# The Bikepacking Stache: Trek 1120!



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Just saw this on Bikepacking.com. VERY interesting proprietary rack setup! I'm usually not a fan of proprietary stuff, but this setup is pretty cool:

The New 2018 Trek 1120, a Bikepacking Stache - BIKEPACKING.com


----------



## Skeeno (Jan 14, 2009)

Pretty bike, but it's 4x what I paid for my Pine Mountain 1. Can't justify the purchase for myself. Would love to have that front rack for my Pine Mountain and it looks like a good color match. I wonder if they will sell the racks separately.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## dh024 (Dec 11, 2010)

Interesting concept, especially for the handlebar rack/bag. But I don't like the look of the proprietary rear rack/bags at all. Can you imagine having to undo all those compression straps just to grab a sweater or rain jacket? Then you have to do them all up again. I guess if you had a big enough backpack, it might not matter. I just get impatient with fiddly gear.


----------



## ddoh (Jan 11, 2017)

I saw this in the LBS the other day. It's pretty bombproof looking. It is NOT light. Big investment if you purchase everything


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

internal cable routing... FAIL... 

The big thing you want bikepacking/touring bike is easy repairs if needed. 


Need to look at those racks however. I wonder how long before they start cracking and or cracking the frame? The good part of most current bad systems is that they flex and so vibrations are just wear concerns. These will take those vibes and concentrate them and could lead to cracks. Not saying it will happen, but it is a risk. 



Also 31lbs with rigid fork? Kind of boat anchor really.


----------



## forgiven_nick (Nov 7, 2006)

I jotted down my thoughts on this bikepacking plus bike, as well as a few new photos I received from an inside source. I had to add the comparison to the Stache of course, but also critiqued Trek's claim that this is the ultimate off-road touring rig:

http://www.ridealongside.com/trek1120/


----------



## VeloMax (Mar 18, 2017)

Here I am building up my ECR for touring the GD, but this may just be a showstopper for me! :eekster::eekster::eekster:

My impressions are as follows.

Likes:

I like the aluminum frame for some reason - not sure why. My steel frame ECR is truly a nice ride.

I love the racks. Its going to piss off the companies that sell BP bags, because this will allow us to use super ultra-light cuben fiber drybags, save some money, and save some weight.

Along with the above statement, I think that there's a lot of versatility and opportunity for customization with this bike.

I like the gearing. 30T front and 46T low gets us 19.3 gear-inches using Sheldon Brown's calculator. That will grind up a pretty steep grade.

I like the fact that it comes with Chupacabras, despite the fact that most Bontrager gear is mediocre at best.

Dislikes:

Price. I'd say that based on the rather poor components (imho) the msrp is $700 or so too high.

Maybe I'll copy those racks for my ECR. I highly doubt they'll be available for sale individually any time soon.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

VeloMax said:


> I love the racks. Its going to piss off the companies that sell BP bags, because this will allow us to use super ultra-light cuben fiber drybags, save some money, and save some weight.


Sorry, I can't help but find some irony in using "super ultra-light cuben fiber" bags with racks... 

I doubt most companies making BP bags are going to be all that pissed, since their bags will still be lighter than racks, even when paired with cuben fiber bags. That's a big part of the whole idea with the BP approach - a lighter packing system than using racks, along with getting away from attaching additional rigid things to your bike that have a tendency to break over time on rough terrain.

That said, I also recognize that there are plenty of trips where racks are appropriate and you might need more capacity. I'll be curious to see how these hold up after extensive use.

I suppose if you're just going to have one dedicated bike that you trip with, this proprietary approach is workable. Personally, I may use 1 of 4 different bikes, depending on the nature of the trip. My seat and handlebar bags will work on any of them and I try to keep my system as transferable from one bike to the other as possible.



VeloMax said:


> Price. I'd say that based on the rather poor components (imho) the msrp is $700 or so too high.


Agreed. Esp. when you compare it to the real-world price on a Stache 9.6 and what it comes spec'd with. I think I'd take the latter any day over the 1120. With a few tweaks it's still a very capable bikepacking bike, and I'm guessing a lot more fun on technical terrain.

And no thanks on a rigid alloy frame, plus tires or not.


----------



## forgiven_nick (Nov 7, 2006)

I thought the alloy frame of the Stache would be much worse as well, especially with the shortest possible chainstays, but it isn't as bad as I thought. 
Not as nice as steel, even with 29x3 tires, but what is?


----------



## VeloMax (Mar 18, 2017)

Smithhammer said:


> Sorry, I can't help but find some irony in using "super ultra-light cuben fiber" bags with racks...


Yeah ya got me on that one. Kind of like putting front and rear panniers on a Lynskey and toting 70+ lbs of gear around. Rather pointless to own a Ti bike for that because the weight savings become swallowed up by the weight you're packing.



Smithhammer said:


> And no thanks on a rigid alloy frame, plus tires or not.


 Agreed, but it would probably be pretty sweet on some outrageously-long and steep downhills.


----------



## She&I (Jan 4, 2010)

_Light is not right_...novel bikepacking concept. Whatever blows your skirt up.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

forgiven_nick said:


> I thought the alloy frame of the Stache would be much worse as well, especially with the shortest possible chainstays, but it isn't as bad as I thought.
> Not as nice as steel, even with 29x3 tires, but what is?


 Umm, steel?


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Not sure why people are speculating if the racks will be available aftermarket. As mentioned many times, they are proprietary and will only work on the 1120. I haven't seen a good picture of how the front rack mounts, but I'm guessing it mounts to the fork only. In that case, theoretically you could buy the fork and front rack and put them on any number of bikes. Who knows if Trek will sell them aftermarket.

Agreed that the price seems high, but we also don't know what's included in that price. If it includes front and rear racks and front and rear bags, I think it's very reasonable. If it includes only the racks, it's on the high side. If none of the bikepacking stuff is included, seems very high. My guess is it includes the racks but not the bags.

I'll also agree on the possible issues with aluminum racks and frames. I think for a weekend warrior type bikepacker who does some long weekend rides and maybe a longer week or 2 trip here and there, this setup will work great and last a long time. For the guy riding his bike 6 months out of every year, I think it's the wrong choice and things will break down the line and be impossible to fix in the middle of Bolivia.

Although we all want to be in the second group (at least I do!), the reality is most of us are in the first group, and this bike would work well. 

Also, as mentioned, I like the idea of no hard attachment points at all. A completely soft bag setup should be more durable and easier to fix/jury rig in the field when something goes wrong.

Oh, and yeah, I prefer steel or titanium...


----------



## dh024 (Dec 11, 2010)

bikeny said:


> Also, as mentioned, I like the idea of no hard attachment points at all. A completely soft bag setup should be more durable and easier to fix/jury rig in the field when something goes wrong.


Having attempted exactly one bikepacking trip with traditional racks and panniers, I couldn't agree more.

Racks and soft bags isn't really a new idea, though - so I am not sure why Trek's solution is sparking so much interest. Here is a very inexpensive setup that I suspect has more capacity and is even lighter than the Trek 1120 solution (and there are lots of variants out there):









And I would much rather have a horizontal rear rack than the slanted one on the Trek, so you can lash tents, dry bags, fishing rods, etc., without risk of sliding down.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

VeloMax said:


> Yeah ya got me on that one. Kind of like putting front and rear panniers on a Lynskey and toting 70+ lbs of gear around. Rather pointless to own a Ti bike for that because the weight savings become swallowed up by the weight you're packing.


