Upgrading a entry level hybrid bike or purchasing a new better one

Question

I currently own a Trek Dual Sport 3 2020. I'm very happy about the versatility of the bike from a riding point of view, but also "accessorization". I'm mostly doing light trails (no jumps, but roots and loose stones) and road. I'm also planning a 800km tour — road and gravel.

But I'm not so much happy about the components. I have the impression that I'm using a bit harder that what the bike has been designed for, and would like to either upgrade it or buy a new one.

I've read many comments saying that upgrading an entry level bike is a money hole and money is better spend buying a new one, and I agree if speaking about well-defined categories or old bikes. It seems less categoric here, the options I see are:

1. upgrade it to better components;
2. buy a new bike from a similar category, but from brands that have better value for money (like Cube Nature or Giant Roam), and either resell the Trek or keep it for guests;
3. buy a new gravel/cross-country MTB: my main reserve is in fact that I would loose versatility: a gravel would be less capable off-road, and a cross-country less capable on-road (I'm sometimes doing the 2 in a single trip).

I have a couple of questions:

Option 1:

• is "worth" spending the value of the bike in wheels and drive-train? (thinking about Mavic Allroad (S) wheels, SRAM Eagle NX/Apex drivetrain). The total cost - including the bike - would be a bit more than the highest spec'ed Dual Sport for slightly better components. My interrogation with this approach is about the suitability of the frame: if I have sturdier components and I keep using hard, there will be more fatigue for the frame.

Option 3:

• is my assumption that I'll loose versatility correct? For gravels, I would think so because of the lack of suspension and the dropped handlebar. And for X-country, if I fit thinner tires and a 42T crankset, it would be possible to have a similar specs, but I noticed that for example Trek specifies that 32T cranksets are the max for their X-calibers, so it wouldn't be possible to install such cranksets. I haven't seen similar restrictions with other brands, but only a few are selling frames separately.

Answer 1

• Upgrading an existing bike piecemeal is always going to be more expensive than buying a new bike with the specs you want, because manufacturers get components at a discount.
• Regarding Option 1, upgraded components will not transmit more stress to the frame, if that's what you're asking. It is possible (but seems unlikely) that the frame was engineered with just enough safety margin to allow for light trail riding, but not more intense off-road riding. I wouldn't let that guide my decision.
• The gravel-bike category is a broad one, and some bikes are more road-ish, others are more MTB-ish.
• If you frequently cover both tarmac and dirt in a single ride, that sounds like a good argument for a gravel bike. Everything is a compromise, and you need to figure out what compromise you're most comfortable with.

Answer 2

The bike looks like it should be fine for light trails. I have an old hybrid with no suspension that I use on light trails and It's fine as long as I don't try to push it too much on technical sections.

I think you'll always have some problems with trying to find a single bike that works well on trails and roads as there will always be some trade offs. You might want to consider having 2 sets of wheels, one for roads, and one for trails. The stock tires don't look like they are suited for either and are somewhere in between which means they won't perform optimally anywhere. Having a second set of tires would be okay as well, but having whole wheels are a lot easier to swap out.

I wouldn't try to upgrade to something with more gears on the cassette as things can get expensive quickly because so many different components need to be changed.

Answer 3

I'd like to focus on an aspect that seems overlooked here -- the wheels. In my experience, bike makers like Trek often save money by providing less durable wheel components, as buyers are often less familiar with hub, spoke and rim designs. The fact that you are getting broken spokes suggests to me that the spokes were not properly tensioned or the rim or lacing isn't appropriate for your use.

A different wheelset can make an enormous difference to your ride, and with a few on hand, you can easily choose which wheels/tires make sense for that day.

You can easily order a custom-made wheelset or a stock one more suited to your uses. Many local bike shops have good wheel-building skills, allowing you to select hubs, spokes, lacing pattern, and rims to best fit your needs. Probably a bit cheaper will be some online vendors, but you want to have any wheels shipped to you to be checked by your LBS to make sure the spoke tension and other assembly details are correct.

I think you'll be surprised how big a difference a wheelset change can make.

Answer 4

Since this question has been linked to, it may be worth an update. This bike is still "being upgraded", as I really like it, the upgrades list is now:

Almost systematic replacements (= I expect to do them with every bike):

• saddle, grips, pedals, tires
• I also fitted "inner bar ends" (Sqlab 411), to have one additional hand position.

Batch 1

• Cassette: 11/42 10-speed (I kept the original 46/30 crank and FD).
• Rear Derailleur: RD-M5120
• Shifters: Deore M4100 (rear) & M5100 (front)

The goal here was to increase range on the low side, and have a Deore instead of an Acera. The difference in shifting performance is noticeable, especially over time, as the Acera quickly developed some play. The Deore is still as sharp as in the beginning. The front shifter was not necessary, but is a "one lever" one, which is the way to go on 2x transmissions.

