JWK

After a lot of thinking and internet research and talking with my cycling friends, I've come down to choosing between the Trek 920 and the Kona Sutra.

I live in central Maine. 90% of my biking is day rides that are between 30 and 40 miles. By mid summer I'll probably be taking a ride once a week in the 55 to 65 mile range if I follow my cycling patterns from previous years. I ride a mix of horrible pavement, gravel roads and rail trails. Single trail and very rough jeep/logging trails are not part of the choosing criteria.

I ride a Surly Disc Trucker right now with 38mm tires. After riding for the past month, I am absolutely sure that I want to move up to a wider tire. The last ride I took (40 miles) had long stretches of very rough, broken, frost heaved asphalt that really took a lot of enjoyment out of the ride and left me feeling more worn out than I think I should have been.

So that brings us to the two bikes in question. These bikes are not the best for just eveyday riding, but I also want to be able to pack them up a bit for some touring and bike packing. Since I've been riding the Surly for the past five years, I'm used to the stable ride at the expense of agility. I'm OK with that. Same with the weight. However, I do not want to get any more sluggish than the Surly is with 38mm tires.

Even if there were bikes available now, there would be no Sutras or 920s in stock within any reasonable driving distance for me. I was able to try out my friends Kona Sutra in the Boston area a couple of months ago. It was a 54 and I take a 56 with Kona bikes, but it was OK to ride on for an afternoon. We rode around Salem. I was surprised that it seemed more nimble and fun than my Surly trucker. The front end is very similar regarding HT angle and trail. Maybe it was the shorter chainstay, maybe it was just having lots of fun with a friend. It was only one afternoon and I did not get to A&B it with my Surly which was back home in Maine. The bike was riding the stock Mondial 40mm tires. I liked it.

My intent would be to use Rene Herse 700c x 44mm (Snoqualmie Pass) tires on the Trek 920 and 650b x 48mm (Switchback Hill) on the Kona Sutra. The Trek has a BB drop of 85mm, so any 650b/27.5 wheel is out of the question, IMO. The Kona has a BB drop of 72mm. I will be using 170mm crank arms. I am 6' tall with a 34" inseam, if that matters. Either bike can use fatter tires with more tread for the rough stuff if called for, but I'm concentrating on the bulk of my riding time to make my choice.

I have no experience riding a 700 x 44mm tire. I tried a 42mm tire on my Surly once, but it was really cheap, massively heavy (over 900g IIRC) with lots of heavy tread. I got one mile down the road and turned right around, went back home and changed it back to the Panaracer Pasela 38mm. I'm pretty sure the Rene Herse 44mm tire would not feel like that. I have no experience at all with any 650b/27.5 wheel equipped bike.

So that's pretty much it. I've picked the two bikes I can afford that suit my purposes best as far as I can determine. They both have differing pros and cons, but the biggest factor for me to make my choice is to choose between a 700x44 or 650bx47/48. I'm not sure how to do that at this point. I'm hoping someone has some experience with these tire and wheel sizes and can give me their thoughts and opinions.

Side note: Kona is totally out of Sutras until autumn and reportedly no framesets until spring 2021. Trek has framesets now but no complete bikes. Either way, it's OK with me. I can wait if I decide the Sutra is the better choice. If I went with the 920, I would definitely build up a frameset.

Thanks for any thoughts, opinions, advice, etc.

mrv 

https://bikepacking.com/bikes/trek-920-review/

https://bikepacking.com/bikes/kona-sutra-ltd-review/

Trek is aluminum and KONA is steel? I almost always go steel. A personal preference that continues to be heavily influenced by GP at RivBike.
I got my son a Kona Jake the Snake aluminum (rim brake version) with a carbon fork. Love it. It's a great riding bike. Very comfortable. I did a 120 mile ride on it last year.
My grail bike (my wife let me get last year) is a slightly customized GUNNAR CrossHairs. All steel. Also rim brake. I love it. It's the worlds most comfortable bike. I have about a 700c x 38mm tire on that bike now. Don't think I can go fatter. Did a dirt century on it last weekend. Had a blast.

In short, I am no help.