Ha. Yeah, and I'm guilty of it as well. I lean toward the lightest shelters, stoves, etc. and then I often end up carrying it all on a portly steel bike. But I've learned the hard way that when you plan to be far off the beaten path, there are smart places to save weight, and places where added durability is worth the weight.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Nice that Trek is offering something different and addressing the bikepacking segment.
I have been using my Trek Stache 5 for bikepacking not because it was made for bikepacking but in spite of it.
I used it on the Julian Bikepack Challenge (440 miles over 3 distinct loops), the CTR and of course day rides. Next up is the Bones to Blues Race.
I added a Manitou pro fork and a dropper post to it to make it more off road capable and upgraded brakes to XT, 26 tooth steel front ring and an 11 speed 11-46 rear cluster. For the CTR I had a 10 speed 11-42 cluster but added a 32-22 front double that I shifted by hand. I have worn out several tires and now run a Vee tire out back and a Maxxis Minion up front. I also went to flat pedals, a brooks saddle, rear view mirror and swept back bars.
For the Bones to Blues I am running a Nuclear Stitchworks Frame bag, Bedrock front roll and bag and two Bedrock Tapeat bags. Old small seatbag in back and a Osprey Talon 11 backpack.
My big problem is that I am not big! I can't use a seatbag even without a dropper post. I even had trouble running one on my 29er. The new Trek rear rack would address those issues. I had an idea to make a rear rack that would follow the contour of the rear tire and clamp onto the seatpost (below the sliding dropper) and have stays that would attach to the rear dropout adjusters. It would have lashing points for a dry bag and be low enough to allow use of a dropper post It would also double as a rear fender.
I rode my Stache long enough rigid to get a good feel for it. Although I enjoyed it, it really held the bike back on off road excursions. After putting on my fork I am not tempted to go back to a rigid fork. The Stache with a front fork, dropper post and beefier tires is a fantastic off road machine. If I wanted lighter, more hauling capacity and less on road and gravel road rolling resistance then I would just use my Ti 29er.

My impressions of the new 1120?
Nice racks and nice to have mounts on the fork, although I would want a suspension fork.
Not low enough gearing for steep loaded touring. With the huge tires a 30 up front and 11-46 is not low enough in my opinion. I just put on a 26 up front with 11-46 in back and sort of wish I had a 24 up front! One by gearing is not bikepacking friendly because if you gear low enough you run out of high end and visa versa. And the price of SRAM 10-50 is still pretty pricey. I probably will go back to a double up front that I hand shift.
Someone commented on internal cable routing. No big deal in my opinion. Easy enough to change out a cable and I have never had a cable issue crop up over thousands and thousands of miles of bikepacking.
Weight? Well if you want lighter, go carbon, get away from plus size rims and tires and spend a bunch of money on light weight components and gear. But if you are carrying any extra weight on your body then you are looking at the wrong place to save weight!


----------



## krider (Mar 25, 2004)

I really like my 1120. I was using a Stache 7 to bikepack with a Ortlieb handlebar pack, Bedrock Coconino seat bag and a Revelate Designs frame bag. The Stache was a good bikepacking rig IMO, but the 1120 is better. The 1120 rear rack is extremely well constructed and comes with a well thought out and easy to use harness system to secure the dry bags with. The rear luggage system also provides a lot of heel clearance and I like the fact that when the bags are attached, they are no wider than my Jones bars.

The front rack is secured to the fork with four bolts, it is sturdy and includes rubber bumpers that will contact the frame first, rather than the rack itself in the event of a fall. The Ortlieb handle bar bag was a pain to mount and I never liked it hanging from my bars. It was also hard to pack and access when comparded to a 20l drybag that straps to a fork mounted rack.

I have a lot more room than my Stache and the load is better balanced. I pack one 8L dry bag with my cooking gear, food and utensils, and the other dry bag with clothes. The 20l drybag on the front holds my tent, air mattress and sleeping bag.

The bike has a multitude of mounting points, and the internal cabling does






not bother me at all. The rims are tubeless ready, and you can run ridiculously low pressures if need be.

I think Trek did a great job with the 1120.


----------



## Skeeno (Jan 14, 2009)

krider said:


> I really like my 1120. I was using a Stache 7 to bikepack with a Ortlieb handlebar pack, Bedrock Coconino seat bag and a Revelate Designs frame bag. The Stache was a good bikepacking rig IMO, but the 1120 is better. The 1120 rear rack is extremely well constructed and comes with a well thought out and easy to use harness system to secure the dry bags with. The rear luggage system also provides a lot of heel clearance and I like the fact that when the bags are attached, they are no wider than my Jones bars.
> 
> The front rack is secured to the fork with four bolts, it is sturdy and includes rubber bumpers that will contact the frame first, rather than the rack itself in the event of a fall. The Ortlieb handle bar bag was a pain to mount and I never liked it hanging from my bars. It was also hard to pack and access when comparded to a 20l drybag that straps to a fork mounted rack.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the review. Glad it working for you. 
PS are those Jones H Bars?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## krider (Mar 25, 2004)

Skeeno said:


> Thanks for the review. Glad it working for you.
> PS are those Jones H Bars?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


They are


----------



## DeadGrandpa (Aug 17, 2016)

krider said:


> I really like my 1120....
> I think Trek did a great job with the 1120.


I agree. I ordered mine yesterday and should have it next week. ** Your frame bag fits pretty well. Which model/size Revelate bag is that? I like the color of the dry bags in the harness. Are those Weeds brand? Howabout the pedals, are those RaceFace? Any other details you can share? I'm looking forward to multi week trips on mine. I know it's not a perfect bikepacking bike, depending on your frame material prejudices/preferences. I looked at the alternatives but nothing really excited me about any of the others. Awesome orange.


----------



## krider (Mar 25, 2004)

DeadGrandpa said:


> I agree. I ordered mine yesterday and should have it next week. ** Your frame bag fits pretty well. Which model/size Revelate bag is that? I like the color of the dry bags in the harness. Are those Weeds brand? Howabout the pedals, are those RaceFace? Any other details you can share? I'm looking forward to multi week trips on mine. I know it's not a perfect bikepacking bike, depending on your frame material prejudices/preferences. I looked at the alternatives but nothing really excited me about any of the others. Awesome orange.


The frame bag is medium ranger frame bag.The dry bags are 8L Sea to Summit Ultra-Sil nano dry sacs and the pedals are Xpedo face off.

The frame size is a 19.5"


----------



## Ogdenman (May 12, 2017)

*Trek 1120..BOB"S LAKE UTAH*

:madman: All Things Bike: Bike Packing: Bob's Lake :smallviolin:

:madman::eekster:Check Out Nate's set up and bikepacking trip from our shop's blog! 1120 goodness.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

looks like a sweet hunting rig, but yes put a double on her.


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

Where's the "frame-fork-racks" option to buy this bike?

Like so many others, I already have an IGH disc brake wheelset, XT brakes and Jones bars...


----------



## TheArmand (Jul 6, 2011)

Seems like a silly bike, as far as the racks are concerned. Coming from an Industrial Designers perspective, Trek seemed to try *really hard* to create something original in the bikepacking market, but it seems questionable if it is really any better. People ditched racks for a reason, they break. Trek brought it back in a novel way, but had to make the bike a tank to ensure reliability. Sure, it will survive typical riding conditions, but I've had bad crashes where I've seen my bike toss and hit the ground for 2-3 revolutions. I'd hate for a rack to break in that event in the middle of nowhere. For the casual camper who isn't concerned about weight, the bike should do fine. That orange is fugly though. 

They will likely sell well to those who have never bikepacked before, or seen a bike like that in person. Any bike shop I've ever been to across the country that carries Trek typically does not have bikepacking gear (exceptions I'm sure). The locals around here (who have never heard of bikepacking) who saw it at the LBS talk about it like it's some type of revelation they've created. I'll stick to my bikepacking bags that have been thoughtfully designed through passionate use over the span of 10+ years.


