jargo432

Anyone here buy the new Trek 920? I'd love to hear some reviews.

Leebo

Bicycle Times did a write up on one.

robow

I like it ! Seems like a cool offering especially for those that tour where the asphalt quits. No reason you couldn't put on some smoother road tires and do more typical touring as well. Nice that someone actually integrated their racks with the disc brakes in mind. I hope they sell a bunch.

djb

Anyone know what the smallest chainring be put on these double cranks? The low gear with about 50mm tires is about 22g.I. not that low, OK but not low low given its "adventure" angle, ie crappy rough gravel roads.....

gerryl

Nice bike, a person can go places with a bike like that.

robow

A size 58 weighs only 28 lbs. and that's with the racks and hydraulic discs. wow
My son said that it has a "Mad Max" kind of look to it and the review that was alluded to is linked below.

Review: Trek 920 rugged touring bike

Tourist in MSN

Initial thoughts:
- Looks like you won't have much ability to raise the stem.
- Front fork blades appear to have two brazeons for a rack, but not three for the Salsa Anything cage.
- Color is almost identical to the Sage Green that Surly used for first year of production LHT.
- Rear rack looks like a Tubus Logo copy from the side, but the top is much wider than the Logo. I wonder if that makes it less stiff?
- It is a nice looking bike but I think I will stick with older technology for a while longer.

robow

It might be available to order the bike with the steering tube of the fork uncut allowing higher bars that you couldn't achieve with just a different stem or an extender but you would have to check with Trek on that.

LeeG

28 spoke wheels, surely 24 would have been sufficient.

DropBarFan

Aluminum frame nice for cutting weight & hydraulic discs sound kewl. S & S couplers not possible w/the 920 though.

fotooutdoors

While I wouldn't build to that low spoke count myself for a touring wheelset (an extra 4 spokes is cheap insurance), my commuter/touring wheelset gets significant abuse (ie, the same or more than if it was just touring) and at 32h, I haven't had any problems (granted, they only have about 7-9k miles on them). I am assuming that the rims have an offset bed, since that is available on the Duster, which will give the rear significantly greater strength for a given spoke count. But still, I am generally with you.

fietsbob

Dec 15/Jan 16 , ACA Magazine runs a revue too

I'm still OK with the 26" wheel . But 29ers are the new thing.. You can always fit a more normal 37~40 wide 700c tire on that rim.

or being disc Brakes build 26" wheels.. (with the BB height Drop considered.)

My 700c - 40 touring wheels , I built Rear 48 spoke, front a 40, it proved reliable, only replaced 1 spoke while touring .. in 10 years time.



My 28 spoke wheels are 16" on my Brompton .. I have 32 spoke wheels on my Bike friday , 406_20" and My Rohloff 26" wheel Bike . (a 36 hole optional Now)

engineerbob

The 920 appears to have been well thought-out, BUT the aluminum frame does not seem to be an ideal choice for a touring bike. What did Trek gain by going in that direction?

Bob

robow

The frame material itself doesn't prevent it from being a fine touring bike. Heck, Cannondale made excellent aluminum touring bikes for years. I'm sure Al was used to likely reduce the weight and comparative costs.

LeeG

Aluminum is a great material for a frame as it is for other components. Just as one wouldn't tour with a heavy load on racing wheels one wouldn't build a touring aluminum frame like a light racing frame. What is ideal is a geometry and construction for intended use. Once one makes a long wheelbase, long chainstay touring bike for heavy loads it becomes a pretty heavy bike in steel, which isn't that big of deal loaded but noticeable unloaded. So Trek can make a reasonably light weight touring bike. What still gets me is the beefy rack package implying a load carrier with 28spoke wheels, that direction is nuts as there is no gain.

djb

I certainly agree with you on all points (Ive ridden alu frames and like them for being lighter, good reference to the very competent Cannondale tourers) but yes , the 28 spoke count is just silly.
My 5 year old Tricross came with 32 spoke wheels and it worked alright for touring, but Im a really light guy.

To me, the 28 spoke thing is just marketing aimed at the image of the "gravel grinder" strong youngish male hammering along all kinds of road surfaces with minimal load--ie all the promo vids that Specialized etc have put out in the last few years--as you say, putting racks, and especially that big honking looking front rack, just doesnt make sense.

my marketing "image" comment also ties in with going with a double--will work if you have a low load and are strong, but a triple still has clear advantages --but for either image reasons (doubles=lighter, supposedly easier shifting blah blah blah) or economic reasons (parts in volume)

who knows, maybe they will change the stock spoke count if they get enough feedback of too many wheel issues.

engineerbob

My question is based on aluminum's relative lack of elastic response. My Trek 1200 is not the most comfortable bike I've ever ridden. Of course, part of that is due to narrow tires and high air pressure, neither of which would be present on the 920.

