Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 1824
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by tschram72 View Post
    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!
    Nah, I have a 7 coming too and have no idea when it will actually arrive, especially since a few 7's have already trickled in. The upside (or downside) is that it's going on layaway till March, so it really don't matter when it get's there.
    Driving me nuts.

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Well, thanks to the info on this board and some good info on this thread I pulled the trigger and ordered my first fatbike today

    Plopped down a big stack of $100 bills on a 2016 Trek Farley 9.6 and was told October 18th..... dam

    Anyway... its not snowing yet and I dont really have a need for it till does. So hopefully winter waits for another month


    Side note....

    Anyone with a Farley 7 interested in some 27.5 wheels in exchange for aome 26s? (Preferably in CA or Reno/tahoe)

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,704
    I say pfftt! to the carbon frame. 7 is dialed.

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Schafer View Post
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk

    Second set of hoops will cure all your ill's.

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Rob...

    I went through the exact same thing

    I went 9.6 and figured I can trade the wheels if I need to be fatter

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    459
    Just got the call I have been waiting for, the 9.8 is at the shop being assembled. Guess I will be making a trip in the morning. Getting excited.

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Well shoot, I hate you also.

    But, I ordered a bluto. It's a race too see what gets here first. It, or the Farley.

    And, I have a dropper post waiting to go on also. I'll post up the weight of the bike in three forms. Stock out of the box. Stock, minus reflectors and set up tubeless, and then with bluto and reverb.

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

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    459
    [QUOTE=DukeNeverwinter;12188832]Well shoot, I hate you also.


    I felt the same way after all these guys were getting theirs. Really interested to see what you find with the weights.

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Schafer View Post
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk
    This is exactly my quandary right now. Doing my research, I came to the conclusion than the 27.5x4 is going to be better than the 26x4 and that most of my riding is going to be groomed or hard packed snow and very little of fresh snow so the 26x5 is going to be marginally better. I'd rather have the lighter bike and the tires that are easier to spin up. Too, the extra set of wheels is the downside risk if I'm wrong and that would be fun to have anyhow.

    The only issue for me is that there is not a studded 27.5x4 tire out so I'll have to stud the tires that come on the bike. Not a huge deal, but still not optimal.

    Since I'm going to be riding this predominantly in the winter and on either a beach or snow trails, I don't need or want a suspension fork. The 9.6 is the bike that best fits my needs, I think plus it's nice to be able to go back to the 26x5 wheels/tires if need be. All in all, a pretty versatile set up.

    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Second set of hoops will cure all your ill's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Rob...

    I went through the exact same thing

    I went 9.6 and figured I can trade the wheels if I need to be fatter
    Exactly right. An extra set of wheels solves the problem if you get it wrong. Then you still have a lighter bike and better components.

    J.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Schafer View Post
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk
    Go with the 26x5. I'm in MI with a Farley8. The 4" tires is fine for groomed but you will want to venture off into areas that aren't. Plenty of frozen water to explore and you will want some studded tires.
    Marin Bobcat Trail 29er - Trek Farley 8

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    Go with the 26x5. I'm in MI with a Farley8. The 4" tires is fine for groomed but you will want to venture off into areas that aren't. Plenty of frozen water to explore and you will want some studded tires.
    a 27.5x4 will have a larger contact area than a 26x4 and should be better in looser stuff.

    Anyone know how much larger the contact patch is?

    J.

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    a 27.5x4 will have a larger contact area than a 26x4 and should be better in looser stuff.

    Anyone know how much larger the contact patch is?

    J.
    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
    Marin Bobcat Trail 29er - Trek Farley 8

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    459
    When I picked my Farley up this morning I could believe the clearance it had in the rear with the 27.5x4. Not that I would buy another set of tires but how wide of a tire could be ran on the new Farleys.

    Today was full of ups and downs. Pick the bike up this morning and rode it around the parking lot, then on the way home it was raining so hard I had to pull over so new bike got a good bath. By the time I got home, besides being super wet, had enough time to get dressed and head to work. Maybe tomorrow I will get to go for a spin.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,102
    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 smaller side walls of the 27.5" tires are where they are also going to be limited in grip. What they gain with a slightly longer contact patch they will lose by not being able to run at low psi's as the rim will be more vulnerable to strikes. I ran as low as 3psi last winter when the snow was loose or deep on my 4.8" tires. Even if you could safely run that low of psi on the 27.5" tires they aren't going to have enough casing to spread very wide. I don't think that more contact patch is necessarily equal to more float as the longer 27.5" contact patch only adds to the front and back of the contact patch, but not the sides.