----------



## DeadGrandpa (Aug 17, 2016)

I dunno, TheArmand. I don't have 10 years experience bikepacking; only a 500 mile ride in Alaska with bikepacking bags strapped to my rigid Jamis Renegade. The front rack on the 1120 gets the handlebar roll clear of the brake levers and cables. The rear rack lowers the center of gravity compared to the seat bag I used, and the harness system that holds dry bags is at least as secure, probably more so, than panniers. I held the racks before they assembled my 1120, and they seemed freakishly light. Will they hold up if I crash? Probably as well as my 65 year old body will. You don't care for the Orange? The orange racks sold me on the bike, rather than any other brand. I'm guessing you are not an orange liking kind of person.


----------



## raekism (Apr 6, 2009)

Here is my Trek 1120 having some snow and freezing temp fun. I bikepacked on a 29er hardtail and Trek Farley Carbon. The 1120 is awesome when you look at everything. The 1120 can definitely handle singletrack and keeping everything secure, no adjusting every so miles. I did about 55-60miles and never adjusted anything once.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

I'm really digging this bike. I keep coming back to it. I like racks, but most are pretty noodely. 

My primary concern is, can I put a double on it, maybe even a triple? I like my gear range 

Also, 28 spoke wheels. Really? Go for stiff 32 spoke at least, IMO. I already have a dyno hub disc front and a good DT Swiss rear wheel, 10mm thru axle (for traditional dropouts), but I don't think they're wide enough rims for plus size tires. 

I currently run a 29er mountain bike with racks. Yeah, this is probably me. Mid age, weekend camper, not really long distance touring, although I may do a week long trip in the next year or so. Nothing too heavy.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

For those following the 1x vs 2x drivetrain issue on the 1120:

I chatted with a guy from Trek. He says the max chainring you can put on there is a 34t, and even that might be tight. Also, he said there was nowhere to bolt on a front derailleur. 

Looking at the pics closer, there might be room for a low-clamp front derailleur under the chainstay, which then brings up the question of where to bolt on a cable stop. Also, will the rear of the derailleur cage clear the chainstay. 

Ugh. 30x11 stock top gear would not be nearly tall enough for me, but I don't want to give up the low gear (which my fat behind needs, especially around here, especialyspecialy fully loaded). 

I'm afraid this one issue alone might be a deal killer for me. Too bad, it hit all the other points for me. Sano rack solution, 29+ wheel size, etc. I was considering a Krampus, but that's a really heavy feeling bike... and I'm not talking just weight. It just felt pig-ish. 

Also, is anybody aware of a way to get a 9mm quick release hub to work wiht a 110mm boost thru axle fork? I have a wheelset already built with a dyno hub. I hate to blow another $250 on a new hub and rebuild my wheelset to accommodate the fork.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> For those following the 1x vs 2x drivetrain issue on the 1120:
> 
> I chatted with a guy from Trek. He says the max chainring you can put on there is a 34t, and even that might be tight. Also, he said there was nowhere to bolt on a front derailleur.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure there is no way to us a 9mm QR wheel on a 110 Boost fork. Then again, you will have this problem with any modern bike.

As for gearing, obviously, it's a very personal thing, and dependent on fitness, terrain, trail type, etc...

Please don't take this the wrong way as it's not meant in a negative way, but for this style of bike, top end gearing generally doesn't matter. When you are riding trails, if you are going more than 15mph, you are not pedaling anymore. I'm too lazy to calculate what speed you would be going with 29+ wheels and 30x11 gearing, but I'm sure it's plenty fast. At least for me!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

bikeny said:


> I'm pretty sure there is no way to us a 9mm QR wheel on a 110 Boost fork. Then again, you will have this problem with any modern bike.
> 
> As for gearing, obviously, it's a very personal thing, and dependent on fitness, terrain, trail type, etc...
> 
> Please don't take this the wrong way as it's not meant in a negative way, but for this style of bike, top end gearing generally doesn't matter. When you are riding trails, if you are going more than 15mph, you are not pedaling anymore. I'm too lazy to calculate what speed you would be going with 29+ wheels and 30x11 gearing, but I'm sure it's plenty fast. At least for me!


 Using dt swiss hubs? Some are convertible. 30 x 11? Not enough. Some times I pedal pave connectors, a lot. Doesn't everyone like to pedal fast on the downhill pave or dirt road?


----------



## 202cycle (Dec 6, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Using dt swiss hubs? Some are convertible. 30 x 11? Not enough. Some times I pedal pave connectors, a lot. Doesn't everyone like to pedal fast on the downhill pave or dirt road?


I believe that any (DT) non boost hub will need the help of a Boostinator to convert. the hub shells are not wide enogh for the disc brake mounts, and the end caps are the same for boost and non boost. it is the hub shell that is wider. I agree with the 30 X 11 issue. This bike should have been spec'ed with the GX Eagle and a 32 tooth ring at least.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

bikeny said:


> I'm pretty sure there is no way to us a 9mm QR wheel on a 110 Boost fork. Then again, you will have this problem with any modern bike.
> 
> As for gearing, obviously, it's a very personal thing, and dependent on fitness, terrain, trail type, etc...
> 
> Please don't take this the wrong way as it's not meant in a negative way, but for this style of bike, top end gearing generally doesn't matter. When you are riding trails, if you are going more than 15mph, you are not pedaling anymore. I'm too lazy to calculate what speed you would be going with 29+ wheels and 30x11 gearing, but I'm sure it's plenty fast. At least for me!


I already bikepack with a 29er hardtail. I ran a 44x11 top gear and spun that out on a regular basis, so I put a 48t big ring on there. Better!

So, I know 30t ring will be a problem for me. I might be good with a 30x42t low gear. I'm currently running 22x36 low gear, so this is in the ballpark.

And on dirt, I know I'm pedaling over 15 mph on a regular basis. Mostly on a slight down slope, especially when I'm trying to build up enough speed to make the next hill.

Yeah, you're right about the hub. I'll probably have to sell my current dyno front wheel and just build another one.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

leeboh said:


> Using dt swiss hubs? Some are convertible. 30 x 11? Not enough. Some times I pedal pave connectors, a lot. Doesn't everyone like to pedal fast on the downhill pave or dirt road?


I love pedaling the downs. Pleas don't take away one of my great pleasures in life!

True. I currently live in Oakland. One of my favorite ways to spend a weekend is to pedal to West Oakland Bart, get off in SF and pedal across the Golden Gate Bridge to Marin and up railroad grade or a Coastal Trail to camp on mount tam. That's about 20 miles pave and 10 miles of dirt.

That's a lot of pave, and a lot of cars to battle. Id like to keep my V up when possible.


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

Did a short offroad tour on the new Stache last week with 30T front and 11-50x12 Sunrace cassette. Used the 30x50 plenty, 11 & 13 not at all, 15 & 17 barely. I have a 28T ring to fit but am thinking maybe 26T might be better (for me). Note that I'm a spinner and don't care about pedalling on fast road descents. I also did a marathon series several years ago and didn't use a higher gear than 32x11, with 26" wheels, so 28x11 with 29+ is higher.

It might be possible to fit a 2x spider with a narrow-wide outer plus small inner ring and do a manual shift if lower gears are needed than 1x can provide, but I doubt any sort of front derailleur will fit.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

For those who haven't seen it yet, here is a review:

Trek 1120 Review - BIKEPACKING.com


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

I test rode the 1120 the other day. It's quite impressive, I must say. It handles a lot lighter than it's 30 pounds and chubby would suggest. It must be those short chainstays. I was all set to put some 2.0-2.2 tires on it for most uses, but it seemed to handle well enough on pave that I'm not that concerned. In the past, I always felt that Trek bikes seemed to feel a little 'dead fish', a little lifeless. The 1120 felt pretty lively, actually.

