Page 4 of 38 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 1854
  1. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    14
    It looks to me like the Farley 5 is already running a "190 spindle", based on the Race Face website showing 190mm for the Ride crankset with a max tire width of 5". Q factor = 222mm.

    http://www.raceface.com/comp/pdf/FAT...CLEARANCES.pdf
    Top line of the blue shaded area.

    Does the Fatboy get away with narrower spindle and q factor from being 1x, whereas the Farley 5 is 2X? I can't find any data on the Stout XC Pro crankset.

  2. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Holy *%@& batman - just had an email to say that my Farley 9 has arrived at the store and they'll be contacting me about arranging collection in the next day or two! Quite a surprise given that the expected delivery date wasn't till 21st September. Not that I'm complaining, you understand.

    I heard they were supposed to be released at the start of September but I was assuming there would be shipping time to get to the UK after that, so I'm only hoping it isn't some sort of error where they've sent the email by mistake and the bike's not actually here yet. How frustrating would that be?


    I'll know for sure soon enough. Anyway, must go as there were a few things I was going to order up so I'd have them before the bike arrived, but I wasn't rushing as I thought I had plenty of time...

  3. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Apparently the email was correct, just had the phone call and the bike's ready to collect so I'm out the door right now to go get it!

  4. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    484
    I am jealous. I haven't heard anything about mine yet. I guess I will just have to going riding to help stem the anxiety.

  5. #155
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Looking for some answers from the folks that have picked up the new bikes

    Trek lists chainstay length and that it has 15mm of adjustability, but doesn't state what position was measured for the geometry chart, anyone care to fill me in?

    Which position was the bike set in for wheelbase length?

    Also since they are talking about running reg 29er wheels with the adjustable dropout, does the 4.7 tire fit in the frame if the dropout is adjusted all the way forward or is it simply for some other smaller diameter tires?
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  6. #156
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    64

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

    The geo charts are based around having the sliders all the way forward (440mm cs) 4.7" tires fit just fine with the sliders in their shortest position. Most of the bikes I've seen have been shipping with the sliders in their longest setting, just remove the plastic spacer and adjust the stays to the length you desire. The plastic spacer is only there for CPSC and other regulatory reasons, it has no structural purpose.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  7. #157
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by [TA] View Post
    The geo charts are based around having the sliders all the way forward (440mm cs) 4.7" tires fit just fine with the sliders in their shortest position. Most of the bikes I've seen have been shipping with the sliders in their longest setting, just remove the plastic spacer and adjust the stays to the length you desire. The plastic spacer is only there for CPSC and other regulatory reasons, it has no structural purpose.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thanks for saving me some time

    can I pick you brain for one more thing?

    I assume all trek geometry does not take into account suspension sag, that would explain the geometry differences between the farley 7 and 9?
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  8. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,263
    Anyone tried slapping a set of 29+ wheels in their new Farley?

  9. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by corsair77 View Post
    Apparently the email was correct, just had the phone call and the bike's ready to collect so I'm out the door right now to go get it!
    Waiting to see some photos of the new bike!!!

  10. #160
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    Thanks for saving me some time

    can I pick you brain for one more thing?

    I assume all trek geometry does not take into account suspension sag, that would explain the geometry differences between the farley 7 and 9?
    Full disclosure, our geo charts are in serious need of an update. For the most part the charts take into account SAG. The geometry differences between the 7 and 9 are due to the difference in axle to crown of the rigid fork vs the Bluto. Our rigid fork has a 490mm axle to crown, the 100mm Bluto has a 521mm axle to crown. At 10% SAG the Bluto will be about 500mm AtC, which will make for small differences in geometry.
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  11. #161
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Matterhorn View Post
    Anyone tried slapping a set of 29+ wheels in their new Farley?
    29+ will fit the 2016 Farley just fine.
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  12. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tadraper View Post
    Waiting to see some photos of the new bike!!!
    This will have to do for a start. By the time I got back it was getting dark so it's a flash photo and looks a bit washed out and the green bits came out looking an odd colour. Having seen it in person though, the blue has a really nice matt finish and I'm starting to like it! Just hope it still looks like that when it's been muddied and cleaned a few times...