Batch 2

• Wheels: Mavic Allroad UST + quality tubeless tires (Michelin Power Gravel for summer, Pirelli Cinturato Gravel M for winter)

The stock ones were unserviceable (the cones bearings were worn out, and it was not possible to find replacements). The key here was to take hubs with modular designs - not unique to Mavic, that being said. These wheels feature different kinds of end-caps (so can potentially be reused on a "real" gravel bike if I decide to purchase one - the dual sport uses Quick Release, gravel bikes use thru-axles), and user-replaceable free-hubs bodies. Also, user-replaceable free-hub bodies opens the possibility to use XD(R) or Microspline if I were to change the transmission again - but it's not foreseen in the near future. As Armand stated, it's surprising to see the difference a good wheelset makes - this one is 1kg lighter, and inside rim width was increased by 6mm. It also remained more true than the previous, despite more abuses.

Batch 3

• Seatpost: Canyon VCLS 2.0 (then replaced by a Bontrager Carbon)

Carbon seatposts are great upgrades: they bring a bit of compliance to aluminium frames for a "reasonable" cost (the VCLS 2.0 costs 200€, but by bringing compliance, it avoided the purchase of a new bike). On long rides, it makes the difference (for me at least) between back pain and no back pain - even with the Bontrager, that is not as compliant as the VCLS. I had to replace the VCLS 2.0 because it was too short, as the frame of the Dual Sport is quite slanted, but I really like this seatpost - I moved it to another bike.

Batch 4

• Suspension fork: Rockshox Paragon Gold

Replacement because the previous was worn. I could try an air suspension in the meantime, considered was worth to pay the extra (and also 900g lighter...)

I also had some rattling issues, mostly attributable to an un-fastened rear brake hydraulic hose (internally routed). I had to find a solution to silence the frame (I installed zip-ties around the hose, and pushed them in the frame).

I'll answer to some arguments given in the answers (or elsewhere):

• Cost: it is often stated than upgrading a bike is more expensive than selling the bike and buying a new one. In my case, all upgrades were combined with the replacement of worn parts, so the cost of the upgrade is the difference between the replacement and the upgraded part, not the sticker price of the upgraded component. I also only used mid-range components, that are reasonably priced. So yes, at this stage, the total upgrades cost has maybe exceed what I would have paid for an upper version of this range, but not by much, and the chosen components are better suited to my criteria and use than what I would have gotten with any "stock bike". Note that I did the upgrades myself (so didn't had to count labour), and could benefit from discounts when purchasing components. It is also often stated that the manufacturers can purchase components in bulk, and so have better costs, but this argument is for me not always valid, as they also tend to increase their margin with the price.
• Upgrading to a gravel bike: debatable, but for me not worth the cost — I still prefer flat handle bars with an alternative hand position. There are some specs for my use that cannot be found on gravel bikes (close to 600% range, front suspension with enough travel). I would consider a gravel if I were to replace this bike though.

That being said, there are reasons to not go for the upgrade:

• time consuming: choosing the right combinations took some time. Some of it could have been "outsourced" to a bike mechanics, but then the cost would have risen by a margin.
• going for a more specialized bike: these hybrids are often chosen by people who don't know what they want exactly, as first bikes. I live in a place that is generally bike friendly (Belgium), and with a good network of secondary roads with rough surfaces (cobblestones or heavy gravel). This compromise makes perfect sense here, but not necessarily elsewhere, where a dedicated road bike and a MTB would make more sense.

Answer 5

Ragarding the choice of bike if you decide to replace rather than upgrade.

It does sound like you need a sort-of dual purpose bike that can tackle easier trails but not be too heavy or low geared for road use. I recently discovered that some manufactures are making ’flat-bar gravel bikes’. These essentially look like rigid fork MTBs from the 90s but with modern components. You can find them with gravel bike like ~40mm tires on 622 rims or MTB like ~2” tires on 559 rims.

Answer 6

I'll get out the way the idea that you need a special bike for each type of trail - you don't. Any bike can be used on any ride, its just some are better than others, welcome to the definition of compromise.

I do not believe the X-caliber is the right bike for you - its a technical bike designed for aggressive single track riding and racing over an hour or three. Its not designed for long tour comfort and is the wrong design for a good gravel road bike. Putting a bigger chainring is the least of your worries with regard to making it more suitable for road, gravel and long distance.

That leaves a hybrid, gravel or adventure bike - decide if you want drop bars or flat bars of something else. Personally for 800km with flats would not be my choice.

If you want a technical single track capability in one bike, then (IMHO) the best way to do it in one bike would probably be a bike that runs 29" (700C) for road, swapping in 27.5+ for single track. Gravel rides could use either wheel set - depending on the type of gravel road your facing. Problem is still the bars - you want flats for technical rides, but need multiple positions for long rides.

Aftermarket bars come in all sorts of varieties - two designs worth looking into for ideas are the Velo Orange Crazy Bar and Surly Moloko - these are just two of many variations of flat bar that give alternate hand positions.

Or you have two bikes....