I keep circling around to the gearing issue. I just spent some time with the Sheldon Brown (rest his soul) gear calculator. If I'm spinning out 116 gear inches, I have a hard time with the idea of settling for 76 gear inches for a top gear. I dig this bike enough to maybe just buy it and try it to see how much it bugs me. Seems all the cool kids are riding 1x drivetrains these days, and maybe I just need to go with it and stop worrying about specs on paper. 

I was thinking, what about using an E-Type derailleur, the kind that mounts behind the right BB cup? I see they use a PF92 bottom bracket with RaceFace cranks with a direct mount single 30t chainring. I'm searching for alternative cranks to get me a double. There are 2x and 3x RaceFace Cinch spiders available that should fit this crank. I guess the questions are these: Would the chainline be correct (more or less), and would there be clearance around that elevated right chainstay for a bigger ring? I guess it's time for expensive experiments to find out. I at least have a pretty big stack of spare chainrings (all 9 speed, tho) in the parts bin. 

I was looking at it, and it looks like there is room for it. The other option is, there are two bottle cage bosses on the seat tube down low, and another on the aft part the seat tube for a fender. I'm thinking I may try to fabricate a direct mount type bracket to use these mounting points for an E2 type direct bolt on front derailleur. 

Or, maybe just drill and crimp in some bosses right into the frame. Clearly that would void the warranty, and I hate to do that right off the bat.

Anyway, my ears are still perked up, and I got a fat bonus coming to me at the end of summer.


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

PB - I've got a RaceFace cinch double adaptor with one stripped hole on the small sprocket mount (#1531A5) if you want it to experiment with your sprocket inventory. At least that way you can see sprocket clearances and make a judgment call on a derailleur that might work. Shoot me a PM if you do.

I like the look and concept of this bike, but can't find one anywhere near me to touch, feel and ride. It was on my list for a next bike/build. Ended up going with a Surly ECR with a BBS02B E-assist conversion for a variety of others uses, but still like this Trek. Wish someone would stock it in SoCal&#8230;


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> I test rode the 1120 the other day. It's quite impressive, I must say. It handles a lot lighter than it's 30 pounds and chubby would suggest. It must be those short chainstays. I was all set to put some 2.0-2.2 tires on it for most uses, but it seemed to handle well enough on pave that I'm not that concerned. In the past, I always felt that Trek bikes seemed to feel a little 'dead fish', a little lifeless. The 1120 felt pretty lively, actually.
> 
> I keep circling around to the gearing issue. I just spent some time with the Sheldon Brown (rest his soul) gear calculator. If I'm spinning out 116 gear inches, I have a hard time with the idea of settling for 76 gear inches for a top gear. I dig this bike enough to maybe just buy it and try it to see how much it bugs me. Seems all the cool kids are riding 1x drivetrains these days, and maybe I just need to go with it and stop worrying about specs on paper.
> 
> ...


I think if you really need a double crank you should look elsewhere, it's not worth trying to rig something up.

But for what this bike is supposed to be used for, do you really need more? I punched the drivetrain into that Sheldon calculate and got a high of 81.5 and a low of 19.5 gear inches. 81.5 gear inches spinning at 120 RPM equals 29.1 MPH. Do you really need to be pedaling faster than that? If you are spinning out 116 gear inches you are going over 41 MPH! Who pedals at that speed? At that point you are obviously going down a big hill and should be resting!

I find that on a bikepacking bike, the top end is of little use. Most of your riding will be in the lower half of the gears.


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

bikeny said:


> I find that on a bikepacking bike, the top end is of little use. Most of your riding will be in the lower half of the gears.


Totally agree. The first trip on the Stache I had the stock 30T ring and an 11-50 cassette. I used the 15T once, briefly, and the 11 & 13 not at all. On the other hand the 50T got a lot of use, so I bought a 28T chainring, the smallest RaceFace offer; I very rarely use gears over 70" off-road.

As for 116" off-road - WTF?!? I don't see the point having a gear that big on the *road bike* as it would only be useful occasionally on very fast descents; might as well tuck and save energy.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

satanas said:


> Totally agree. The first trip on the Stache I had the stock 30T ring and an 11-50 cassette. I used the 15T once, briefly, and the 11 & 13 not at all. On the other hand the 50T got a lot of use, so I bought a 28T chainring, the smallest RaceFace offer; I very rarely use gears over 70" off-road.
> 
> As for 116" off-road - WTF?!? I don't see the point having a gear that big on the *road bike* as it would only be useful occasionally on very fast descents; might as well tuck and save energy.


But most bikepack trips incorporate some road in them and for long gravel downhills you can use a bigger gear. Ask Niel Belchenko if he wishes he had a bigger gear during his drag race with JP and Josh Kato to the Tour Divide finish! He had a one by and the other guys had front rings.

I set up my Stache with a double up front that I shift by hand. If I were to gear it low enough for the long uphills then I am giving up too much top end. Besides it is nice to move your legs on a downhill.


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

^ A bigger gear than what? I've only used a gear bigger than ~90" a very few times (could count on one hand) even when I had one, and did an 8 hour race series once without going over 76"; I had higher gears but never needed them. The current World Cup champion uses 38x10 but most of us aren't him, aren't racing, and are carrying gear; 116" is a higher gear than 38x10...

You can still "move your legs on a downhill" - it's called "spinning." ;-)


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

satanas said:


> ^ A bigger gear than what? I've only used a gear bigger than ~90" a very few times (could count on one hand) even when I had one, and did an 8 hour race series once without going over 76"; I had higher gears but never needed them. The current World Cup champion uses 38x10 but most of us aren't him, aren't racing, and are carrying gear; 116" is a higher gear than 38x10...
> 
> You can still "move your legs on a downhill" - it's called "spinning." ;-)


Personally on a downhill I prefer to not spin a high cadence yet still have resistance. I don't turn a high rpm for all day riding. It is about pacing for me and keeping a steady and consistent pressure on the pedals. This style of riding needs a bigger range.

But I agree that (depending on route) that most people would be better off with a lower gear. I run a 22-34 for my front rings on my Stache and an 11-46 in back. Trust me I use the low gears plenty! Hence my move to a double.

For a route like the tour divide you want a big range of gears and for others like the Colorado trail you want to go low. But I like a wide range of gears. If you have a fast downhill and a tailwind who doesn't want to mash the pedals?


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

richwolf said:


> If you have a fast downhill and a tailwind who doesn't want to mash the pedals?


Me; I'm a spinner, and am happy to tuck when going really fast, however, that only usually happens on bitumen. Off-road descents are usually rough enough one is standing and trying to avoid obstacles, not sitting and spinning out. There are rare exceptions, but I'd rather have closer ratios in the range I use often than high gears that might get used a few times a year. Obviously YMMV.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

On many of my bikepacking "races" and trips there have been many instances on dirt where you can comfortably go over 30 miles and hour or more. Tour divide has lots of these instances.
Of course pro XC racers can spin at crazy speeds but they are much fitter and their races only last 90 minutes or so. Much different than this old man being on a loaded bike for hours on end. Nino Shurter gears his bike with a 38 tooth front ring which would be suicide for me or a lot of walking.
High cadence means higher heart rates. You need to balance heart rate and cadence for long efforts.
Here is an interesting site that allow you to determine bicycle speed at different gear inches and different cadences. BikeCalc.com - Speed at all Cadences for any Gear and Wheel
Just plug in your bike's details.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Jay Petervary and wide range gearing: https://bikerumor.com/2017/08/18/aa...e-gearing-for-bikepacking-with-jay-petervary/


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

^ I don't think either Jay or Nino are normal human beings(!), so the gearing they use shouldn't be held up as an example for everyone. Gearing is one thing where what works for differently people varies hugely, and prescribing gearing for others just doesn't work, IME, especially for touring.