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-p1000385a.jpg

    I'll try to get some pictures in daylight when I get the chance.

    I spent this evening fitting pedals etc, setting everything up and going tubeless (saved 727g total). I'll be trying to sneak away from work for a quick ride after lunch tomorrow, to see how she goes. Did do a quick circuit or three round the garden just to make sure everything works, and so far so good!


    BTW, re the rear axle sliders, mine also came with the axle all the way back and the plastic spacers fitted.

    And as discussed on another thread, in the time it took me to wheel the bike 10 yards from the sales desk out the front door of the bike shop, 4 different people asked me about it or said something along the lines of "nice bike". This was not happening to any of the other people wheeling bikes in and out of the store!

  13. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    18
    The suspense is killing me on some ride reports! Oh, and a phone call to tell me mine has come in!

  14. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tschram72 View Post
    The suspense is killing me on some ride reports! Oh, and a phone call to tell me mine has come in!
    Some people are so impatient!

    I managed to get away from work for a couple of hours, and did 12 miles with about half of it off road on local byways. There's still a few things to sort out, like a set of riser bars as I prefer to be a bit more upright, but it's now running tubeless and had the basic setup done for fork pressure etc.

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-20150901_163909a.jpg

    This is my first fat bike, and also my first 1x11 (I'm used to 2x10) so I can't compare it with other fat bikes. At first it felt bouncy at the rear end when pedalling quickly, which is no doubt something I can alter with tyre pressures. In any case I soon found that it only happened when I was at the point where I'd be thinking about changing up a gear, so spinning quite quickly, and if I actually did change up it settled down right away to running much more smoothly. Once I started changing up a bit earlier and running a higher gear, I didn't notice it as a problem any more.

    That actually turned out to be quite useful as one of my concerns was that the lowest gear is somewhat higher than on my 29er and I wasn't sure whether I'd be able to manage climbs ok, especially as I'm just getting going again after quite a long enforced break, but I was surprised to find that even now while I'm not at all fit I could take some of the hills in second where I'd normally be in first! Not quite sure how that works, but in general it actually seemed easier to pedal than my 29er, which I wasn't expecting. Either that or I've gotten much fitter while not exercising and putting on weight (which of course means I'm having to pull more up the hills than I was) - that seems unlikely...

    To be fair, I've started off with tyre pressures that are too high (20psi) and I'm going to work my way down trying different pressures till I see what works for me (with kit I'm over 110kg so I don't think I'll be running at low psi for a while or the rims will get a bashing). Half of every ride will always be on the road to join the trails together, so it's going to be a compromise. I did drop the pressures to 17psi half way round and that definitely felt better on the trail sections with no real difference I could tell on the road, so I'll try going a bit further next time out.

    Handling felt very good, though there wasn't anything really testing on the trails I had time to do. Did do one steep downhill on the road and got up to nearly 40mph, and it was completely stable which is good to know!

    I set the fork pressure as per the RockShox guidelines, but it felt very stiff even with the compression damping on minimum. Is that a common thing with the Bluto? I'll check the sag properly when I get time as I'm sure it's not using anywhere near the full stroke at the moment so the pressure may need to come down a ways.

    Would have helped if I'd thought to slide the rubber o-ring down the stanchion before I rode, so I'd know how much travel it actually was using (hey, I was working on it till after midnight, give me a break!).


    Overall, even with the few things that still need sorting out it was great fun to ride and despite the quite high tyre pressures it felt like it had more grip than my 29er and just rolled over everything in a very reassuring way. Remains to be seen what happens when it gets really muddy or I hit more challenging trails, but so far so good!

    Even the stock saddle's reasonably comfortable - I was going to fit one of my WTB saddles, but I'll leave the stock one on now till I do a longer ride and see how it goes as it may actually be better than the WTB.

    So all things considered, especially finding that it's much easier to pedal than I thought it might be after hearing some stories, I'm very happy!


    BTW: Sorry, I can't help with the phone call about yours arriving.