Probably go with which frame lets you run the fattest tires. That way if you want fenders, you can still fit a cushy tire. Hopefully the bikepacking.com reviews help.
I'll bet you'd be equally happy with either.

Toadmeister

I tried out the Sutra LTD (1x11) and liked it and it's ability for wider tires. Sutra steel frame is also my reccomendation over Al Trek. I prefer 1x drivetrains too.

have you considered the Kona Rove? Similar to Sutra LTD but built for 650b. I got my wife this and she loves the stock 650b x47 WTB Ventures.

JWK

I've read both those reviews more than once. They helped narrow my search down to these two bikes. Both bikes run a fat enough tire with room for fenders. The real question is how will a 700x44 compare to a 650bx47/48? It's probably going to be one of those very expensive experiments.

FWIW, I almost always go steel, too. The Trek 920 has me intrigued because of its rather unique geometry. Like a modern, lightweight disc trucker that can take fatter tires.

JWK

I like the Kona Rove ST, but if I went with a bike of that nature, I would without a doubt go with a BMC monster cross disc. I still might, once they restock in the fall (they sold out almost immediately), but the bike isn't meant to handle a load like the 920 and Sutra. My wife says I need two bikes. Maybe she's right, but I don't like taking care of two bikes. I take care of two bikes now. Mine and hers. If I got two bikes, I would be taking care of three bikes.

Toadmeister

If the wife approved 2 bikes, GET THEM BOTH!

I also do maintenance for both my bikes, my wife's, and kids. Worth the price of admission!

pbass

I ride a 2019 Rove ST. I love it. It has a very comfy, lively ride. I ride it everywhere, even where I used to mountain bike. You can shred on it if you're so inclined. FWIW I have loaded up my Rove ST for over-nighters, and long day trips as you describe. I use a frame bag, and Revelate seatbag, feedbag and handlebar bags. For me at least, it rides great like that, handles the load well. I suspect Rove's are also all back-ordered now too though.
Admittedly though, as much as I love the Rove, I want a BMC too--never even ridden one, but I visited the shop once when traveling there. His bikes just speak to me.

jlaw

I agree that once you start riding wider tires, a tire in the 35 - 38mm range starts to seem a little narrow on gravel/broken pavement. I would go with the bike that allows for the widest tire. I am riding Rene Herse Rat Trap Pass (2.3") tires in a standard casing - with tubes. I've had one flat in about 1000 miles and riding them at 20/25 psi on gravel is very nice. Rene Herse now offers 'Endurance' and 'Endurance Plus' casings for more flat-resistance if needed. Running tubeless might also help with flats from smaller debris. I don't see the need for tubeless in my case.

As others have mentioned, the Kona Rove in one of its various iterations is a nice bike with the flexibility to set it up for various purposes. The Rove NRB is an aluminum frame with carbon fork that can take 650bx47 tires - $1799

AlanK

I'd be inclined to a Kona over a Trek. Kona is a small company owned and operated by dedicated cyclists while Trek is the epitome of a soulless corporations that emphasizes marketing more than anything else. Currently the Rove and Sutra are my top considerations. The Rove is a great all around any road bike that can be used for touring while the Sutra is a great touring bike that is a bit more nimble than most, so also works well as an all around bike even if it isn't as sprightly as many might want for commuting, fitness, etc.

Right now I'm inclined to go with the Rove since I don't tour much and pack light when I do. They're both great bikes so I doubt you'll be disappointed with either.

Metieval

thought #1 , are you loaded or unloaded? Unloaded that Trucker is going to ride like crap no matter what.

thought #2 My Trek Crossrip road like crap, I don't see the Trek 920 riding any better. Even on 29's

mstateglfr 

While Mike has said the monstercross isn't designed to be a touring bike, I converted my rim brake model to commuting/touring and its been great.
The heat treated OS tubing, at 8/5/8, is plenty stiff and strong. The bike"s geometry lends itself to be stable when loaded and the front fork handles a rack and panniers just fine.

Yes, an intended touring bike will have thicker tubing, typically.
I am 220# and ride the 65cm frame. Me plus gear is heavier than what a lot of others will have on the bike, and my frame triangle is larger than any rim or MCD triangle, so if mine feels fine then smaller frames won't flex as much.