With racing, people tend to train similarly, ride at similar speeds, etc, so things can be more uniform, but there are still outliers, for instance Jay, Nino & Tony Martin use higher gears than most, while Ned Overend and Juli Furtado used lower ones. If you look at fixed gear or SS riders, it is obvious some folks survive just fine on a very limited gear range.

It's always been the case (IMHO) that road bikes have been overgeared for non-elite riders, especially spinners, though that's been changing recently. There's always been a demand from some riders though for what I'd regard as excessively high gears; but these are now usually provided by default, and are hard to avoid. :-(

One of the good things about 1x is the ease of shifting the whole range up or down as desired just by swapping out the chainring, but gear spacing and range are still limited, even with Eagle or the new XTR.

Whatever gearing one ends up with, it's all about compromise...


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Trying to win the Tour Divide and a weekend warrior out for a couple nights of bikepacking are totally different things. I can see needing a wider gear range on something like the Tour Divide, but then again, that ride is more of a rugged Gravel Grinder, and the winning bikes these days are setup more like road bikes with big tires. For bikepacking on trails, which is what the 1120 is aimed at, that top end is not needed.

I actually like that idea of mounting a double chainring crank and switching gears by hand. As long as you're not in a huge hurry!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

richwolf said:


> High cadence means higher heart rates.


That is totally not true. Higher cadences are actually more efficient most of the time.


----------



## Skeeno (Jan 14, 2009)

My first bike pack I had a manual shift on the front ring. I don't think I ever shifted out of the small ring.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

bikeny said:


> That is totally not true. Higher cadences are actually more efficient most of the time.


From what I have read heart rate goes up with cadence since you are not only powering the bike forward but you are using more energy turning your legs over.

Do you have conflicting information?

One example: Interesting relationship between heart rate and pedal cadence


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

satanas said:


> ^ I don't think either Jay or Nino are normal human beings(!), so the gearing they use shouldn't be held up as an example for everyone. Gearing is one thing where what works for differently people varies hugely, and prescribing gearing for others just doesn't work, IME, especially for touring.
> 
> With racing, people tend to train similarly, ride at similar speeds, etc, so things can be more uniform, but there are still outliers, for instance Jay, Nino & Tony Martin use higher gears than most, while Ned Overend and Juli Furtado used lower ones. If you look at fixed gear or SS riders, it is obvious some folks survive just fine on a very limited gear range.
> 
> ...


My point with the Jay Petervary article was to show that even people like Jay find they need more range than what a one by can provide. In fact for people like me we may be able to use his top end but need more bottom end.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

bikeny said:


> Trying to win the Tour Divide and a weekend warrior out for a couple nights of bikepacking are totally different things. I can see needing a wider gear range on something like the Tour Divide, but then again, that ride is more of a rugged Gravel Grinder, and the winning bikes these days are setup more like road bikes with big tires. For bikepacking on trails, which is what the 1120 is aimed at, that top end is not needed.
> 
> I actually like that idea of mounting a double chainring crank and switching gears by hand. As long as you're not in a huge hurry!


I did the TD, AZT (twice) Colorado trail and several other bikepack events and adventures so I am pretty familiar with a wide range of bikepack courses. Why not gear for what you need and want?? I set my Stache up with an 1120 rack and it is a pretty similar bike. I found that I needed more range than what one by offers.
To me the concerns I have with the 1120 is the gearing range and the rigid front fork. For trail riding a rigid fork just doesn't cut it for me. In fact I dropped my dropper post in favor of a thudbuster for added comfort.


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

So, I'm not really a fan of 1x (or SRAM), but it does have its good points. Most of the time 500% is enough range, and if one must compromise the high and/or low gears, these aren't typically used all that much. Plus 1x makes things simpler (mechanically and mentally), makes finding space for a dropper lever easy, saves a bit of weight, simplifies rear suspension design, etc.

Having said that, I prefer closer ratios than 1x typically provides, which means more gears are needed to give enough range; that means 2x (or 3x), or a Rohloff hub, etc. A bit more range doesn't hurt, but even in the Himalayas 16-99" was plenty last time. Top and bottom gears didn't see much use, but I was really glad the lowest gear was there on those occasions I had to use it.

I'm off to the Himalayas again in four weeks, this time with a Rohloff hub, and will be gearing the bike low enough to deal with rough climbs off-road at 4-5000+ metres altitude. That means the top gear won't be super high, but one can always coast downhill; uphill, not so much. ;-)

Some people like to spin, while some don't (or can't), so gearing will vary. There's not much point arguing about what suits...


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

satanas said:


> So, I'm not really a fan of 1x (or SRAM), but it does have its good points. Most of the time 500% is enough range, and if one must compromise the high and/or low gears, these aren't typically used all that much. Plus 1x makes things simpler (mechanically and mentally), makes finding space for a dropper lever easy, saves a bit of weight, simplifies rear suspension design, etc.
> 
> Having said that, I prefer closer ratios than 1x typically provides, which means more gears are needed to give enough range; that means 2x (or 3x), or a Rohloff hub, etc. A bit more range doesn't hurt, but even in the Himalayas 16-99" was plenty last time. Top and bottom gears didn't see much use, but I was really glad the lowest gear was there on those occasions I had to use it.
> 
> ...


I would like to hear about your adventure and see pics!


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

Probably OT here as I'm not taking the Stache, but rather a Crust Scapegoat. I'll be away for some months so no promises on when/if any pix might be posted, probably in the touring/bikepacking forum if it happens.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

richwolf said:


> Personally on a downhill I prefer to not spin a high cadence yet still have resistance. I don't turn a high rpm for all day riding. It is about pacing for me and keeping a steady and consistent pressure on the pedals. This style of riding needs a bigger range.
> 
> But I agree that (depending on route) that most people would be better off with a lower gear. I run a 22-34 for my front rings on my Stache and an 11-46 in back. Trust me I use the low gears plenty! Hence my move to a double.
> 
> For a route like the tour divide you want a big range of gears and for others like the Colorado trail you want to go low. But I like a wide range of gears. If you have a fast downhill and a tailwind who doesn't want to mash the pedals?


Agreed. Some of the routes I've done involve long road descents where cars are passing me at 50. I like to keep my speed up, but I don't need to spin a 120 cadence. 100 is just fine.

So, I pulled the trigger on the bike. I'll see how it goes with the stock gearing, but I'm not optimistic. And yeah, around here I need the low gearing, too.

So, I've been doing this a while, although I'm not in great shape. I need my short gears, and I need my tall gears. If I were in great shape, I could probably do without the low gears and bias towards the taller gears, but I'm not. However, I do know what I like in gear and fit.

Anyway, I should have the bike by next week. I'll ride it to work a few times before I do anything drastic.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

richwolf said:


> I would like to hear about your adventure and see pics!


was thinking the same thing!!!

and I am stealing your quote about coasting downhill, but not up!!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> Agreed. Some of the routes I've done involve long road descents where cars are passing me at 50. I like to keep my speed up, but I don't need to spin a 120 cadence. 100 is just fine.
> 
> So, I pulled the trigger on the bike. I'll see how it goes with the stock gearing, but I'm not optimistic. And yeah, around here I need the low gearing, too.
> 
> ...


Still sounds to me like it's not the right bike for you. There are other 29+ bikes that can accommodate a front derailleur and wider range gearing.

But since you pulled the trigger, I guess you have 3 options.