  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Way too much air pressure. You should be in the 8-12 range. IF that

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

  16. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeNeverwinter View Post
    Way too much air pressure. You should be in the 8-12 range. IF that

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    I'm not sure I'd go as low as 8psi on a 27.5", especially in the rocks. These tires have close to an inch less sidewall than a 26" fat tire so less room for error.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  17. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    484
    Has anyone got their hands on a Farley 9.8 yet? I know it has all the bells and whistles but is it $2000 better than the 9.6. My LBS has a 9.8 coming in early next week and I need to make a decision quick to put my name on it if I want it.

  18. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    I almost went 9.6 but for the parts upgrade is a good value. I felt a no brainer to go 9.8. Way better brakes, the best cranks, more carbon parts, full carbon fork,drivetrain upgrade and of course carbon wheels.

    I suppose if you are going to change all the parts the 9.6 is the way to go.

  19. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3
    Depends on your riding style. Main reason I ordered a 9.8 is the carbon rims, although I like other upgrades as well. If you like to hit corners hard, removing weight from the rims will lesson the gyroscopic effect and the bike will be easier to lean over at speed. It will also be easier to accelerate, this being most noticeable in taller gears. At lower speeds you will not notice the benefits nearly as much.
    Last edited by kota12; 09-05-2015 at 10:37 PM.

  20. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    484
    Never had carbon wheels or the carbon steerer. How will they hold up to a bigger guy? This would be my most expensive bike ever so I am a little nervous about pulling the trigger.

  21. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    I almost went 9.6 but for the parts upgrade is a good value. I felt a no brainer to go 9.8. Way better brakes, the best cranks, more carbon parts, full carbon fork,drivetrain upgrade and of course carbon wheels.

    I suppose if you are going to change all the parts the 9.6 is the way to go.
    Yes. The carbon wheels alone are worth $1500+. You also get better cranks, drive train and brakes. I have the guide brakes on my bike and I love them. If you can afford it, go with the 9.8

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

  22. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzwardo View Post
    Never had carbon wheels or the carbon steerer. How will they hold up to a bigger guy? This would be my most expensive bike ever so I am a little nervous about pulling the trigger.
    They will be as durable or more durable than alloy. Being a bigger guy you will appreciate the additional wheel stiffness.

  23. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    484
    Well looks like you guys sold me on the 9.8. Hopefully by Wednesday next week I have a new badass bike.

  24. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    FWIW I think the 7 with a 29+ wheel set for summer, or when you're in the mood for that is the sweet spot. That's the route I'm taking. This way I can run 3.8" to 4.8" on the stock rims, then 29+ sometimes. Huge tire selection, Max versatility.

    I think the 27.5 rims should have been 65mm to maximize the mass advantage. As it stands, I'm not going to bother with them since tire selection is also an issue.

    For what I'm spending on upgrades I can easily get one of the 9's. I just keep coming back to the 7 FTW.

  25. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    149
    There may be lots of choice in the 26 fat but 27.5 fat will increase. I imagine(hope) Kenda and Maxxis will use interbike to release their 27.5x4 tires.

    The Hodag was/is a quality tire at 26" so I think it will remain quality at 27.5. I'm confused as to why Bontrager didn't release their new tire models in 27.5.

  26. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Perhaps, but you're still left with an 80mm rim when narrower would be better.
    See here's the 'problem' as I see it - and there really isn't a problem strictly speaking - these are nice bikes. What I see as the issue, or the less than ideal situation though is that Trek had an idea about making a faster wheel set, but they didn't take it far enough. They stopped short of taking their own logic to it's conclusion. They're attempting to straddle 2 different modes here in an effort to stay fat, but go faster.

    What they should have done IMHO is gone with a 65mm, 27.5 wheel and a true to size 3.5" Hodag or Chuppie, or similar tire. THAT would make this whole 27.5 "fast" thing worthwhile. Or even a 65mm rim with the 4" Hodag tire - when as it stands it's simply a limitation the way I see it. Less than ideal tire profile (still fine, just not ideal) lower sidewall, wider rim than needed (heavier than need be) and not quite fat enough for softer snow conditions, but yet not as fast as it could be for dry conditions. Too much hedging bets here, and scored well, but missed the bullseye slightly with the 9's - again IMHO. I could ride one and be happy with it - still nice bikes, but the money shot for bang/buck and versatility is the 7 with a second wheel set. Or just leave it.

