Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 400 of 1931
  1. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    What do you reckon would be the easiest way(s) then to drop roughly 2lbs? I'm thinking of DMR vault super light mg/ti pedals, 290 grams. But yeah? Losing 1kg or so seems difficult...
    I sense much weenie in you young one.

    23lbs is pretty F'ing light.

  2. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Does anyone know when the Bontrager Haru Pro carbon fork will be sold separately? Any idea on the price?

  3. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFarleys View Post
    Does anyone know when the Bontrager Haru Pro carbon fork will be sold separately? Any idea on the price?
    It may never be sold separately.

  4. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I sense much weenie in you young one.

    23lbs is pretty F'ing light.
    Course it is! But being in the business does that to you

  5. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    It may never be sold separately.
    Say it ain't so!

  6. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    Nice pic, thanks for sharing! I have the Farley 5 as well. Impresses me every time I look at it. The paint job is just sexy, ain't it?!
    Very! I'm very impressed with the look. The ride is amazing too. Got a chance to hit some trail this weekend. Was after 20 miles on the road so need to get on it with some fresh legs to get a proper run through. But man is it fun.

  7. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFarleys View Post
    Say it ain't so!
    This UK site is showing some info

    Bontrager Haru 26" Carbon Fat Bike Fork | Triton Cycles

  8. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by FatSpooky View Post
    This UK site is showing some info
    That's good news

  9. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    That's good news
    The price seems decent too. Hope that information is correct.

  10. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    Course it is! But being in the business does that to you
    Aye - been there.
    Although back then while at the shop, same as now I usually shook it off before pulling the trigger and tried to stay sensible. Making $8.00 an hour as a bike mechanic helped keep my spending in line too.

  11. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    22
    Sure, here you go:
    CS width at widest point (ie. near your heels) is 164 mm
    CS outer width at rear hub (excluding axle QR) is 233 mm
    Q factor (centre of frame to outermost crank face at pedals) is 114mm (ie 228mm total bilaterally).
    The chainstays themselves are remarkably thin (surely solid?), but "high" when viewed side-on, for most of their length and run parallel for most of their length from the widest point at the rear tyre to about where the rear sprocket cluster starts, if that makes sense.

    The frame is very well manufactured, with a lot of subtle shaping due to hydroformed construction, which isn't evident in even the enlarged images on Trek's website. I'd recommend you check it out closely in person if you can. It's very impressive next to my old school TIG welded steel HT (which is still pretty cool).

    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    Thanks for the ride report. I have a favor to ask. Could you get a measurement inside and outside the chain stays at the widest point. My wife has a 2014 Farley but it is too small and I would like to replace it. Trek states that they kept the same Q factor so I am curious what the 2016 Alloy frames measure.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by Fat Dan; 09-24-2015 at 05:31 PM. Reason: spellcheck

  12. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    982
    Hey thanks a bunch Fat Dan. I apreciate you taking the time to get those measurements.

    Cheers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Dan View Post
    Sure, here you go:
    CS width at widest point (ie. near your heels) is 164 mm
    CS outer witdh at rear hub (excluding axle QR) is 233 mm
    Q factor (centre of frame to outermost crank face at pedals) is 114mm (ie 228mm total bilaterally).
    The chainstays themselves are remarkably thin (surely solid?), but "high" when viewed side-on, for most of their length and run parallel for most of their length from the widest point at the rear tyre to about where the rear sprocket cluster starts, if that makes sense.

    The frame is very well manufactured, with a lot of subtle shaping due to hydroformed construction, which isn't evident in even the enlarged images on Trek's website. I'd recommend you check it out closely in person if you can. It's very impressive next to my old school TIG welded steel HT (which is still pretty cool).
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  13. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFarleys View Post
    Here's a couple from todays ride. I have to say the bike is starting to grow on me. Still looking for the optimal tire pressure, but really enjoy this bike. Coming from road and cyclocross bikes this is just plain fun and takes you anywhere.

    Attachment 1016547Attachment 1016548

    Would you know what your 9 weighs?

  14. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by NDTransplant View Post
    Would you know what your 9 weighs?
    Sorry but I don't have a scale. Would be interesting to know though. Is there anyone else out there who would have both a 9 and a scale?

  15. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    4" is 4" no matter how you measure it. If anything the 26 could equal more with the added squish. I ride mine all year so I'm happy with the 4" tire but I do wish I could run a 5" in the winter
    The larger diameter will make the tire contact patch longer. Yea the same width but larger area for sure.
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  16. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    The DT Swiss BR 2250 is another option- it is as light as many carbon sets, strong, and cheaper, especially from the euro sites.
    Thanks for pointing me to those rims.