    I really wish Trek would have given a 26" option on the carbon bikes. Would have given a bunch more tire options including studded, and made better use of the wider 197mm rear axle. I also wish they would have had a few color choices on the 9.6 as the current choice is a pretty girly scheme.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert
    '15 Crossrip Ltd

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    The smaller side walls of the 27.5" tires are where they are also going to be limited in grip. What they gain with a slightly longer contact patch they will lose by not being able to run at low psi's as the rim will be more vulnerable to strikes. I ran as low as 3psi last winter when the snow was loose or deep on my 4.8" tires. Even if you could safely run that low of psi on the 27.5" tires they aren't going to have enough casing to spread very wide. I don't think that more contact patch is necessarily equal to more float as the longer 27.5" contact patch only adds to the front and back of the contact patch, but not the sides.

    I really wish Trek would have given a 26" option on the carbon bikes. Would have given a bunch more tire options including studded, and made better use of the wider 197mm rear axle. I also wish they would have had a few color choices on the 9.6 as the current choice is a pretty girly scheme.

    A girly scheme?!?!?!?!?!

    Ya, I agree and wasn't thrilled about it, but it seemed like the best fit for my needs.

    As for the larger patch thing. If the 27.5 was actually taller than the 26 then I could see them saying a "larger contact patch".... like they have on standard 27.5 vs 26 inch wheels. But since they are a very similar OD it is all hype and propaganda

    I feel that they slacked out the head tube and made a new wheel size that will excel on dirt. I feel the new Farley is more of a XC bike that has some Fat bike qualities. This bike will dominate a standard fatty for the guys that are riding on dirt

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    a 27.5x4 will have a larger contact area than a 26x4 and should be better in looser stuff.

    Anyone know how much larger the contact patch is?

    J.
    Dude - whatever the tiny difference is - you would never know it.
    The difference in feel will not be because of contact patch, but more likely sidewall height as someone else has pointed out.

    4" is 4" no matter how you measure it.
    A larger diameter wheel will have a slightly larger contact patch.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    500
    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
    I have a 26x4 tire that measures closer to 3.5" on 65mm rims.

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    A girly scheme?!?!?!?!?!

    Ya, I agree and wasn't thrilled about it, but it seemed like the best fit for my needs.

    As for the larger patch thing. If the 27.5 was actually taller than the 26 then I could see them saying a "larger contact patch".... like they have on standard 27.5 vs 26 inch wheels. But since they are a very similar OD it is all hype and propaganda

    I feel that they slacked out the head tube and made a new wheel size that will excel on dirt. I feel the new Farley is more of a XC bike that has some Fat bike qualities. This bike will dominate a standard fatty for the guys that are riding on dirt
    The 9.6 looks to have a great frame and good components, but seriously the 27.5" wheels and pastel blue and green really turn me off. My daughter saw a pic of it on my tablet and said " Daddy you should get that bike it is sooo pretty". Umm no thanks.

    Throw a Bluto on it though and it should be a nice trail bike. I think if I'm going to buy a "summer fatbike" though I'll get a full squish bucksaw.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert
    '15 Crossrip Ltd

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,704
    The blue and green is just wrong.
    Blue is fine, but it clashes with that green. Light blue and orange red looks particularly nice - like the Gulf Porsche color scheme.

    There's a Superfly with those colors. Stick with what works. This is Design 101 stuff.

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Schafer View Post
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Second set of hoops will cure all your ill's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Rob...

    I went through the exact same thing

    I went 9.6 and figured I can trade the wheels if I need to be fatter
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Dude - whatever the tiny difference is - you would never know it.
    The difference in feel will not be because of contact patch, but more likely sidewall height as someone else has pointed out.



    A larger diameter wheel will have a slightly larger contact patch.
    I would imagine that there is a benefit to the lower rotating weight. Would that not be true?

    J.

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    So, for the guys that have 27.5 bikes already....