    I'm waiting for Interbike, and if someone steps up with a nice but reasonable 65mm rim (think Mulefut) then that will be my second wheel set instead of the 29+. We'll see.

    Also waiting to see what, if anything happens with fat suspension forks. I feel like I might screw myself if I pull the trigger on a Bluto right now, and still convinced I even want squish anyway.
    Last edited by Gambit21; 09-04-2015 at 06:59 PM.

  27. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3
    I disagree with that. 80 mm rim will be faster in the winter on all but the hardest snow conditions and 29+ will be better in the summer in my opinion. And I hope the 27.5 is popular enough for others to release tires soon. Imagine a set of 27.5, 80 mm wide rims with a flowbeist and dunderbeist.

  28. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Not really the point, nor does it relate to what I typed... but no matter. I hope more tires come along in that category as well.

  29. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by [TA] View Post
    29+ will fit the 2016 Farley just fine.
    I thought so but when I email T-wreck directly I was told to look at the Stache and that 29+ would not fit the Farley. Odd.

  30. #180
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    64
    They're probably thinking of the 2014-15 bike. 29+ will not fit the first GEN Farley. As the guy who designed both the Farley and Stache I assure you 29+ has gobs of room with the sliders all the way back and enough for dry conditions with them forward.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  31. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,263
    I believe you. Perhaps the customer service folks just made an error.

    Job well done on the Stache/Farley! Haven't looked at Trek (after riding for 30 years) since my 2011 Rig. I might be back on board.

    Keep it up TA.

  32. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,263
    Oh, and TA why no love for the tall folks? Likely not your call but I found the XL Stache to be too small. Short, low, and cramped. Maybe an XXL? The numbers seem similar to the Krampus but that frame feels better. Doesn't ride better though.

    Haven't had a chance to ride a 16' Farley. Will it feel bigger? More stack and reach might be nice.

    I'm 5'18" for reference.

  33. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Has anyone seen a 9.6 in stores yet

    If not, do we have a date for when they should be arriving?

    Also, is there a weight posted for the 9.6 anywhere?

    Thanks

  34. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Nope, nothing reliable, and nope.

  35. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    ^

  36. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    76

    couple pics of my 9.8

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-farley-29-plus.jpg
    with my 29 plus wheelset just to see if they would fit. They do.
    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-stock-farley.jpg
    Stock at 22lbs setup Single Speed.

    It is a 17.5" and an absolute blast to ride. i have not ridden it in 29+ as i dont have the right width hubs..........yet. i'd guess it will be around 20lbs setup that way. as my plus wheelset is 3lbs lighter than the wampas with hodags.

  37. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    22
    22lbs......with pedals? Tubeless? Single speed....

  38. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    What, how did you get yours! I preordered mine in May! I hate you, only because I am jealous.

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

  39. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Took my Farley 5 out for its first spin today. Did some off-road trails and a single track. Coming from a junker Target bike, I'm absolutely blown away by the quality. It's such a blast. Can't wait to go out on my next ride. What do you guys think about going tubeless?

  40. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    Nobody on this board would recommend going tubeless.

    Tubeless is cool. Does the 5 have the Mulefut rims? If so should be easy.

  41. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    OK. I got off my lazy *ss, and looked at the spec's for the 5. They do come with the Mulefut 80's. Good thread on tubeless set up: My tubeless conversion experience Mule FUT with Maxxis Mammoth

    nuf said here.

  42. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    I had my LBS order the goods already to make it tubeless, but I haven't had the time to get it in the shop to have them do it yet. I'm a bit concerned with the maintenance I'm reading about with tubeless and temperature changes. Should I give it a try or stick with tubes? Anyone else going go tubeless?

    Thanks for that link krapper. I read through it, but I'm not sold yet. I'm afraid of potential flats and temperature drops affecting the sealant. Thoughts?