You make an excellent point about the wheels. The 520, although not as interesting as the 920, is still probably a better choice for me.

Bob

djb

I highly recommend trying out diff pressures in your tires. Having a good floor pump is a big help for this as its fast and easy to do this. You don't say what tires size and pressures you have on your trek, but I have a lot of riding experience with 28mm slicks and for my weight (135) there is a noticeable diff in comfort going from 105 to 95 lets say, and I often have less than that, especially up front, which makes a real difference in how the bike rides in terms of comfort.

that said, your Trek's frame angles, chainstay lengths etc are all very likely rather diff than my alu framed Tricross, the Trek is most likely a much stiffer frame in general, shorter and the fork is probably angled differently, throw in 25s vs 28s and this adds up to a lot of differences that are there before even getting into tires and pressures.

robow

I agree with many here that the lower spoke count doesn't make that much sense but I'm betting that Trek, as one of the premier bike manufacturers in the world (and I may be giving them too much credit here) has surely run extensive testing on those wheels and has established what abuse they can take and are probably allowing for more than they think will experience. I wonder if I (we) aren't stuck in the past with our spoke count numbers. Look at Trek's Mountain bikes that they know will take a beating and yes, they have only 28 spokes as well. Their road bikes are carrying no more than about 24 spokes and many of them are much less. Maybe technology has moved on?

djb

you could be right, but I strongly suspect the big factor is the components (spokes, rims) and especially how well the wheel is built.
I did a lot of touring on 36spoke wheels that were from the early 90s, they were checked on by good wheel mechanics before each trip and worked well without issues. Go forward to 2010 and I was using 32 spoke wheels that were/are nothing special in terms of rim quality, probably just mid, and they worked well. The rear wheel had some issues but most likely it was an overtensioning issue, but all in all this middling quality wheelset worked about the same as my old 36 spoked set. Will be interesting to see how my new rear rim 32h that is supposed to be a much better rim than the original, holds up over the next few years. I suspect it will be fine, but again, I only weigh 135 and maybe carry 40lbs spread out over a barbag, front and rear panniers.

lots of unknown factors involved (spokes, actual rims involved) but with me being light, it seems I can get away with a modern, well built 32 spoke wheel vs a 36.

that said, it seems that a 36h wheel, even an old one, will have more latitude for spokes losing tension over time--my experience with an old bike in the family that my son uses shows that even though this bike has been ridden for 25 years or so, the wheels just keep on going and with reasonably low tensions. I am very inexperienced with wheels and spoke tensions, but the fact that these old wheels keep reasonably true and just keep on going being ridden by a teenager that is probably rough on it, is a bit of a plus to higher spoke wheels, even if old.

fietsbob

NB: "engineerbob"

Any frame issues* on a New Trek are covered by warrantees for the original owner's life.

* metal fatigue and manufacturing defects, not crashes.

saddlesores

nice looking bike.

i'd get one, but might have to change a few things:

the fork has to go, as must the bars.
28-spoke wheels for a tourer? switch wheels.
2 chain rings? guess i'll need a new crank, and
a new bottom bracket. might upgrade to a
sealed unit then.
never liked sram, need some deore deraillers.
rather have mechanical disks or v-brakes on tour.
oh, and those shifters gotta go.
probably go with a 9-spd, as well.
seat looks kinda painful to tour on.
might keep the seatpost, though.

so have to figure those changes to the original
cost of $2000.

on second thought, i'll take a real touring bike
on a tour. save this one for looking kewl
at starbucks.

engineerbob

Point taken. I run 700x23 at about 100 psi. You and I have the same weight. The 1200 is stiff, and it has a steep head tube. The bike has a bad habit of oscillating as it approaches 40 mph. Not a touring bike. Comparing a 26-year-old (glued, not welded) frame to new technology is not even apples and oranges; more like apples and bacon.

djb

engineerbob--apples and bacon, yup that probably sums up the diff between the frames.

and robow--another factor here are teh large tires--these 40s or whatever they are at 50psi or less would take a lot of cush and would be a lot easier on the spokes thats for sure. As you say, it wouldnt make sense for them to put out this bike stock like this if it couldnt take X extra amount of load front and back, but I really do suspect the fatter tires are a factor that comes into play.

DropBarFan

I'd like to see touring bikes where the frame design/material & tire size wasn't dictated by need for adequately comfortable ride. Alu frames save a nice amount of weight that can really help going up big hills. Maybe some minimal suspension to smooth out the ride & allow for lighter higher-pressure tires. Suspension forks add a little weight/complexity sure but on longer rides can save fatigue. Rode a friend's Trek city bike w/suspension fork & love the way it smooths out bumps & with the aluminum frame is still lighter than my Disc Trucker.