    When I look at them, it says tubeless setup is 'in development' Does anyone know what that means? It seems like it would be silly to get light rims like this and then add tubes. If not, please explain.

    Can someone explain what rim width and setup I would need to run 5" fat tires on a Farley 9.6" I see things talking about everywhere from 100mm to 65mm. It seems like the same time would not fit well on that great of a range. Any help and explanation is appreciated.

  17. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    Thanks for pointing me to those rims.

    When I look at them, it says tubeless setup is 'in development' Does anyone know what that means? It seems like it would be silly to get light rims like this and then add tubes. If not, please explain.

    Can someone explain what rim width and setup I would need to run 5" fat tires on a Farley 9.6" I see things talking about everywhere from 100mm to 65mm. It seems like the same time would not fit well on that great of a range. Any help and explanation is appreciated.
    From what I've read, DT Swiss isn't going to release the tubeless kit. As silly as it sounds, shrink wrap tubeless is a cheap, reliable, lightweight solution. My neighbor and I have been running it all summer without issue on the very similar Fatboy rims.

    As for wheel size, I'd go with a 80-100mm rim to get a wide contact patch with the larger tires. Wider is usually better, however be mindful of weight increases. Going from a DT Swiss BR rim (81mm) to a Clownshoe (100mm) is an increase of 250gr per wheel.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  18. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    The larger diameter will make the tire contact patch longer. Yea the same width but larger area for sure.
    Well I rode a 9.8 this weekend. Really liked the bike. I took it on a sand beach and it motored right around on the sand including going up inclines. It had rained over the night before, the sand was dry with a very slight crust on it and loose underneath. It sure wasn't compacted at all (this is a public beach with a lot of traffic).

    So I'm pretty convinced that the 27.5x4 will work just fine for me in most cases. Tire inflation was on the high side (~10psi) but no issues. Had I reduced tire pressure a bit, I'm sure that would have made it even better. This will be my first fat bike but I'm still impressed with the flotation of the 27.5x4 on this sand. I'll be riding mine mostly on snowing trails and I'll probably put GripStuds in the tires since there isn't a pre-studded option for the 27.5's yet.



    J.

  19. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Well it looks like there is plenty of clearance, decided to put my Bud and Lou on Clowns on.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #320
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Well it looks like there is plenty of clearance, decided to put my Bud and Lou on Clowns on.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    See that is how it should have come from the factory! A kick ass snow bike!
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  21. #321
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cardnation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    172
    So has anyone been able to measure and weigh the Bontrager Barbegazi 26x4.7" tires yet?
    I bike with tires.

  22. #322
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Well it looks like there is plenty of clearance, decided to put my Bud and Lou on Clowns on.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Whats the weight and price of these rims? Are they significantly heavier than the wampas?

  23. #323
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    I would wager that the clownshoe wheelset has about 500g-800g on top of the Wampas if not more

    Some quick estimates
    1000g per rim
    650g for hubs
    380g for spokes
    150g rim strips

  24. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    I would wager that the clownshoe wheelset has about 500g-800g on top of the Wampas if not more

    Some quick estimates
    1000g per rim
    650g for hubs
    380g for spokes
    150g rim strips
    Ah cool. Nothing for me then! I'm just going for as light as possible. Did you tubeless the wampas+hodags? Do you need anything else apart from sealant?

  25. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    He clowns are much heavier than the stock wheels even built with I9s and light spokes. Defiantly will be winter only wheels. I think this was the back wheel after it was built.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #326
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Farley 9's are pushed back to late november now, but some shop in california over ordered on the first wave sending one in my size back into stock

    It's on it's way to WI should be riding it by next weekend, I'm pumped
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  27. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    Ah cool. Nothing for me then! I'm just going for as light as possible. Did you tubeless the wampas+hodags? Do you need anything else apart from sealant?
    DT Swiss Big Ride would be a good lightweight somewhat affordable option. They are ~300gr lighter than the Wampas
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  28. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    DT Swiss Big Ride would be a good lightweight somewhat affordable option. They are ~300gr lighter than the Wampas
    That means the Wampas are in the same neighborhood as the Mulefuts...confirming my suspicions that an 80mm 27.5 rim is less than ideal.