1: Keep the 1x gearing and get the widest range cassette possible. Decide if you want to keep it 11 speed or jump to 12 speed. Going to 12 will give you slightly smaller gaps between gears, but will be $$$$, new shifter, derailleur, cassette, & XD driver(or rear hub). SRAM 12 speed will get you 500%, new Shimano XTR 12 speed will get you 510%, and staying 11 speed with an E.13 9-46 cassette will get you 511%. The E.13 cassette also requires an XD driver. Size the chainring according to the lowest gear you need, and see where the top end ends up. Sounds like chainring size is 34t max, so that's another issue.

2: Mount a double chainring setup and shift by hand. Looks like the crank is a Race Face Cinch, so you should be able to just buy a spider and 2 chainrings instead of a whole new crankset.

3: Mount a double chainring setup and try to jury rig a front derailleur. I think you are going to have a hard time getting this to work, but if you do, please post up what you did, as I'm sure others would be interested.

Good luck!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

I still run 3x9 on 3 bikes. It works well with a 64/104 bcd. Don't drink the marketing Kool aide. 1X work fine on my fatty, but missing range on both ends and wider cassette gaps. To me it would seem that a bikepacking ride would want to have the widest range of gearing possible, that riders could use for diverse routes, paved, singletrack, steep gravel grinds etc. Here in New England, I always have to do at least some pave to connect the dots, or paved bike paths at least. I never want to be redlining slogging my fat butt up a long pitch, spinning is much better for me. I spend a lot of time in the 22-36 on the Karate Monkey hauling lots of weight. Would not spend $$ for a bikepacking rig with no way to use a front der. My 2 cents anyway.


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

bikeny said:


> But since you pulled the trigger, I guess you have 3 options.
> 
> 1: Keep the 1x gearing and get the widest range cassette possible. Decide if you want to keep it 11 speed or jump to 12 speed. Going to 12 will give you slightly smaller gaps between gears, but will be $$$$, new shifter, derailleur, cassette, & XD driver(or rear hub). SRAM 12 speed will get you 500%, new Shimano XTR 12 speed will get you 510%, and staying 11 speed with an E.13 9-46 cassette will get you 511%. The E.13 cassette also requires an XD driver. Size the chainring according to the lowest gear you need, and see where the top end ends up. Sounds like chainring size is 34t max, so that's another issue.
> 
> ...


Re #1 above: Somebody recently posted on the main Stache thread that a 9T cog won't work as the chain fouls the dropout, so I'd think 10T was safer. If you use a Sunrace 11-50x12 cassette it fits on the stock Shimano-style freehub body and shifts fine with a GX Eagle shifter, chain and rear derailleur; with any luck the forthcoming XTR M9100 shifter and RD should work too - I'm not keen on SRAM's shifter ergonomics. Max chainring size is 34T round (not oval) but IIRC some have said the chain hits the chainstay with a 50T rear cog with this combo, so YMMV.

Option #2 should be workable somehow, especially with Shimano and 11 speeds. Dunno about SRAM and/or 12, though maybe the new XTR might work with some crankset or other.

Re #3: I can't see any way a FD will fit, especially with a larger ring. The seat tube is a complicated non-round 3d curved shape so attaching one to it would be difficult(!), and since there's no external cup an E-type won't attach either. Then there's the problem of how the parallelogram is going to fit in the space that isn't available, etc. Maybe some sort of pushrod mechanism could be custom fabricated and attached via a 3d printed mount, but #2 would be much easier to do.

Given the limitations imposed by the frame, I suspect the widest gear range would be with new XTR 2x12 (or 2x11?) with a 10-45 cassette and something like 34x24 rings, but minus the front derailleur. Or else 10-42x11 SRAM cassette and 2x with a Shimano GS RD, again without a FD; there are 44T low gear cogs available aftermarket. I doubt there's any cheap easy way to get a 10T cog on there...

Best of luck. ;-)


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> Agreed. Some of the routes I've done involve long road descents where cars are passing me at 50. I like to keep my speed up, but I don't need to spin a 120 cadence. 100 is just fine.
> 
> So, I pulled the trigger on the bike. I'll see how it goes with the stock gearing, but I'm not optimistic. And yeah, around here I need the low gearing, too.
> 
> ...


While not perfect there is a LOT to like about the 1120. The rear rack setup is the bomb and off road the 3 inch tires make for a stable confidence inspiring ride. And on road they are fine.
I put a double on my stache and although not ideal it addresses the gearing issues of a one by.
The front rack is very nice but at the cost of having to run a rigid fork. I guess time will tell if you want to go with a front suspension fork or not. If you do you can still mount water bottles on the front fork and use a handlebar roll for your gear.
Have fun with it!


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

richwolf said:


> While not perfect there is a LOT to like about the 1120. The rear rack setup is the bomb and off road the 3 inch tires make for a stable confidence inspiring ride. And on road they are fine.
> I put a double on my stache and although not ideal it addresses the gearing issues of a one by.
> The front rack is very nice but at the cost of having to run a rigid fork. I guess time will tell if you want to go with a front suspension fork or not. If you do you can still mount water bottles on the front fork and use a handlebar roll for your gear.
> Have fun with it!


Thanks!

Can you please post a pic of your 2x rig on the Stache frame? I kinda want to see what you did.

Well, rats. mtbr.com won't let me upload any pics. Weird. I never had this problem before.

I'm thinking of going with the E-Type rig. There is the E-Type derailleurs that are basically mounted with two allen screws. I think I can fairly easily fabricate a plate that goes between the bottle boss on the front to the fender bolt on the back of the seat tube, or maybe up to the underside bottle boss on the downside of the seat tube. Seems like there is enough room behind there. And, failing that I can do the hack of just skipping the derailleur altogether and manual shifting between 'flat/downhill' mode and 'climb' mode.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Can you please post a pic of your 2x rig on the Stache frame? I kinda want to see what you did.
> 
> ...


I just got a shimano double ring hollowtech crank and slapped it in. Pretty easy really. I have a 34 -22 ring setup. You might want to get a wide narrow ring for your large ring.
Is it perfect?? No but it works well enough for me. I would not bother with trying to put on a front derailleur unless you are real handy and have lots of time on your hands. Even then I don't think it would work.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Did some manual shifting once. Took a 2ft thin tent pole and taped a curved finish nail to the end. On bike, lift the chain to the bigger ring while coasting. Down shift? Use your toe.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

Yeah, downshifting is easy with your toe or heal while pedaling with left foot. The upshifting usually requires a stop though.


----------



## k9adv (Mar 17, 2018)

richwolf said:


> I set my Stache up with an 1120 rack and it is a pretty similar bike.


richwolf,

got pics of how you mounted the 1120 rear rack on your bike?

i am particularly interested in what you did for the rearmost bolts on the seatstays.

Also, do you have the part number for the rear rack, and did it come with the harness system too? how much was the rack?

thanks.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

richwolf said:


> I just got a shimano double ring hollowtech crank and slapped it in. Pretty easy really. I have a 34 -22 ring setup. You might want to get a wide narrow ring for your large ring.
> Is it perfect?? No but it works well enough for me. I would not bother with trying to put on a front derailleur unless you are real handy and have lots of time on your hands. Even then I don't think it would work.


Hmmmm... that easy, eh?

I just read that the PF92 is basically the same dimensions as a HT2 setup as far as the crank is concerned... minus the threaded cups. Boost moves the chainline centerline out 3mm, but that doesn't seem too bad... as long as I don't crosschain too much.

I may just try it with my Shimano XT 22/32/44 or 48 If there's room) triple just to test fit for space. I already own the parts, right? It's an easy experiment. I could probably even use a double 30/42 to see if that goes.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

k9adv said:


> richwolf,
> 
> got pics of how you mounted the 1120 rear rack on your bike?
> 
> ...


A trek dealer can order the rack for you. Harness system is extra like almost $80 per side! I didn't get them.