    Does it look like we can fit a 4.5 or 5.0 tire on the 27.5" wheel once they become available?

    I would assume yes, but Trek says "will fit either 26x5 or 27.5x4"

    You think that there would be room for a 5" tire on either wheel since they have the same overall diameter

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,704
    A 27.5 x 5" tire, if true to size, will be huge, if such a thing ever comes to exist -which I wouldn't count on any time soon.

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    A 27.5 x 5" tire, if true to size, will be huge, if such a thing ever comes to exist -which I wouldn't count on any time soon.
    Why would it be any bugger than a 26x5?

    They have the same OD, not seeing why the overall width would be any different

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,704
    I think you're a bit confused as to the rim size, tire size and OD relationships. (or I'm misunderstanding you)
    Both the 27.5x4 and the 26x5 have almost identical outer diameters because the 4.7" tire on the smaller 26" wheel makes up the difference. Put a tire with that same profile in a 27.5 rim and I'm not sure it would fit.

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    So the 3.8 (27.5) and the 4.8 (26) have a very similar width?

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,704
    No, similar (within 1-2mm) outer diameter.

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Ok... so we're on the same page there

    I'm interested in getting a wider tire on the bike (once they become available)

    Can someone with a 27 5 bike please post a photo showing how much room there is side to side, so we can see how much wider of a tire will fit. I'm guessing the 27 5x3.8 will be very narrow.

    Also, how wide is te 27.5 tire on the OE wheels?

  29. #229
    Master of the Obvious
    Reputation: Angus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    497
    went ahead and pulled the trigger on The 7, this will be my first foray in the fat bike world. It will be primarily used for snowy single-track. Unfortunately I missed the first batch but should have it around Thanksgiving.
    Check out my Blog!
    Yes ! I am posting on my Blog again! come visit!

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Ok... so we're on the same page there

    I'm interested in getting a wider tire on the bike (once they become available)

    Can someone with a 27 5 bike please post a photo showing how much room there is side to side, so we can see how much wider of a tire will fit. I'm guessing the 27 5x3.8 will be very narrow.

    Also, how wide is te 27.5 tire on the OE wheels?
    After looking at a 9.8 today, I don't think the width will be the issue, but rather the height. To make the tire wider it will also have to get taller. The frame should fit a 5" (26") tire fine, but as Gambit21 is saying trying to make a 5" wide 27.5" tire will likely have too great of a sidewall height and therefore overall diameter to fit in the frame.


    Here is a pic of a 29er, 29+ and 26" fatbike tires. Notice how much taller the 29+ is versus the 29er, despite both having the same rim diameter. Also not that the 29+ and 26" fatbike are very similar despite the fatbike having a smaller diameter rim, due to it's wider and larger diameter tire. 2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-tyre-29er-plus-fat-bike-size.jpg

    Here is a 4" fatbike tire compared to a 5+" fat tire, notice how much taller it gets for the added width:
    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-image.jpg

    Your hypothetical 27.5X5" fat tire would be bigger in diameter than the one pictured, hence I doubt it would fit in your frame.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert
    '15 Crossrip Ltd

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    After looking at a 9.8 today, I don't think the width will be the issue, but rather the height. To make the tire wider it will also have to get taller. The frame should fit a 5" (26") tire fine, but as Gambit21 is saying trying to make a 5" wide 27.5" tire will likely have too great of a sidewall height and therefore overall diameter to fit in the frame.


    Here is a pic of a 29er, 29+ and 26" fatbike tires. Notice how much taller the 29+ is versus the 29er, despite both having the same rim diameter. Also not that the 29+ and 26" fatbike are very similar despite the fatbike having a smaller diameter rim, due to it's wider and larger diameter tire. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tyre-29er-plus-fat-bike-size.jpg 
Views:	1348 
Size:	111.6 KB 
ID:	1014842

    Here is a 4" fatbike tire compared to a 5+" fat tire, notice how much taller it gets for the added width:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	5484 
Size:	263.6 KB 
ID:	1014843

    Your hypothetical 27.5X5" fat tire would be bigger in diameter than the one pictured, hence I doubt it would fit in your frame.
    Great explanation, thank you

    I didn't realize that the 26x5 was taller and wider tan the 26x4, I thought it was just wider..... So I was thinking it would be a low pro 27.5x5 as well



    On another note.... while I was at work today, I saw the Trek Demo rig pull in for our local Gran Fondo race tomorrow.... and they have a Farley 9.8 on board in my size

    So... Demo ride tomorrow

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Ok... so we're on the same page there

    I'm interested in getting a wider tire on the bike (once they become available)

    Can someone with a 27 5 bike please post a photo showing how much room there is side to side, so we can see how much wider of a tire will fit. I'm guessing the 27 5x3.8 will be very narrow.