    I keep bouncing back and forth between those DT Swiss rims and switching to 4" tires in summer, or 29+ (which I will use plenty Hank)
    29+ makes the most sense since I can still run 4" tires on the Mulefuts. Those damn DT Swiss rims just won't leave me alone though.

    I think a set of Next SL cranks are a better bang for the buck weight loss option though. Still...

  29. #329
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    DT Swiss Big Ride would be a good lightweight somewhat affordable option. They are ~300gr lighter than the Wampas
    I don't have the numbers here but considering overall diameter the wampa wheelset is realistically lighter than the other equivalent options that keep the same wheel O.D. as the 27.5x4 tire will be lighter than the other tires available which are all 5" to achieve the same O.D.

    If maintaining the geometry doesn't matter to you or you're just being a weight weenie the thing then carry on, the farley BB height is only like 5mm lower than say a 907 carbon so if you're enjoying the current diameter, it likely does not matter anyways
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  30. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    I don't have the numbers here but considering overall diameter the wampa wheelset is realistically lighter than the other equivalent options that keep the same wheel O.D. as the 27.5x4 tire will be lighter than the other tires available which are all 5" to achieve the same O.D.

    If maintaining the geometry doesn't matter to you or you're just being a weight weenie the thing then carry on, the farley BB height is only like 5mm lower than say a 907 carbon so if you're enjoying the current diameter, it likely does not matter anyways
    It will really depend on the weight of the 27.5" tires. If you save 150gr a wheel over the Wampas, and run JJ 4.8 LS, the Wampas would need to be less than 1050 gr to net any weight savings.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  31. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Without riding and or touching the Wampas, I can imagine they are going to be way more durable than the DT fat rims. For snow riding the dt may be better? But, for dirt, the wampas should be a better choice.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  32. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeNeverwinter View Post
    Without riding and or touching the Wampas, I can imagine they are going to be way more durable than the DT fat rims. For snow riding the dt may be better? But, for dirt, the wampas should be a better choice.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    Objection your honor, the defense is speculating...


    Granted this is all speculation until the Wampas get some dirt miles, but I'd have a hard time believing your statement about durability. The DT rim is a similar design to the Fatboy SL rim, which despite the wheels having hub issues, the rims themselves have proven strong and reliable. Carbon is very strong and stiff, but doesn't tend to do as well with sharp impacts. Do a google image search for "carbon rim failure" and take a look at the carnage. Combine that with the shorter sidewalls of the 27.5" tires and you are inviting rim strikes when you run low psi.

    If you don't believe me, when you get your 9.8 we can both set our tires to 6 psi and ride through rocks gardens and see who's wheels break first
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  33. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Lol, 6psi won't hold up under my 240lbs fat ass, regardless of rims.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  34. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by dukeneverwinter View Post
    lol, 6psi won't hold up under my 240lbs fat ass, regardless of rims.

    Sent from my 831c using tapatalk
    lol
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  35. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeNeverwinter View Post
    Without riding and or touching the Wampas, I can imagine they are going to be way more durable than the DT fat rims. For snow riding the dt may be better? But, for dirt, the wampas should be a better choice.
    ...not so much.

  36. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    9
    got the call a little while ago, my Farley 5 has arrived and is built, gonna pick it up tomorrow, so stoked!

  37. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by egrims View Post
    Picked it up today. Can't wait to take it out for a proper rip. Just hit it around the parking lot. First impressions are this thing is amazing. I only wish I had gotten a fat sooner...

    Attachment 1016147
    14 hours until I pick mine up, not sure I'm gonna sleep tonight!

  38. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    What would the recommended PSI be for my Farley 5 tires?

    I'm running tubeless and weigh 220lbs.

    Not finding much in the line of calculators or graphs online, and I'm sure it's pretty tire-specific based on height, width, weight of rider, and maybe tubes or tubeless...

  39. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    There's no bike specific pressures first of all. Secondly you'll have to experiment to see what works for you in various conditions. Start at 9 or 10 psi and go from there.

  40. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    707
    Any other follow TrekU Ninjas on here?

    I'm still desperately waiting for my 7 to come in!! All my fellow employees are getting their 5's and 9.8's in stock. I just want my 7! Anyone else get theirs yet?

    My plans for my build are: tubless, 70mm Pro stem, carbon bar, carbon post, carbon saddle.

    I'd be stoked if I can get it to end up at 27lbs.

  41. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenkiS14 View Post
    Any other follow TrekU Ninjas on here?

    I'm still desperately waiting for my 7 to come in!! All my fellow employees are getting their 5's and 9.8's in stock. I just want my 7! Anyone else get theirs yet?

