Excuse me if it has been discussed but I could not find any information in a search...
Anybody got the Trek 920? If so what do you think of it?

28 spokes. I don't know why Trek would market such a rugged looking bike which such fragile wheels. I guess because they look good, but I wouldn't want to be in the middle of nowhere with them.

Wouldnt be my 1st thru 15th choice for a traditional touring bike or adventure touring bike.
Never ridden it or seen any in the wild.


I would be interested to read some 1st hand reviews of it here too.

I have a 520 which I love so maybe I just stick with it.

An Advanced Search for "920" in thread titles only in the touring forum returned these:


Trek 920 build up notes


Trek 920


Show us your Trek 920


My 920


Trek 920 2016' allready on sale!


Finally got my 920


Trek 920 vs? Iceland Tour + Commuting

Boy some of those got in a pissing contest.

No comment.

I think it was the 2017 720...but maybe the 920 was affected too, that had a voluntary recall due to poorly built wheels that were spoke breakers to start with.

The 920 is the bike that united a subforum.

When I joined Bike Forums there was an internecine conflict raging between the proponents of light touring and those who preferred the fully laden option.

Then those threads happened, as well as some others, and the light vs. heavy conflict sputtered out.

you are wise.
520 is a nice touring machine for touring cyclists who want to tour.
enjoy.

You've got it wrong Marcus, It was only the 720 24 spoke wheels because of bad spokes. I can't remember the years involved.
I have a 920 , it's a great bicycle. It handles very well. Accelerates well, stand up and sprint well. The 1 problem for me was the bar end shifters. I hate them. A bicycle of this quality should have STIs. The wheels are rock solid. No problems at all. A lot of MTBs and tandems have 28* wheels and hold up well. Far more stress than a tourist would put on a pr of wheels. Real touring gearing, below 21 gear inch I believe, as compared to all of the 30 inch or so "adventure " bicycles. I switched to 35 mm tires, The through axles are a good choice, function very well. In a recent thread somebody claimed through axles were only 10% stronger than QRs. I have my doubts about that. But they also said through axle works better with discs. The front rack is bigger than needed, but each rack is about 1.5 lbs. not too bad.
I'll bet that any of the people that made bad claims against the 920 ever rode one. So any information about who has really ridden one is going to be limited. So what you'll really get is a lot of uninformed opinions and very little facts.
So go test ride one and you'll know more. Particularly for those that have leveled uninformed accusations against the 920.
Personally if I were looking now I'ld take a close look at the Co-motion Deusche.

Subscribed.

I've had the same 520 for 23 years. I've rebuilt it 4 times, each time with better and more modern components. Every time I do I have to decide whether I should buy new, or just overhaul my trusty 520 again. I looked at and test rode the 920. It seemed decent enough, except for the shifters, but when I looked at the cost of it, and took in to account that it, as well as most of the other choices within my price range, would come with inferior components than those I would use in a rebuild of the 520, I decided to rebuild. There have been several posts recently by folks who have bought used 520's cheap and built them up with quality components. Of course you could do the same with an LHT or any other worthy touring bike as well. Also, I'd add that the look and geometry of the 920 reminded me a little bit of my 29er MTB. So if that appeals to you, and makes sense for the type of riding you're planning on, consider buying a used 29er and rebuilding it with road friendly wheels, tires etc. I did exactly that with a Haro 29er for use as my winter tour/utility bike. I don't do centuries with it like I do with the 520 but for its intended use, it's worked out well. Just be sure the racks you plan to use will fit because that can be an issue with some of the 29ers.

"It's not about the bike"

Still loving mine, been great so far. I did redo some components though, got rid of the hydro brakes, put on a Jones loop bar and got a set of new rims made. I have loaded it down and it still handled perfect...for me The frame just fits me..and I like the flat green color.

My then GF now wife still likes my 920 over her Surly Ogre. I just tell her its not about the bike

Well, the guy who said that was a cheat and a liar.

I was actually talking about the cause of the discourse in the threads linked to in an earlier post. It was not about the bike!

I'm tossed between a 920 and a Fargo. Obviously, the 920 frame is lighter, and that would be nice, but the Fargo frame is steel, and therefore a little more forgiving. The big problem that I have with the 920 is the crappy components and wheels vs the price. It would be nice to build up a 920 from a frame, but I have not been able to locate any bare frames available. If I did buy a 920, it's probably cost me $1000 to make it right. I'm better off getting a Fargo.

I agree because the frame is not that-bad. From my experience with Bontrager parts, they are mediocre, at best. Even if you didn't immediately toss the components my guess is you'd want to after awhile, especially before heading out an epic round-the-world adventure

One more positive for the Fargo, besides the steel, is it's ability to take much bigger tire widths. The 920 seems limited, by modern standards.

2.3 tires aren't wide enough? It comes with 2.0 tires, fenders will work with the 2.0 I don't know about the 2.3 with fenders.
I like the thru axles, Sram stuff is good. The bar ends were my biggest complaint, rather expensive to replace. I do like the frame. But it's not their best aluminum. It might not be as light as you would expect. You might check the wt vs the Fargo. I'm pulling 28 lbs out of my memory, ??? I think that's with racks & fenders ?? The saddle is nothing great, but I kept in anyway.
For some folks there is their rant about 28 spoke wheels. My opinion is their rant is completely invalid. The wheels are fine. I went to 35 mm tires. There aren't many bicycles with a low gear in the low 20s. I like my 920. I'm 50 lbs overweight and with gear the bicycle is great.
Epic round-the-world? I'ld go to Co-motion.

The specs I remember were 2.25" without fenders and 2.0" with. But even 2.3 is small IMO for the kind of back-country adventures many are doing nowadays. The Fargo specs are up to 3".

Nice to know you've liked your experience with your 920 even with the short comings you've pointed out.

Personally I'm building up an adventure style bike based on the Surly World-Troller frame and using 2.5" tires (albeit 26"). I'm looking toward the future and hopefully doing the Great Divide and/or the Baja Divide (trails not races!). For the Baja Divide in particular my 2.5" tires would be a minimum!

If 29er 2-inch tires aren't enough, you probably are better served with a mountain bike.


Even monster-CX bikes tend not to fit meaningfully larger tires: https://www.curvecycling.com.au/coll...-monster-cross

To be clear: my original statement relates to the 920 vs. Fargo. The Fargo can take up to 3".

Gads! I remember when 2.25" was the standard "fat" tire mountain bike dimension. The current obsession with super fat balloon tires is getting absurd! My current gravel grinder BG Rock'n'Road is made for 45s (about 1.8").

Here I am at "Fat" Tire Bike Week at Crested Butte CO in 1989. I think those are 2.0s...

Especially for sand & desert --> fatter is better (so they say!). The build I'm doing is my first foray into > 2.0". I'm hoping my 2.5" tires will be enough to handle the mixed terrain from paved to desert.