    Also, how wide is te 27.5 tire on the OE wheels?
    Here are some quick pics I took tonight. As you can see, the 29+ is just a little taller so I am sure the Farley can go bigger, just not sure how much. The other pics show the clearance with the 27.5x3.8 stock tires.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-20150910_130306.jpg  

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-20150911_224948.jpg  

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-20150911_225014.jpg  

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-20150911_225028.jpg  


  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    390
    I'm also thinking about Farley with a second wheelset. Anyone know of any reason a clownshoe with lou wouldn't work with the Farley 7?
    Last edited by Teton29er; 09-13-2015 at 07:05 PM.

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38

    Farley 9.8 Demo Ride

    Well, I have my 9.6 on order but have still yet to throw a leg over a Fat Bike and give it a spin.

    Luckly, yesterday I got that chance. Trek Was in town and had a Farley 9.8 Demo with them and said I could take it out for a s long as I wanted. While I had work at 3PM, it still gave me plenty time to kick my own ass on this amazing bike



    I live in Mammoth Lakes, CA and we have an amazing set of local trails as well as lots of lift assisted runs ranging from XC all the way to some of the craziest DH trails you could imagine. My plan was to put this bike through its paces and ride a good mix of runs.

    I started off in town and made my way up a 1000 foot climb that was about 6 miles of twists and turns. The surface was small crushed rock, pumice, and some loose sand. The stock 27.5x3.8 tires worked great and gave me plenty of traction without being so heavy that pedaling was hard. I was thoroughly impressed by how efficient this bike was for such a huge tire



    The only time I really noticed I was on something with a heavier wheel/tire combo was when I would take those first few pedal strokes and had to spin them up. While the Farley 9.8 had carbon wheels, it was still a bit more than the 27.5x2.4 I run on my enduro bike.

    Once I reached Main Lodge, I continued up a trail called Beach Cruiser and continued to climb a few hundred feet more. This trail had a lot more twists and turns in it and took me to the backside of the Mountain near one of our almost empty lakes



    After a quick photo op, I continued the climb and reached the top of the Beach Cruiser Trail. As I began to descend this smooth flowing single track trail I was rally impressed how smooth this rigid bike was. I began to hit some of the small features like root drops, small jumps, and rock gardens a little faster and couldn't believe how well the bike worked.



    Then I got cocky... "Well, if its this good here... might as well take it to the top of the mountain and ride something a bit more challenging"

    I headed up to Off the Top, an intermediate run that is full of lots of rock, roots, small drops, and all sorts of other fun things.

    The first half I was having a blast and charging on the Farley 9.8, but then I got tired. I didn't want to stand and all these jolting braking bumps and rocks really kicked my ass. I got tired, and I got there fast. By the end of the run I was dead tired and regretting my decision.

    While I wanted to pack it in, there was one more climb I had to make to reach the trail home. So, up I went.

    This trail was very loose, had some big rocks, and some other things that usually give me trouble on my 27.5 Enduro bike. But with this beast I just kicked it into low and powered up and over everything without issue.



    All in all, I was super impressed with this bike and am excited to receive my 9.6 next month.

    The 27.5 wheels worked great as a dirt tire but I feel they will be lacking once the snow falls and I need a larger contact patch. More than likely these wheels will be going on the shelf when the snow falls and some 26's will help drain my wallet

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    446
    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?

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    After a lot of research, comparing, trying, tossing and turning pulled the trigger on Farley 9. Picking it up today. Hope I made the right choice.

    Has anyone tried any of the nines with a 26 x 5 tire setup? Thinking of getting 5" for the winter months.

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Well, I just ordered a set of the DT swiss BR 26" wheels for my 9.6 that I don't have.