    My plans for my build are: tubless, 70mm Pro stem, carbon bar, carbon post, carbon saddle.

    I'd be stoked if I can get it to end up at 27lbs.
    Best wishes on that. The 9.6's are coming in at 27.5-28 with pedals and tubeless. I've put jackelope wheels w/hodags tubeless, Easton EA 70 carbon bars, 1 X 10, Kent EriksonTitanium seat post, lighter Fabric seat and a Salsa Makwa carbon fork on my Farley 6 and it's just at 27.9.

  42. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21
    I just want my 7! Will add bluto and probably a reverb. Will go tubeless as well. Really looking fwd to it

  43. #343
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivar Elverum View Post
    I just want my 7! Will add bluto and probably a reverb. Will go tubeless as well. Really looking fwd to it
    Curios as to why you just didn't go for the 9?

  44. #344
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21
    Considered the 9, however, I want 26*4.7 tires, and even if i add bluto and reverb, still haven't reached the 9-price..
    Had to stop somewhere..

    I do hope that the barbegazi tires are good for snow..

  45. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1

    Sizing ( Farleys run small ?)

    Guys whats the story with the sizing for these farleys.......A few chaps have mentioned they run small ?

    Im 5' 7" ? Obviously its going to be either a 15.5 or a 17.5.

    Has anyone made that choice already ?

  46. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenkiS14 View Post
    Any other follow TrekU Ninjas on here?

    I'm still desperately waiting for my 7 to come in!! All my fellow employees are getting their 5's and 9.8's in stock. I just want my 7! Anyone else get theirs yet?

    My plans for my build are: tubless, 70mm Pro stem, carbon bar, carbon post, carbon saddle.

    I'd be stoked if I can get it to end up at 27lbs.
    Wasting money until you get rid off the low hanging fruit/weight in the cranks. A set of Next SL cranks will save you .9lbs

  47. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivar Elverum View Post
    Considered the 9, however, I want 26*4.7 tires, and even if i add bluto and reverb, still haven't reached the 9-price..
    Had to stop somewhere..

    I do hope that the barbegazi tires are good for snow..
    They were decent in sand when I road a 9.8 (that I am in the process of buying) with them the other day on a beach. I followed that up with a Pivot Les Fat with 26x4's on it and the 27.5x4's were much better than the 26x4's. More float for sure. I'm going to mount GripStuds in them for the winter. I think they will be better than the 26x4's, more than half way to the float of the 26x4.7's and will roll better in general on everything other than loose deep new snow. Groomers - no doubt.

    J.

  48. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Wasting money until you get rid off the low hanging fruit/weight in the cranks. A set of Next SL cranks will save you .9lbs
    That's a good point, I'd probably go X01 over Next though. I'm a SRAM guy at heart. Or I may not play with it at all past the cockpit, get it feeling like I want in the cockpit, and just leave it. It wont be my main bike at all. I'll be doing bars/stem for preference, and carbon post for comfort.

  49. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by David Cooney View Post
    Guys whats the story with the sizing for these farleys.......A few chaps have mentioned they run small ?

    Im 5' 7" ? Obviously its going to be either a 15.5 or a 17.5.

    Has anyone made that choice already ?

    I am 5'6" and went to a demo this weekend. The 15.5 was too small for me. I was over max on seatpost and it was cramped. It may work for you if you have short legs and arms or short legs and want to be very upright. The 17.5 felt very comfortable to me.

  50. #350
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cr3anmachin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    238
    Any new Farley 5 owners here in UK? If so did you get from Evans and how were the delivery times? Looking at it for my first Fatty. I would normally never have looked at Trek bikes but thought these 2016 models were pretty forward thinking and decent price for spec. Interested in owners views. thanks

  51. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Curios as to why you just didn't go for the 9?
    I couldn't live with the ugly green on blue - it's just wrong.

  52. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    They were decent in sand when I road a 9.8 (that I am in the process of buying) with them the other day on a beach. I followed that up with a Pivot Les Fat with 26x4's on it and the 27.5x4's were much better than the 26x4's. More float for sure. I'm going to mount GripStuds in them for the winter. I think they will be better than the 26x4's, more than half way to the float of the 26x4.7's and will roll better in general on everything other than loose deep new snow. Groomers - no doubt.

    J.
    It's the groomer look and effect I want.
    In the end it was a question about how much, and the stomach feeling. I did land on the 7 and we can go back and forth a million times if I should've decided on the other one...
    In the future my fs may have 27,5+ (probably) and my fatbike will have 26*6?

