Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    83

    New question here. 2014 Farley vs 2015 Farley 6 vs 2016 Farley 5: Cost and Value

    Why did the 2014 Farley (1st year made, black with neon green anodized trim) have an MSRP of $2630,

    when compared to the

    2015 Farley 6 (1st year made, black with blue anodized trim) which had an MSRP of only $1870.

    and the

    2016 Farley 5 (black) had an MSRP of $1730.?

    Was it because the component quality was getting scaled back, or because Trek was able to sell the bike for less due to greater production and economy of scale?

    I think the components got scaled back a little between 2014 and 2015; but it doesn't seem like it was $750 worth.

    Was the frame the same for all three years, and has it continued to be the same through the latest model year?

  2. #2

  3. #3
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,254
    I believe the 2014 and 2015 are 170mm rear spaced frame and the 2016 is a 190mm spaced frame.

    The prices can be a multitude of things from vender pricing on various parts to the industry market at the time. I really wouldn't put too much thought into it that's for sure.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    83

    New question here.

    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    ...The prices can be a multitude of things from vender pricing on various parts to the industry market at the time. I really wouldn't put too much thought into it that's for sure.
    So you mean the higher price of the 2014 probably doesn't mean it's an overall better bike than the lower priced ones that came after it, other than what a direct comparison of the components and any discernible differences show?

    Thinking about it a little more, it seems likely that the newer the bike, the more likely it is to have improvements that have come about from newer technology and refinements; so newer, less expensive bikes may be the equal of or better than older more expensive ones of the same model.

    I ask because I knew of someone selling a "like new" 2014 and I was sort of thinking it must be a lot better than the newer ones because it cost $700 more, but then I was wondering if this logic was faulty.

  5. #5
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,254
    Oh I see, altho the 2014 where good bikes the market for fat bikes at that time I believe where over inflated. IMHO the the 2016 Farley frames and newer are a lot better platform to start with. The 14/15 would only take up to a 4.0 tire and the newer ones up to 5 is one of the differences.

    Maybe a true Farley fan will chime in a give all the differences.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    419
    The 2014 Farley was Trek dipping their toes in the fat bike pool as a trial and the hubs, rims and tyres were all Surly and Salsa which are pricey for a company like Trek to use and these bikes were produced on a fairly short run, hence the very high price.

    The 2015 Farley 6 used the same frame as the 2014 model (as did the 8) but this time Trek had their own hubs and tyres along with the cheaper Mulefut rims which significantly brought the price down. The 8 had some better components plus a Bluto suspension fork and Trek's own rims.

    The 2016 Farley 5 introduced a new aluminium frame (Trek also introduced new carbon frames this year) which allowed bigger tyres to be used, the 2014/2015 frame was limited 4in tyres. The frame has been the same since and the bikes have been shipped with the bigger 26x4.7 tyres rather than the 26x3.8's the 2014/2015 model came with. The rear hub is widened from the 177mm on the 2014/2015 model to 197mm although I believe all the lower end rigid Treks are still 135mm on the front which can be awkward if you want to fit a Bluto as it needs a 150mm front hub and there's no off the shelf adapters.

    John
    2014 Trek Fuel Ex 8
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2016 Trek Stache 7

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    83

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMcL7 View Post
    The 2014 Farley was Trek dipping their toes in the fat bike pool as a trial and the hubs, rims and tyres were all Surly and Salsa which are pricey for a company like Trek to use and these bikes were produced on a fairly short run, hence the very high price.
    That makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMcL7 View Post
    The 2015 Farley 6 used the same frame as the 2014 model (as did the 8) but this time Trek had their own hubs and tyres along with the cheaper Mulefut rims which significantly brought the price down.
    Are those hubs and tires regarded as well as the Surly and Salsa versions? I'm particularly interested in strong hubs because I weigh about 300 geared up with loaded back rack.

    And isn't the mulefut rim tubeless ready, or does it depend on which mulefut rim? I would much prefer making a manufacturer approved transition to tubeless than hacking a solution.


    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMcL7 View Post
    The 2016 Farley 5 introduced a new aluminium frame... which allowed bigger tyres to be used, the 2014/2015 frame was limited 4in tyres. The frame has been the same since and the bikes have been shipped with the bigger 26x4.7 tyres rather than the 26x3.8's the 2014/2015 model came with. The rear hub is widened from the 177mm on the 2014/2015 model to 197mm
    I'm sure either frame and tyre combination would be good for me all year round, but I'm more interested in 3 season XC and trail riding than on snow, so I wonder if I should actually favor the smaller tire setup?


