn't say it was super-comfortable; the frame is quite stiff and it didn't really soak up road buzz on rougher roads. Having said that, on better roads it's better than other entry-level bikes costing twice as much. But it's dated in comparison to the features we look for in a newer bike.
The RC500/520 is definitely more comfortable. The geometry is more upright (at least it feels like it). The handlebars have an aero feel to them (the wide cross section either side of the stem). Disc brakes means no more wheel purchases (unless I break them or want lighter ones). 27.2mm seatpost is more compliant, and also easier to find third-party ones in that diameter (thinking of getting a 3TS VCLS clone seatpost). The bike is a little heavy but roughly the same as the 500SE so it's OK really for a winter bike. 28mm tyres are nice and comfy. You can get mudguards on it! Proper ones!
RC500 rides a lot smoother than the 500SE. A lot more comfortable. It's definitely the better bike for beginners/winter riding/long winter rides/light touring. I'd still go for a lighter carbon bike for summer riding but for everything else this is great! I actually chose the RC500 over the RC520 as full Sora is enough for me for the winter and also cheaper to replace. Also the mechanical disc brakes on the RC500 are a doddle to adjust. No hydraulics to mess with. 34/50 chainset and 11-32 cassette is perfect for any hills. All in all, a great bike.
NOTE: Don't buy it online. Mine came poorly packaged in the box. Not a lot of foam around the bike, nothing to protect the QR skewers/dropouts. You could see where the dropouts has scraped against the inside of the box. Also the front rotor is badly bent. Not enough for it to be unrideable after some adjustments but it shouldn't be that bad on delivery. Just a note, don't let it put you off buying what is a great bike.
Hope this helps,
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by phred1812 on Jun 15, 2019 10:22:05 GMT
As Derek says, I've done a few miles on my RC520 but I didn't reply to this initially as I've not got a lot of experience riding the 500se and also my 520 is set up more as a tourer with rack, mudguards and dynamo hub. However as no one else has replied... The 500se was the last model to use the frame of the much loved Triban 3 which started this forum many years ago. They were initially made and designed by Deda (early models had a 27.2mm seatpost) but we subsequently made our own version with a 29.8mm post. It followed usual practice at the time with 23mm tyres, narrow rims, fairly close clearances and short wheelbase, whilst not the lightest frame it was fairly stiff and rode very well. Many on here have upgraded the components and are still using them today. The trend in more recent years, particularly with the introduction of disc brakes is for wider rims and tyres, which also means a longer wheelbase. The new Tribans have also been designed with a more relaxed stable geometry which makes them less demanding to ride, but also maybe a bit less lively. I would suggest that whilst the 500se was a budget 'race' bike the RC520 is more a 'luxury sports tourer' with more comfort and higher spec components. The microshift works ok but is a bit clunky compared to slick 105 and the disc brakes are reliable wet and dry. So to try to answer your original question, if your city streets are dry and smooth, you may possibly be a bit quicker on a 500se but in the real world of puddles and potholes I think you would be quicker, safer and more comfortable on an RC520. Not really relevant to this post but it was interesting to read your historical assessment Chas. I was one of the early members of this forum having bought my red T3 in January 2013. It was one of the best decisions I ever made and the bike and to a lesser extent this forum, at least in the early days, has changed my life both in terms of gaining fitness and the social aspect of cycling. My T3 has the Italian frame with the UPPER CASE logo and, because it has a number of other Deda components, is now listed on my Strava account as a Phredacciai. In fact the frame is the only component left from the original bike as it now has a full 105 drivetrain with KMC gold chain, Cosine wheels with Schwalbe One tyres, Deda bars, stem and seatpost and Fizik Arione saddle. It's officially my winter bike but it still looks great and is virtually unmarked. With the wet weather recently it's seen quite a lot of use. It's a bit heavier and less "aero" than Number 1 bike but I still managed to notch up a few PRs on it earlier this week. I cannot imagine ever selling it. |
|
|
|
Post by dcacooper on Jun 18, 2019 9:37:33 GMT
Excellent responses, thank you all. For what I do (no racing, sportives, training rides and commuting) sounds like the 520RC is a good move.
Really interesting to see some of the historical perspective from the Triban 3 (which a friend of mine had and loved) which was the bike that prompted me to look at B'Twin as an options. Thanks for that.
One question ... I wasn't aware that the 500SE shared the same frame as the 3. Is that why the 500SE existed as a UK Only special edition? In order to retain a bike with that same frame? Was the regular 500 a new frame?
|
|
|
|
Post by phred1812 on Jun 18, 2019 10:14:49 GMT
Excellent responses, thank you all. For what I do (no racing, sportives, training rides and commuting) sounds like the 520RC is a good move. Really interesting to see some of the historical perspective from the Triban 3 (which a friend of mine had and loved) which was the bike that prompted me to look at B'Twin as an options. Thanks for that. One question ... I wasn't aware that the 500SE shared the same frame as the 3. Is that why the 500SE existed as a UK Only special edition? In order to retain a bike with that same frame? Was the regular 500 a new frame? I am not sure about this but I can say that the one problem with the old T3 frame is the wheel clearance. Because I use mine mainly as a winter bike it has Crud Roadracer mudguards. I believe you can just about get 25mm tyres to fit but not with mudguards or at least not with Cruds so I am limited to 23mm tyres. Having used 25mm on the other bike I would l would really prefer to use these or even 28mm. |
|
|
|
Post by chas on Jun 18, 2019 12:10:02 GMT
Excellent responses, thank you all. For what I do (no racing, sportives, training rides and commuting) sounds like the 520RC is a good move. Really interesting to see some of the historical perspective from the Triban 3 (which a friend of mine had and loved) which was the bike that prompted me to look at B'Twin as an options. Thanks for that. One question ... I wasn't aware that the 500SE shared the same frame as the 3. Is that why the 500SE existed as a UK Only special edition? In order to retain a bike with that same frame? Was the regular 500 a new frame? The numbers are confusing as sometimes they change the number and keep the bike the same, other times they've used the same number for different bikes. The red 3 became the white 300 with a steel fork which then became the black 500. The carbon fork returned for the 500se. A new frame with more clearance and 25mm tyres also called the 500 replaced it and the current model is the 120 with double chainset, 28mm tyres and a disc option, now just Triban not Btwin. The 500 is now a better frame ( same as the 520 ) with Sora. |
|
|
|
Post by Paulinblack on Jun 18, 2019 12:38:23 GMT
Excellent responses, thank you all. For what I do (no racing, sportives, training rides and commuting) sounds like the 520RC is a good move. Really interesting to see some of the historical perspective from the Triban 3 (which a friend of mine had and loved) which was the bike that prompted me to look at B'Twin as an options. Thanks for that. One question ... I wasn't aware that the 500SE shared the same frame as the 3. Is that why the 500SE existed as a UK Only special edition? In order to retain a bike with that same frame? Was the regular 500 a new frame? The numbers are confusing as sometimes they change the number and keep the bike the same, other times they've used the same number for different bikes. The red 3 became the white 300 with a steel fork which then became the black 500. The carbon fork returned for the 500se. A new frame with more clearance and 25mm tyres also called the 500 replaced it and the current model is the 120 with double chainset, 28mm tyres and a disc option, now just Triban not Btwin. The 500 is now a better frame ( same as the 520 ) with Sora. You missed out a couple from the earlier days: Red 3 White 3A (Steel forks) White T5 (Carbon forks) Black T5 Black T500 (Sora - T5 rename) Black T500SE (Blue Hoods Microshift) Some tech specs here triban3owners.freeforums.net/board/26/tech-spec |
|