  53. #353
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I couldn't live with the ugly green on blue - it's just wrong.
    I think it's one of their better color combo's!!

  54. #354
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivar Elverum View Post
    It's the groomer look and effect I want.
    In the end it was a question about how much, and the stomach feeling. I did land on the 7 and we can go back and forth a million times if I should've decided on the other one...
    In the future my fs may have 27,5+ (probably) and my fatbike will have 26*6?
    Either way, with the trek 2016 fat bikes, the downside risk is another set of rims and tires. With other bikes that are not set up the same way, it's worse because the downside risk is to have to get a different bike. Also, I'm going to have to stud the tires myself since there are not any 27.5x4 studded tires yet. Not a big deal, but one more thing to do.

    In my case, and for where I'm going to ride, I was pretty sure that the 27.5x4 would work after talking to the factory and looking into it with my LBS but I wasn't sure. When I got to ride it, and then compare it to a 26x4, then it was clear. But, I think, it's an individual decision and I think preferences are all over the map on it. What i can say was that I was really impressed with the bike and it's handling.

    J.

  55. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21
    About size, I'm 181cm and i ordered 19,5"

    edit: yeah, keep my 7 next year just upgrade with a new wheel set

  56. #356
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    I think it's one of their better color combo's!!
    Blech!!

  57. #357
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    What would the recommended PSI be for my Farley 5 tires?

    I'm running tubeless and weigh 220lbs.

    Not finding much in the line of calculators or graphs online, and I'm sure it's pretty tire-specific based on height, width, weight of rider, and maybe tubes or tubeless...
    235 lbs here. Last winter I ran my tubeless Dillinger 5s at 4-5 PSI on soft , deep snow increasing to 8-10 PSI on hard pack.

  58. #358
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrawn View Post
    That' one hell of a demo!!!

    Curious now... Anyne try and fit a 27.5 x 3.8 setup on a Farley 6 or 8?
    I have a set of 27.5 Scrappers with Panaracers 3.5 and there is plenty of room and are they are a blast to ride.

    Btw both my bikes are 14 Farley


    Marty-mj
    www.garagescene.net www.syborgtwinturbo.com www.2ndcamaro.com
    Marty
    12 JamisDakar650B
    14 FarleyBlue,Bluto,i9-Hed,4.JumboJims
    14 FarleyBlack,Jackalope
    17 Farley 9.6 Under Construction

  59. #359
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    576

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes

    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    I guess we'll see as more people get them. I for one will be disappointed if my 9.8 isn't under the 25lb mark. Especially when 907 is showing a sub 19lb build.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





    It's possible to get the bike sub 23 with a carbon fork if you buy all the right parts but it's expensive. I'm considering a carbon frame however I'm pretty hard on my bikes.





    Marty-mj
    www.garagescene.net www.syborgtwinturbo.com www.2ndcamaro.com
    Marty
    12 JamisDakar650B
    14 FarleyBlue,Bluto,i9-Hed,4.JumboJims
    14 FarleyBlack,Jackalope
    17 Farley 9.6 Under Construction

  60. #360
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Mine came in at 24lb 2oz sans pedals. Shire would have been nice to see 23 but I honk I'll survive lol....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  61. #361
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Mine came in at 24lb 2oz sans pedals. Shire would have been nice to see 23 but I honk I'll survive lol....
    Honking in the Shire - sounds like good times!

  62. #362
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2
    Picked up a Farley 9.8 last week. Absolutely love it. It's my first Fat Bike althought I've demoed a few.

    I did manage to generate a slow leak in the front tire after the first ride. Due to there being ZERO replacement tubes in stock anywhere, it is now set up tubeless front and back.

    Still waiting on my xpedo spry pedals (tomorrow). Currently it weighs in at 24lb10oz for a 17.5 frame.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...23263021_o.jpg

  63. #363
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    24lb10oz is tubeless?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  64. #364
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2
    That was the weight after the tubeless conversion.

    The more I ride this bike the more I love it. It's just so much fun.

  65. #365
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cr3anmachin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    238
    Anyone got a weight for the 2016 Farley 5 out of the box stock with pedals pls?

  66. #366
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    19
    Just picked my my Farley 9.6, size XL. Weighs 28.6 lbs with tubes, without pedals.

    Planning to convert to tubeless and will weigh the wheels while I have them off the bicycle.