  43. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Silver2ks4-

    Have you ridden much dirt yet? What's your initial thoughts on the 27.5s and how they ride? Did you have a 26" fatbike before tis as well to compare them to?

  44. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mkdiehl View Post
    22lbs......with pedals? Tubeless? Single speed....
    yes to all of the above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Silver2ks4-

    Have you ridden much dirt yet? What's your initial thoughts on the 27.5s and how they ride? Did you have a 26" fatbike before tis as well to compare them to?
    they ride very well. Tons of cornering grip and very predictable with minimal self steer. my only other fatbike experience was a weekend with a geared beargrease on 26 x 3.8 knards. both bikes are equally fun and handle about the same. the knards seamed to roll a little better from what i remember.

  45. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,250
    thanks. will be intereted in your thoughts on 29+ vs 27.5x4... im guessing the diameter of the wheels are within mm....kinda isolating the tyre effect. bike looks good!

    Quote Originally Posted by silver2ks4 View Post
    yes to all of the above.

    they ride very well. Tons of cornering grip and very predictable with minimal self steer. my only other fatbike experience was a weekend with a geared beargrease on 26 x 3.8 knards. both bikes are equally fun and handle about the same. the knards seamed to roll a little better from what i remember.

  46. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    I had my LBS order the goods already to make it tubeless, but I haven't had the time to get it in the shop to have them do it yet. I'm a bit concerned with the maintenance I'm reading about with tubeless and temperature changes. Should I give it a try or stick with tubes? Anyone else going go tubeless?

    Thanks for that link krapper. I read through it, but I'm not sold yet. I'm afraid of potential flats and temperature drops affecting the sealant. Thoughts?
    Before you opt out of tubeless because of concerns about cold weather, check out this Bike Rumor link: Tire Pressure and the Cold: Bontrager?s PSI Conversion Chart Will Keep You Inflated This Winter

  47. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    76
    The difference is about .5" in diameter. comparing to my Gnarvester the Gnar is a rocket ship in straight line speed and flowy single track. the Farley handles tighter trails better and with the plus wheels only raising the bb .25" i think it is gonna be the better bike overall. plus its 4lbs lighter than the gnar now but the gnar does have an MRP stage on it. i cant wait to put some plus wheels on the Farley.

  48. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    thanks. will be intereted in your thoughts on 29+ vs 27.5x4... im guessing the diameter of the wheels are within mm....kinda isolating the tyre effect. bike looks good!
    29+ effectively keeps the outer diameter of the wheels the same - Chupies on 50mm Mulefuts are only 3mm larger/outer diameter. So things stay basically the same as the stock setup. Going with 27.5+ will lower the bottom bracket by a larger degree -still most likely not a problem, but measurably different than the stock setup.

  49. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    18
    Hey all, I just called my LBS and asked them if they knew when my 7 was showing up. They came back with Nov 2nd! Anyone else have some better intel on this? This will be my first fatbike and I am super stoked to ride the crap out of this thing!

  50. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    22
    My LBS in regional Aus just notified me that my new Farley 5 has been built up. Dead keen to pick it up & go ride. Trips planned are a short one to catch the tail end of our highly variable snow season in the High Country, then a beach-biking cruise with the fam to South Aus's Limestone coast in November.
    I see fat bikes as the legit evolution of the true all-terrain bike from a retro-grouch perspective, for back country exploring rather than racing and high-buck sponsored exposure such as racing and Red Bull events.
    With developments beyond the obvious tyre & rim technology, such as hydroformed alu frames, sealed bearings, hydraulic discs and dry type chain lubes rather than long travel & multi pivot full suspension, the fat bike keeps it real in the original spirit of just ridin' around.
    Anyway, 'nuff cogitating: time to go and ride!!

Page 4 of 38 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2015 Trek Farley 6 and 8 fat Bikes
    By Robg68 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1880
    Last Post: 02-21-2017, 07:57 PM
  2. When should the 2016 models roll out?
    By Tizom in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 580
    Last Post: 12-05-2015, 11:58 AM
  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

Posting Permissions

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