Look at my Trek 560 thread a bit down on this bikepacking forum for more details. I no longer use u-bolts. 2 P-clamps and 4 hose clamps.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> Hmmmm... that easy, eh?
> 
> I just read that the PF92 is basically the same dimensions as a HT2 setup as far as the crank is concerned... minus the threaded cups. Boost moves the chainline centerline out 3mm, but that doesn't seem too bad... as long as I don't crosschain too much.
> 
> I may just try it with my Shimano XT 22/32/44 or 48 If there's room) triple just to test fit for space. I already own the parts, right? It's an easy experiment. I could probably even use a double 30/42 to see if that goes.


Yes, if it was easy for me then it should be no problem! I don't know about a triple but let us know how that goes. I don't know if anything larger than a 34 tooth ring is going to work?


----------



## satanas (Feb 12, 2005)

Any ring >34T is pretty likely to hit the chainstay, and then there's chain clearance... Maybe the inner two rings from a triple might work, but the chain is likely to hit the tyre on the inner ring. :-(


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

bikeny said:


> I think if you really need a double crank you should look elsewhere, it's not worth trying to rig something up.
> 
> But for what this bike is supposed to be used for, do you really need more? I punched the drivetrain into that Sheldon calculate and got a high of 81.5 and a low of 19.5 gear inches. 81.5 gear inches spinning at 120 RPM equals 29.1 MPH. Do you really need to be pedaling faster than that? If you are spinning out 116 gear inches you are going over 41 MPH! Who pedals at that speed? At that point you are obviously going down a big hill and should be resting!
> 
> I find that on a bikepacking bike, the top end is of little use. Most of your riding will be in the lower half of the gears.


I second this. But I'm not a racer. I think a SRAM Eagle 1x12 would give you all the gearing you need. The prices have come way down for the GX level, as well, which I have on my full-suspension bike and seems to work perfectly.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

Ailuropoda said:


> I second this. But I'm not a racer. I think a SRAM Eagle 1x12 would give you all the gearing you need. The prices have come way down for the GX level, as well, which I have on my full-suspension bike and seems to work perfectly.


Who wants to spin at 120 rpm cadence?  I'm no racer either.... which is why I need the gears. :thumbsup:

The problem I have is not the number of gears, but the range. Yes I can get a low enough gear, but you can only go down to 11t in back... maybe 10. If I had a 60t cog in back I could use a bigger ring up front and get a tall enough gear for the top gear, but that's kind of crazy.

The crank on the bike was replaced by a crank with a GPX spider. I'm thinking a double with a 30t middle and a 42-something ring in the outer position so it may clear the elevated chainstay would be great. I'll mess with it a bit and see what I get.

I wasn't thinking of doing a triple crank to actually get a triple, but to get a double with a chainline slightly more outboard... more like a boost chainline's extra 3mm from a regular chainline.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> Who wants to spin at 120 rpm cadence?  I'm no racer either.... which is why I need the gears. :thumbsup:
> 
> The problem I have is not the number of gears, but the range. Yes I can get a low enough gear, but you can only go down to 11t in back... maybe 10. If I had a 60t cog in back I could use a bigger ring up front and get a tall enough gear for the top gear, but that's kind of crazy.
> 
> ...


Tom Dumoulin who is a road racer spins 100 rpm in the time trials and 80 rpm on the climbs. Usually mountain bikers spin slower.

If you have a double or a triple around try it out.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

It showed up yesterday, after some chaos with tracking down the box from FedEx.

I test fitted a couple of my AlpKit bags, and tried out the $11 dry bags I got off Amazon. Looks good so far. If I have time tonight, I'll try swapping out the crank, if I can figure out how this goofy TruVativ hollowtech2 work-alike (but not quite) interface works.

I need to also figure out my gear list, and have a place to attach everything. I somehow think my pannier won't play well with this rack, which is a bummer for daily commute. I need to carry two laptops and a change of clothes and shoes. I don't see my laptops fitting in the dry bags.

Heh... and the punchline is that I'd like to run skinnier tires for commuting, and save the Chubacabras for tours. I doubt 2.0 tires are going to play well with 50mm wide rims, even with tubes. Maybe this wasn't the best choice of bikes for me, but I still dig it. Maybe I need to think smiles per hour, not miles per hour.

Also, that crank looks awfully tight to the frame. Anybody fit a Garmin crank sensor to these things? I miss the good old days where you just put a magnet on the back of the pedal spindle, and a speed/cadence sensor on the chainstay.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> It showed up yesterday, after some chaos with tracking down the box from FedEx.
> 
> I test fitted a couple of my AlpKit bags, and tried out the $11 dry bags I got off Amazon. Looks good so far. If I have time tonight, I'll try swapping out the crank, if I can figure out how this goofy TruVativ hollowtech2 work-alike (but not quite) interface works.
> 
> ...


Chances are narrower tires aren't going to roll much if any better. My Staches see plenty of road duty since I have a mixed surface loop for my main evening ride and many times I ride to and from trailheads to save the car.
I would just keep the Chupas on and when the rear wears out, swap out the front for the rear and then put a new one up front. You should get a couple thousand miles out of them.
Your crank if at all like the one I got requires an inner bolt to press against an outer bolt to pull it off. Mine didn't come with the outer bolt so I borrowed one off my wife's bike for removal. Call your Trek dealer.
I think you will like it.


----------



## dh024 (Dec 11, 2010)

pimpbot said:


> Heh... and the punchline is that I'd like to run skinnier tires for commuting, and save the Chubacabras for tours. I doubt 2.0 tires are going to play well with 50mm wide rims, even with tubes. Maybe this wasn't the best choice of bikes for me, but I still dig it. Maybe I need to think smiles per hour, not miles per hour.


In case you are interested, Maxxis Hookworm 29x2.5 tires rolled well on the 50 mm rims of my ECR on pavement and hardpack. They are a relatively inexpensive tire, too. My only complaint was they weren't particularly puncture resistant, but others who have used them haven't had a problem. One option to consider if you want to save your other tires.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

richwolf said:


> Chances are narrower tires aren't going to roll much if any better. My Staches see plenty of road duty since I have a mixed surface loop for my main evening ride and many times I ride to and from trailheads to save the car.
> I would just keep the Chupas on and when the rear wears out, swap out the front for the rear and then put a new one up front. You should get a couple thousand miles out of them.
> Your crank if at all like the one I got requires an inner bolt to press against an outer bolt to pull it off. Mine didn't come with the outer bolt so I borrowed one off my wife's bike for removal. Call your Trek dealer.
> I think you will like it.


Yeah, I watched a couple vids on how GXP cranks go in. I'm cringing at the engineering around the crank/spindle interface, as I've seen similar setups wear out and get creaky. HT2 had it right over a decade ago.

I also found that they are using a 24mm spindle on one side, and 22mm on the other. I guess that means the Shimano crank (24mm the whole way through) will not be a direct drop-in without also replacing the BB. Ugh. I hate interference fit, too. I've had nothing but creaky creaks with this sort of thing before.

**Correction:

The BB Spindle is bigger than that. Looks like there is plenty of room under the chainstay for the 40t on my Shimano XT crank, with plenty of room behind for a derailleur. I'm gonna go fabricatin'.


----------



## k9adv (Mar 17, 2018)

yep, GXP is specific to GXP


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> Yeah, I watched a couple vids on how GXP cranks go in. I'm cringing at the engineering around the crank/spindle interface, as I've seen similar setups wear out and get creaky. HT2 had it right over a decade ago.
> 
> I also found that they are using a 24mm spindle on one side, and 22mm on the other. I guess that means the Shimano crank (24mm the whole way through) will not be a direct drop-in without also replacing the BB. Ugh. I hate interference fit, too. I've had nothing but creaky creaks with this sort of thing before.
> 
> ...