  67. #367
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by cr3anmachin3 View Post
    Anyone got a weight for the 2016 Farley 5 out of the box stock with pedals pls?
    Not with pedals but complete otherwise reflectors and all. 19.5 frame.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  68. #368
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cr3anmachin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Not with pedals but complete otherwise reflectors and all. 19.5 frame.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ah great thanks for the info. 15kg then...was hoping for something a bit lighter but I suppose it is the entry level model. Do you run a bike shop or dealership? I was looking to get one in the UK but only a few places stocking them and one of those is Click & Collect and too far away from me.

  69. #369
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Wasting money until you get rid off the low hanging fruit/weight in the cranks. A set of Next SL cranks will save you .9lbs
    Can someone help me out with more details here? I am considering this option, but want to make sure I get it right. I have a 9.6, and here is what I am looking at going to:

    Amazon.com : Race Face Next SL 10-11 Speed 175 Crank Arms with 170 Rears : Bike Cranksets And Accessories : Sports & Outdoors

    Is this all that I need? Should I get the 170mm or the 175mm? I think my current one is a 175mm but I am not sure. Is this all that I need, and is it just a 'plug and play' to change the crank arm out, with the same bearings, sprocket, etc? Sorry for the dumb questions, but I don't want to order a $400 part and have it be wrong.

    Thanks,

  70. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    You'll need the appropriate bottom bracket to accommodate the 30mm spindle as the Aefect crank uses a 20mm spindle.

    Having said that, it's a lot of money even for that amount of weight - think on it. I'm still toying with it but I think I've decided I'd rather keep my money or spend it on some 29+ wheels, XT brakes, and maybe a suspension fork down the road.

  71. #371
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    New bike day, farley 9



    No time for pictures, i built it and went riding

    Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  72. #372
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Just kidding, here's the important stuff

    21.5" frame



    Stock out of box weight


    Thomson post, haven carbon bars, ESI grips, issi triple pedals, tubeless


    His and hers, yep non drive side, in a hurry to go ride



    Ride was awesome, going backwards from lous on shoes on my blackborow to this for a summer purpose bike, this wheel size makes sense to me

    So long to my 29ers
    Last edited by TitanofChaos; 10-01-2015 at 05:16 AM.
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  73. #373
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    How much lighter to the carbon bars feel in your hand compared to the stock ones? Just curious. I ask because I pulled the stock seat and seatpost out of one and it weighed next to nothing.

  74. #374
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    How much lighter to the carbon bars feel in your hand compared to the stock ones? Just curious. I ask because I pulled the stock seat and seatpost out of one and it weighed next to nothing.
    The bars with the grips and garmin mount felt close to the weight of the stock bar alone, the haven bar is slightly narrower, its more for comfort than weight

    Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  75. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Got it, thanks.
    Waiting on my 7...

  76. #376
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    707
    Weighed a bone stock with pedals and reflectors 19.5" Farley 7 tonight. 30.38lbs, still waiting on my bike though...

  77. #377
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    Can someone help me out with more details here? I am considering this option, but want to make sure I get it right. I have a 9.6, and here is what I am looking at going to:

    Amazon.com : Race Face Next SL 10-11 Speed 175 Crank Arms with 170 Rears : Bike Cranksets And Accessories : Sports & Outdoors

    Is this all that I need? Should I get the 170mm or the 175mm? I think my current one is a 175mm but I am not sure. Is this all that I need, and is it just a 'plug and play' to change the crank arm out, with the same bearings, sprocket, etc? Sorry for the dumb questions, but I don't want to order a $400 part and have it be wrong.

    Thanks,
    If you order that set you will need a chainring as well...

    Msg me if you would like to buy a complete setup, including chainring 170mm arm length bottom bracket as well

  78. #378
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cr3anmachin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    238
    So...was about to buy a Farley 5 (against all my girlfriends protestation!) and looked at Evans and LeisureLakes Bikes and they are all Click & Collect and too far away for me to get the bike. Seems I am doomed to defeat but then found a local Trek dealer really close to me who thinks he can order in for me at cost price. WIN ! I am sure though once built those guys will not be able to resist having a go on it. Will update here if/when I get it. EXCITING !

  79. #379
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    275
    So my wife took me bike shopping yesterday, and this it what i left with!!!

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-img_0087.jpg

    WHAT A FUN BIKE OUT ON THE TRAILS first ride was the POTO in SE Michigan last night can't wait for a day ride!!!! just amazed at this thing.