    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMcL7 View Post
    I believe all the lower end rigid Treks are still 135mm on the front which can be awkward if you want to fit a Bluto as it needs a 150mm front hub and there's no off the shelf adapters.
    I like the idea of starting off on a rigid, but I also might like to put a sus fork on it in the future, so I'll favor getting the larger front wheels.

    Thanks for the insights.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    419
    I think the Bontrager hubs are decent as I've not seen many complaints about them, the Mulefut rims are some of the easiest to run tubeless. I think the discussion is fairly academic though as there's very few 2014 Farleys for sale (I don't know if they were ever sold here in the UK, never seen any for sale) and if I was buying a Farley now, I'd go for one of the newer frames for their wider wheel compatibility.

    Aside from running 5in tyres, the other advantage of the newer frames is that you can run 29+ wheels which are a good choice for summer riding. I've ridden my 26x3.8 all year round but with the massive 80mm rims, I wouldn't say it's much better than the 26x4.7 for all year use. That's why I bought the Stache as I find the 29+ better for summer use where it's handy to have a bit more grip but the monstrous grip of the Farley isn't any benefit.
    2014 Trek Fuel Ex 8
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2016 Trek Stache 7

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fishboy316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    430
    Well as for the Bontrager hub... Blew the guts out of mine on my 27.5 Jackalope rim on Sunday. Said screw it and bought a new DT swiss 350 big ride. My Bontrager road bike wheels have decent hubs. The Hub on the Jacks are well known for implosion. That being said I love the Farley with Jacks. I run a 2017-7 and love it. I would definitely go newer if you can afford it. The early ones were fun but the limitation of wheel size of 4.0 is not good. I run 27.x3.8 on my jacks but when the snow flies I switch out to the 26x4.7 quickly! Makes a bi difference! The 18's were a great value. The 7 being the best of them IMHO.
    2013 Cannondale F29 1 Alloy
    2013 Cervelo S5 Rival
    2012 Trek X01 crosser
    2017 Trek Farley 7
    2017Trek Domane SLR 6

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by fishboy316 View Post
    Well as for the Bontrager hub... Blew the guts out of mine on my 27.5 Jackalope rim on Sunday....My Bontrager road bike wheels have decent hubs. The Hub on the Jacks are well known for implosion.

    The early ones were fun but the limitation of wheel size of 4.0 is not good. I run 27.x3.8 on my jacks but when the snow flies I switch out to the 26x4.7 quickly! Makes a bi difference!
    The option to mount a superfat tire is always nice, but I don't plan on snow riding much. I'm more likely to be telemarking or snowshoeing in the winter.

    What is it with all these fat bikes hubs giving out though? It seems to be a fairly common problem (not just Farley.) Maybe it's the stresses mountain bikes put on the hubs that road bikes don't see?
    Last edited by TomBrooklyn; 01-12-2018 at 09:12 PM.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fishboy316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    430
    It's a lot of stress on these hubs. The stock hub on the Mulefut seem to hold up pretty well. We haven't seen to many of those come back. My hub that blew and is notorious for doing so was the Jackalope hub. It is also a case of you get what you pay for. MFG"s try to keep the cost down on the bikes so they don't always put the best equipment on them. The jacks just have a crappy hub. Mine lasted a year on my "used" set. The jack rim is going to kick butt with the DT Swiss hub.

    A good hub is pretty expensive that's why they don't come on most new bikes.

    If you are not going to ride in the snow then it is less of an issue. 65-80mm rim with a 3.8"-4" tire will be sweet!
    2013 Cannondale F29 1 Alloy
    2013 Cervelo S5 Rival
    2012 Trek X01 crosser
    2017 Trek Farley 7
    2017Trek Domane SLR 6

Similar Threads

  1. 2014 Farley 2015 Farley 6 Fork Recall
    By josh8 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-13-2017, 11:13 AM
  2. 2014 Farley 2015 Farley 6 Fork Recall
    By josh8 in forum Trek
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2016, 09:14 AM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-01-2015, 10:18 AM
  4. 2015 Farley 6 or 2016 Farley 5?
    By jgdblue in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-24-2015, 04:41 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-07-2014, 08:47 PM

Members who have read this thread: 6

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.