Just offering up some thoughts since you mentioned the MCD.

JWK

I hear you regarding the Trek corporate thing. It is a factor that does make me lean away from the 920. However, I'm trying to be objective and get the bike that fits my riding the best. But yes, it still gives me pause.

I like the Sutra and may very well end up with one. It ticks an awful lot of boxes and I've actually planted my butt on one, so there's that. The Rove is not a consideration. A nice bike, but the BMC MCD would be my pick if I went in that direction.

JWK

Not trying to give you a hard time or looking for an argument, but I really don't know what you mean by "...ride like crap..."
I do ride my Trucker unloaded. I do not think it rides like crap. That also doesn't mean I love it, but there are things that I really like about it that I've never experienced on another bike. I love the stability screaming down a steep hill. I like the smooth, stable ride when I'm out for a longish ride of 30 - 50 miles. BUT, I don't like the "squish" when I stand up climbing. Just a few things.

But I think there's a factor that is always left out when people talk about riding their truckers unloaded. That is the relationship between their own body weight and the size of their frame. I ride a size 58 and weigh 210 lbs. My wife weighs 100 lbs. less and rides the second smallest size in a trucker. Her frame is much more stiff than mine. She weighs 100 lbs. less. She feels like she's on a crit bike compared to my ride. A lot of guys riding my size frame weigh 20 - 30 lbs. less than I do. I think their unloaded ride might feel a bit more unforgiving than mine. I may not love my trucker for everyday unloaded riding, but uncomfortable and stiff feeling it is not.

Having said all that, I would really like to know what specifically you didn't like about your crossrip. I would imagine it could compare to a present day crosscheck, and I am kinda-sorta considering that bike in the ALR form.

JWK

That's some really helpful feedback. After telling my wife about this post, she said I should buy the 920 frameset now and build it up, then get a BMC Road+ frameset in the fall when they become available. She doesn't know much about bikes, but she's a really good enabler. We'd be broke if I listened to her all the time, but it's nice not being hassled and suppressed when there's something I really want and know will be used.

Metieval

I probably should watch my verbiage. Or expand it. Crap = Not optimal! I only say that because the trucker is designed to be a heavy hauler. so it will ride better load than unloaded. as in add 40-50 lbs to your 210. It's Like my Transit Van, It rides better with 2,000 + lbs in it than it does empty, empty the rear bounces all over the place. even the front snaps back up to hard driving it empty.

The trucker isn't a bad bike, it just has a purpose and at that purpose it rocks, outside of that purpose and well it just isn't as good as 40 other choices. Doesn't make it a bad bike, just a less desirable choice. I know a local guy that loved his trucker, loaded, and loved it unloaded, then he finally swapped bikes for unloaded and he said "OHHHHHH!!!!!"

About my Crossrip, I rode CAAD for 10 + years and many Miles! SO pretty much many Aluminum bike other than caad was going to be a let down.
When I bought thew crossrip my main road bike was an alloy CAAD Synapse.
Stepping into an entry level over built entry level Trek Crossrip which was almost as heavy as top end steel bike. It was brutal! My Crossrip weighed more than a Niner RLT9 863. Trek Alpha 300, I've nothing nice to say about it. And then the Fork it was over built, yet still flexed via twisting in a terrible manner. On pavement frost cracks on an aired down 38c tire was killer. More harsh than my DaweSST AL single speed frame riding on rock hard 25's. Trek also left the Downtube open ended at the BB (to exit internal cables), which in my opinion amplified the Vibrations of the Aluminum down tube. Not only that it allowed for frame flex, way too much frame flex that robbed me of much of my power output. Moseying around at limp speed 15-16 mph it was fine, start pushing it, and well It sucked, no pun intended it sucked like a black hole. In short the crossrip was a turd. Add panniers Gravel panniers which are like front sized panniers! , and it really went noodles.
Trek originally called it a gravel bike, eventually calling it a commuter, and then eventually quietly dropping it from their lineup. Pretty sure they called it by 3 different things too, I'd hate to have been on that marketing team!!!! Hey guys this bike isn't selling, come up with something else to call it so it will sell!!

It was a good looking bike though!, Just sub par for my riding expectations in every single way.