  80. #380
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    22
    I don't think they run small. The short seat tube height is to compensate for the increased standover height of the 4.9" tyres, so the frames appear short. Once set up though, my 17.5 feels like, well...a 17.5, despite my perceptions about the frame looking like a trials bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Cooney View Post
    Guys whats the story with the sizing for these farleys.......A few chaps have mentioned they run small ?

    Im 5' 7" ? Obviously its going to be either a 15.5 or a 17.5.

    Has anyone made that choice already ?

  81. #381
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by tadraper View Post
    So my wife took me bike shopping yesterday, and this it what i left with!!!
    I don't know if I am more jealous of your bike or wife

  82. #382
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,723
    The Trek archives show parts but not geometry for 2015 Farley 8. Do any of you know if 2015 Farley 8 geometry is same as 2016 models?

    I've been wading through a lot of pages here and am trying to find out of a 19.5 2015 model will be quite like my 2016 Remedy in 19 size. Our Trek commuter is 20 and I think Treks must run small. I'm 5'10", and considering a used bike I might not be able to try before buy.

    Thank you.

  83. #383
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by bitflogger View Post
    The Trek archives show parts but not geometry for 2015 Farley 8. Do any of you know if 2015 Farley 8 geometry is same as 2016 models?

    I've been wading through a lot of pages here and am trying to find out of a 19.5 2015 model will be quite like my 2016 Remedy in 19 size. Our Trek commuter is 20 and I think Treks must run small. I'm 5'10", and considering a used bike I might not be able to try before buy.

    Thank you.
    I believe the geometries are roughly the same, with maybe minor differences to handle the fatter tires.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  84. #384
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by bitflogger View Post
    The Trek archives show parts but not geometry for 2015 Farley 8. Do any of you know if 2015 Farley 8 geometry is same as 2016 models?

    I've been wading through a lot of pages here and am trying to find out of a 19.5 2015 model will be quite like my 2016 Remedy in 19 size. Our Trek commuter is 20 and I think Treks must run small. I'm 5'10", and considering a used bike I might not be able to try before buy.

    Thank you.
    I'm 5'10", and I ride a 18.5" Remedy 29, a 20" 7.4FX, and I chose a 17.5" Farley 7, the 19 just felt too long and big in general. I could probably get away with a 19.5" if I were to run a 50mm stem, but thats not ideal for this geometry.

  85. #385
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I don't know if I am more jealous of your bike or wife
    my thoughts exactly!

  86. #386
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    19
    More Farley 9.6 size XL weight info:

    Bicycle, tubeless with Xpedo Spry pedals: 27.4 lbs

    27.5 Hodag tire: 1230 gr (only weighed one)

    27.5 tube: 440 gr (both weighed the same)

    27.5 wheels:
    Front: 1300 gr
    Rear: 1640 gr (seems too heavy but I've mounted the tire and can't recheck)

  87. #387
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenkiS14 View Post
    I'm 5'10", and I ride a 18.5" Remedy 29, a 20" 7.4FX, and I chose a 17.5" Farley 7, the 19 just felt too long and big in general. I could probably get away with a 19.5" if I were to run a 50mm stem, but thats not ideal for this geometry.
    I got a 17.5 for my Farley 5, when I saw it I thought it looked small but when I rode it I found it to be perfect size, on the other hand the 19.5 Farley 6 seemed to be the right fit for me. I haven't compared geometry but they must be different...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  88. #388
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    27.5 Jackalope rims should be about 930ish+ grams each.
    26 ones are supposed to be about 870 grams.
    Counting 32 dt competition spokes at about 6 grams each is 192 grams.
    brass nipples at 1 gram per nipples so 32grams.
    that leaves about 486 grams for the hub. hope pro 2 fat is 370ish.

    So, not horrible. but certianly not great. If they were cut out rims it would be less for sure. And the hub is heavy, but for a price point wheel, it is in line with most.

    sure you could make lighter ones. but they would cost you near 1k.
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  89. #389
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,723
    Can anyone help me find geometry for the pre-2016 bikes? The Trek archives don't have that. Some articles mention 70 degree head angle and 17.3 chain stays. I wasn't to know effective top tube, reach, and stack. To help decide if the used 19.5 in my area is too big for me.

    Thank you.
    ƃuoɹʍ llɐ ʇno əɯɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ

  90. #390
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by tadraper View Post
    So my wife took me bike shopping yesterday, and this it what i left with!!!
    Nice!