    Im waiting to order tires until i see what others are able to fit in the new frame.

    Also, im just trying to read a lot to figure out what tires work best for snow as this will be my dedicated snow tire setup

    Anyone have a link to a snow tire shootout or something similar?

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Well, I just ordered a set of the DT swiss BR 26" wheels for my 9.6 that I don't have.

    Im waiting to order tires until i see what others are able to fit in the new frame.

    Also, im just trying to read a lot to figure out what tires work best for snow as this will be my dedicated snow tire setup

    Anyone have a link to a snow tire shootout or something similar?
    Here is one I did one the Dillinger 5, Bud/Lou, and a bit on the Ground Controls: Bud/Lou versus Dillinger 5

    I bought a set of studded Snowshoe XL's so I'll be testing those out this winter as well.

    I looked at a Farley 9.8 the other day and it should fit the 4.8" Bud/Lou and Snowshoe XL's without issue. Not sure on the Snowshoe 2XL though as that is a big mutha!
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert
    '15 Crossrip Ltd

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Took my new Farley 9 out for the first ride yesterday. I have to say that I really enjoyed the bike. The ride was a twenty mile spin on mixed terrain from tarmac to gravel to forest paths. The 27.5 Hodag tires worked out well on all the surfaces. I have to say that the tires were quite nice to ride even on tarmac. The tire pressure had been set up at the LBS and the tires were a bit on the hard side. The Bluto smoothed the front end nice, but rear tire was bouncing around quite a lot. Iíll start testing out different pressures today, but wondering what pressures are other Trek owners using on their Hodags?

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFarleys View Post
    Took my new Farley 9 out for the first ride yesterday. I have to say that I really enjoyed the bike. The ride was a twenty mile spin on mixed terrain from tarmac to gravel to forest paths. The 27.5 Hodag tires worked out well on all the surfaces. I have to say that the tires were quite nice to ride even on tarmac. The tire pressure had been set up at the LBS and the tires were a bit on the hard side. The Bluto smoothed the front end nice, but rear tire was bouncing around quite a lot. Iíll start testing out different pressures today, but wondering what pressures are other Trek owners using on their Hodags?
    I weigh 240 and rode a rigid

    I ended up playing with pressure a lot on my demo and ended up 8F and 9R

    I went as low as 6 front and liked it in loose dirt but took a couple rim shots. It was also really bound up on asphalt.

    Hope that gets you in the balpark

    PS... post some pics

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    27
    TheFarleys...I'm curious about the weight of the 9. Any chance you have access to a scale? I'd also love to see a few more ride reviews as you work to find the sweet spot on your new 9.

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    9.8 will be here tomorrow...woot!!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4
    Had to come out of the woodwork for this one. Just got word from my LBS that my Farley 5 will be here on Thursday. Already lining up some weekend rides. Can't wait!

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Here's a quick iPhone snap from todays ride. Weather, trail and the bike were all really nice.

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-21452586171_68c3f6153b_z.jpg

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    For those interested, a Farley 9.6 17.5 Stock, weighed 28 on our park scale. With reflectors. Converting to tubeless with about three scoops of sealant per tire. It weighed 26lbs and 12oz.
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  46. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    i got my farley 5 below 30 LBS with tubeless, carbon fork and 30T 1/10, stoked... the bike is a blast

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    deleted
    Last edited by Natedeezy; 09-15-2015 at 03:47 PM. Reason: Wrong pic

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by aquamogal View Post
    i got my farley 5 below 30 LBS with tubeless, carbon fork and 30T 1/10, stoked... the bike is a blast
    Should have just bought a 7.

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Ok wrong pic...here is a complete Farley 7 17.5




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    So, the 9.6 is only about 1 pound lighter than a 7? They have the same build except for the 9.6 has carbon frame and larger (should be a lighter combo) wheels

    Seems a bit odd?

    Especially when the 9.8 is around 22 pounds

Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2015 Trek Farley 6 and 8 fat Bikes
    By Robg68 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1878
    Last Post: 12-16-2016, 09:58 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, 07:29 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-05-2014, 12:31 AM
  5. Trek Farley 6/8
    By BigVaz in forum Trek
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-23-2014, 09:29 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
  •