Looked at Trek's website. It uses a PF 92 BB which is the same as on my bikes. The Shimano crank should slip right in. Don't make it more difficult than it needs to be. Also a 40 tooth ring interference will be with the chainstay and chain I believe.
I was dubious of the press in too but they have been pretty reliable and silent for me. Really no different from the way a press in headset works.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*I think it may fit!*



richwolf said:


> Looked at Trek's website. It uses a PF 92 BB which is the same as on my bikes. The Shimano crank should slip right in. Don't make it more difficult than it needs to be. Also a 40 tooth ring interference will be with the chainstay and chain I believe.
> I was dubious of the press in too but they have been pretty reliable and silent for me. Really no different from the way a press in headset works.


I test fitted my XT M78x triple 22/30/40 crank just for clearance. I think there is room for it all.

Take a look; What this pic doesn't show is that the 40t is fairly outboard, so it clears even more than the pic shows. Also, this is on the biggest cog in back. If I can go with a smaller cassette, I can gain a bit more room around the chainstay. Or, maybe I just have 'forbidden gears' to minimize interference. Anyway, I might order a couple parts up to see what I get.

But yeah, the Shimano spindle is a lot smaller than the GXP DUB spindle, which is 30mm diameter. So, to change cranks I either need to buy new cranks, or a new bottom bracket bearing assembly. I also did some research about 10 speed rings with 11 speed chain, and I guess it's close enough to work. A lot of responses I've seen from manufacturers warn against it more because of clearance when cross chaining, and such.









I also installed my Titec H-Bars, which is creating it's own crowding issues with the SLX trigger shifter, brake lever, and dropper lever (which I'm not convinced I'll ever use). I had 9 speed dual control levers on my last bikepacking bike (and all bikes), and that is the shiz right there. This rig will work but it's less elegant for sure. Too bad Shimano never kept up on Dual Control. The H-Bars feel awesome on this bike.

I feel it's all coming together, tho. And dang, if this bike isn't sexy as heck. I can't wait to fall asleep next to her in the woods.


----------



## tablatom (Feb 8, 2018)

*Got this for now*

Loving the look of the 1120, and the ECR and the Krampus.

But for now , my wallet can't go there.

My Voodoo 29 hardtail was real cheap, got the bars from ON ONE..

Rides really nicely.
I could fit a 2.6 on the front and a 2.4 on the rear. Maxxis Ardents go on when its muddy.

Its a capable bike, and I have no complaints.

One day I'll get a 29+.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

tablatom said:


> Loving the look of the 1120, and the ECR and the Krampus.
> 
> But for now , my wallet can't go there.
> 
> ...


yep...i rode my 1994 Trek for years before I got my Krampus. Even now, by most peoples standards on this site, my Krampus is "stripped down"...it is almost all the original parts. Will start upgrading now that I have ridden it for a while and know what I want, but there was never any rush to jump on a trend or anything.

I feel like it is better to take your time to sift out what you want. Save up for the bikes you mentioned, but also, find out which one is going to fit your needs the best


----------



## Ogdenman (May 12, 2017)

*1120*


























On June 14-16 I decided to try a crazy experimental route through the Uintah Mountains in UTAH out of Kamas,with Erik (Ogdenman) . Unfortunately, the route kicked our butts.

We started out at Shingle Creek trail, which was 18miles of mostly hike-a-bike. However, it was the best hike-a-bike I have ever done. Then we rode on the Mirror Lake Hwy until we could get on some old abandoned dirt roads on the Evanston side of the range. We rode as far as we could until time constraints forced us to turn back the way we came.

All in all it was a great trip. My route needs a ton of rework. Im going to scout it better next trip. I think the Uintah Mountains offer some awesome bikepacking territory. Im definitely not done there yet.

Words from Nate at Utah Bikepacker on Facebook.

Here are some photos of the ride...


----------



## Ogdenman (May 12, 2017)

*1120 More Pictures of the ride/hike*


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

Beautiful country and pics!

Worth seeing twice.


----------



## tablatom (Feb 8, 2018)

27.5+ is also on my radar. At the moment there are many more tyre options in 27.5+. 
I live in a very hilly area, and my daily riding involves shopping and a 4 year old on the back onboard means weight effects big time. I notice my lighter wheel set and lighter wheels (Schwalbe Big one 29 x 2.35 @550g)
make quite a difference when going up steep decent too.

So with 27.5+ tyres weighing mainly the same as most 2.3-2.4 29'er tyres, for steep regular climbs I'm attached to that platform.

Of course on rough terrain, the bigger roll over of a 29+ when ascending might counteract this??

Thoughts?

It would be interesting to hear from anyone hear who has had many hours in the saddle on both wheel sizes on hilly terrain.


----------



## CuzinMike (Jul 6, 2010)

tablatom said:


> 27.5+ is also on my radar. At the moment there are many more tyre options in 27.5+.
> I live in a very hilly area, and my daily riding involves shopping and a 4 year old on the back onboard means weight effects big time. I notice my lighter wheel set and lighter wheels (Schwalbe Big one 29 x 2.35 @550g)
> make quite a difference when going up steep decent too.
> 
> ...


I've spent quite a bit of time on both sizes. To be honest, after the first few miles I just sort of adapt and don't notice much of a difference. I do find 29+ to be a little more locomotive-like when it comes to acceleration and super stable and surefooted on downhills. At the same time, 27.5+ feels similar to a regular 29er with more cush and traction. By a small margin 27.5+ is my favorite for trail riding and 29+ is my favorite for bikepacking and loaded off-road touring. Since I only get to do a few trips a year 27.5+ is my preference, but both are great.


----------



## tablatom (Feb 8, 2018)

CuzinMike said:


> I've spent quite a bit of time on both sizes. To be honest, after the first few miles I just sort of adapt and don't notice much of a difference. I do find 29+ to be a little more locomotive-like when it comes to acceleration and super stable and surefooted on downhills. At the same time, 27.5+ feels similar to a regular 29er with more cush and traction. By a small margin 27.5+ is my favorite for trail riding and 29+ is my favorite for bikepacking and loaded off-road touring. Since I only get to do a few trips a year 27.5+ is my preference, but both are great.


Thanks, I think that if one of 27.5+ or 29+ type bikes didn't exist, we would be all perfectly happy with the one that did.
I was a bike courier in the early nineties, I was well fit then, didn't really care about bike I rode, just got on with it, smashing it though Melbourne and London traffic like a BOSS.


----------



## Ogdenman (May 12, 2017)

Yes it would be good a 2nd time. the truth is we would fix the route, and change it up. We where in place's no one had been in years.


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

Has anyone installed a 12mm thruaxle Rohloff and Gates CDX belt drive on a 1120 yet? I’ve seen them on a Stache, so should work on the 1120. Post up a picture if you have one.


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Just found out online from a Trek rep. that the carbon fork can be ordered stand-alone for either an older Stache or another frame. This new fork has all the same features and is the one used on the new 1120! They are on backorder for $400. Thinking of picking one up for a bare Stache frame and future bikepacking!

Edit: Can anyone confirm if the fork on the new 1120 is any different geometry from a stock Stache? Just asking because I noticed the geo numbers are slightly different, and wanted to see if the fork was longer or not. Would not prefer to make the front any steeper. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ogdenman (May 12, 2017)

Right on! Sorry I posted 2 times.


----------



## Driverfound337 (Sep 1, 2008)

anyone running SS with or without success, I have read about the stache problems with it?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Whiptastic said:


> Has anyone installed a 12mm thruaxle Rohloff and Gates CDX belt drive on a 1120 yet? I've seen them on a Stache, so should work on the 1120. Post up a picture if you have one.


I'd like to see how they did it on that Stache. It's not a true thru-axle hub -- you can't use the stock axle that comes with the frame.


----------