    Back in 2011, for my birthday, my wife opened a profile here to see what I was in to and ask around some questions as to the types of bikes I'd be interested in. She called around to various shops to see who had what in my size. In my birthday card she outlined what was going down and where we could go to test ride. I made the decision and she called around to negotiate final pricing and pick up date. (Giant Anthem X 29er)

    In late 2012 she was off of work doing some online shopping and called me to update. Jokingly, on a whim I told her, "while you're at it I'd like a 2013 Salsa Mukluk 2 frameset black/grape ape size small". An hour later she forwarded me the confirmation email for the purchase. When I got home she mentioned the guy on the phone at Bikeman proposed to her.

  91. #391
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    18
    So I decided to stop by my LBS yesterday hoping that my 7 came in and they've been trying to get ahold of me and had my cell number messed up. And low and behold, one lonely 7, size medium, was setting on the showroom floor! I'm like "hey, that's my bike!" and they were like, "what?". I told them that I put a deposit on a 7 about 2 months ago and have been waiting for a phone call. They said that this was one of the bikes that they preordered proir to me putting a deposit down, so that's why my name did not pop up in the system when it came in. Ugh! Luckly, it's only been sitting there since Tuesday and no one came in a swept it up in front of me!

    Heading out for a quick ride in about 30 minutes!

  92. #392
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    839
    I normally just get kinky sex for my birthday, which I was perfectly happy with, until I caught up with this thread this AM. Now I feel a little short changed. Seriously, a fatbike for a birthday? Dude.

  93. #393
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    275
    setup my 9.8 tubeless today since it is raining,, what an easy task. remove air pop one side of the tire off to get tube out add sealant use floor pump to reseat tire!!

    my tubes weighed 1.45 lbs on the kitchen scale hope to weigh the bike soon.

    did a mixer last night rail trail, gravel and trail what an all around great bike..

  94. #394
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by tschram72 View Post
    So I decided to stop by my LBS yesterday hoping that my 7 came in and they've been trying to get ahold of me and had my cell number messed up. And low and behold, one lonely 7, size medium, was setting on the showroom floor! I'm like "hey, that's my bike!" and they were like, "what?". I told them that I put a deposit on a 7 about 2 months ago and have been waiting for a phone call. They said that this was one of the bikes that they preordered proir to me putting a deposit down, so that's why my name did not pop up in the system when it came in. Ugh! Luckly, it's only been sitting there since Tuesday and no one came in a swept it up in front of me!

    Heading out for a quick ride in about 30 minutes!
    Lies
    Pics or it didn't happen!

  95. #395
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ForNow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by tadraper View Post
    So my wife took me bike shopping yesterday, and this it what i left with!!!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0087.JPG 
Views:	1154 
Size:	323.2 KB 
ID:	1019265

    WHAT A FUN BIKE OUT ON THE TRAILS first ride was the POTO in SE Michigan last night can't wait for a day ride!!!! just amazed at this thing.
    Fan of the bike and your truck.
    I rode a Farley 9.8 today. Really liked it. Holding it for couple days to decide.
    If I get the bike, I'll post a similar photo with my 2015 GMC HD.
    ______________________________
    Farley 9.8.5

  96. #396
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1
    Hi everyone!

    I just bought myself farley 5 2016. I was planning to put bluto on the front.
    Im having trouble finding proper conversion caps for the hub. If anyone know what fits, ill be glad.

    I found drawings at the forum, so its possibility to mill them, but the drawing is from farley 6 and not sure that the hubs are same?

    Thanks.

  97. #397
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7
    A question for any 9.8 owners... do you know what the Q-factor is on these Farleys? Is the Next SL the 170mm or 190mm wide version?

    Thanks in advance!

  98. #398
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    275
    Not sure what the q-factor is but the next sl's on my 9.8 are for the 199mm The rear hub is 197 so the 170 version would be to narrow.

  99. #399
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    I hope it's a 169mm spindle and not 189mm. Trek has made a point of saying 5" clearance with 4" qfactor.

  100. #400
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    275
    I will go out and take a look and let you know.

Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2015 Trek Farley 6 and 8 fat Bikes
    By Robg68 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1884
    Last Post: 06-19-2017, 09:16 AM
  2. When should the 2016 models roll out?
    By Tizom in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 580
    Last Post: 12-05-2015, 12:58 PM
  3. Remedy 29 availability in EU, 2016 models ?
    By 20.100 FR in forum Trek
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-17-2015, 06:29 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 11:31 PM
  5. Trek Farley 6/8
    By BigVaz in forum Trek
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-23-2014, 08:29 AM

Members who have read this thread: 317

Posting Permissions

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