Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 249
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtZen View Post
    It can still take 26 x 4.8 with the 197 rear hub.
    That is what I'm saying- with a 197mm rear it should easily fit 26x4.8 and 27.5x4.5, since they both measure out to similar diameter (760-770mm). However, Trek says 27.5x4.0 is the max and if you look at the pics of the chain and seat stays there is not a whole lot of side clearance with a 3.8 Hodag, not a very wide tire to start with. It looks similar to the pic Gigantic posted of his Bucksaw running 27.5 Hodags, so I'd think it has similar clearance to the other 177mm FS fatties (Bucksaw/Mutz) I.e. No 4.8's and a maybe a few of the undersized 26x4.5-4.6 tires if you don't mind tight clearances.

    Not that I'm sure the world needs a 4.8" FS fattie, but I'd definitely like to try one
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    I'm kinda new to this whole bike thing. I wish I would have known I was stealing money from under privileged industry pioneers and kicking small puppies when I bought my Treks.

    I don't think the alloy is very expensive for FS at all. Or is it?


    It just dawned on me. Apparently I own the two most hate bicycle brands on the interwebs.

    If I wasn't having so much fun riding them I may have developed a complex.
    "At least I'm enjoying the ride"

    16' Trek 8.4 DS
    16' Farley 7
    and I'm OK admitting..
    16' Sturgis

    Minneapolis MN

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    409
    Why does the author of this article think the tires are 27.5 x 4.5? Is he on crack?

    Sea Otter 2016: Trek Farley EX

    The spec sheets posted in this thread clearly says the tires are 27.5 x 3.8. The most you can probably fit is a 26 x 4.5, but deff not a 27.5 x 4.5, doesn't even exist yet (maybe it does but hasn't been huge)! Plus that would be massive!

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kntr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,612
    69 degree headangle... no thanks.

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    27.5 x 3.8s would be plenty wide for me.

    If I consider this bike then there is no reason for me to consider 27.5+ wheel/tyres for my remedy 9.8 eh =D

    ........We'll see if they do a 29er Slash haha

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    That is what I'm saying- with a 197mm rear it should easily fit 26x4.8 and 27.5x4.5, since they both measure out to similar diameter (760-770mm). However, Trek says 27.5x4.0 is the max and if you look at the pics of the chain and seat stays there is not a whole lot of side clearance with a 3.8 Hodag, not a very wide tire to start with. It looks similar to the pic Gigantic posted of his Bucksaw running 27.5 Hodags, so I'd think it has similar clearance to the other 177mm FS fatties (Bucksaw/Mutz) I.e. No 4.8's and a maybe a few of the undersized 26x4.5-4.6 tires if you don't mind tight clearances.

    Not that I'm sure the world needs a 4.8" FS fattie, but I'd definitely like to try one
    The 27.5 x 4.5 won't fit the rear stays on the Farley EX due to the larger diameter at the widest part of the tire encroaching on the stays taper at the main frame end of the part. There is a ton of clearance with the 27.8 x 3.8 but not enough for the 4.5. 26 x 4.8 clears easily.

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8
    27.5 x 4.5 does exist and is OE on the Farley hard tails, and yes is huge but will not fit on the dually which gets 27.5 x 3.8. Both the hard tails and the dually will also fit 29 x 3.0.

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by kntr View Post
    69 degree headangle... no thanks.
    kntr, does that sound to steep or to slack?

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtZen View Post
    The 27.5 x 4.5 won't fit the rear stays on the Farley EX due to the larger diameter at the widest part of the tire encroaching on the stays taper at the main frame end of the part. There is a ton of clearance with the 27.8 x 3.8 but not enough for the 4.5. 26 x 4.8 clears easily.
    Based on what has been shown with the 27.5X4.5 prototypes, they are similar diameter (768mm) and smaller width wise than a 4.8 Bud/Lou. 27.5X4 Who's excited? Who's not? http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downl...o_Chart_v2.pdf

    I'd guess Trek made them that size so the'd fit in a Bluto's arch and not screw over all the Farley 9 owners. So if a 26X4.8 fits on the EX, then a 27.5"X4.5 would also fit and that would be super cool.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Engineer90 View Post
    Why does the author of this article think the tires are 27.5 x 4.5? Is he on crack?

    Sea Otter 2016: Trek Farley EX

    The spec sheets posted in this thread clearly says the tires are 27.5 x 3.8. The most you can probably fit is a 26 x 4.5, but deff not a 27.5 x 4.5, doesn't even exist yet (maybe it does but hasn't been huge)! Plus that would be massive!
    There are so many f-ups in that article they should fire the editor. 27X4.7 on the Farley 9.9? Half the MTBR readers could do a better job than that clown.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  11. #61
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,075
    It would be amazing if they sold a "fat rear end" conversion and bb spacer that you could convert an older ex skinny frame.

    /dreaming

    Pretty sure trek would never do that.

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    It would be amazing if they sold a "fat rear end" conversion and bb spacer that you could convert an older ex skinny frame.

    /dreaming

    Pretty sure trek would never do that.

    No company would lol... they would want you to buy the WHOLE bike hahaha $$$$

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    The bike manufacturer (Trek or otherwise) wouldn't, but if the market was there, I'm sure a third party could get it done. Problem is with so many different frames out there it would be risky to attempt.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  14. #64
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    It would be amazing if they sold a "fat rear end" conversion and bb spacer that you could convert an older ex skinny frame.

    /dreaming

    Pretty sure trek would never do that.
    A long time ago.......there is a thread where a dude converted his Trek Rumblefish to fat, its pretty cool, l tried to contact him but never got a reply.

    Found it my PMs Trek Rumblefish II full suspension fatbike project
    always mad and usually drunk......

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    484
    Stopped in at my LBS and he told me that he basically has 3 already sold. I have the feeling that people better get their names on them early or they may not get one. My other half looked at me tonight and said " you're getting one aren't you?" Hell ya, if I can figure out how to.

  16. #66
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    It just dawned on me. Apparently I own the two most hate bicycle brands on the interwebs.

    If I wasn't having so much fun riding them I may have developed a complex.
    When did you get a Specialized, bro?

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,601
    ^ I was going to say something very similar when he posted that, but didn't.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gigantic again.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,963
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post

    I'm out, just spreading a little sunshine everywhere I go today.
    Now, get off my lawn!


  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,963
    It was a mistake going with a 197 rear and 120 BB, pedal strike is a big deal with an FS fatty, so this will be the worst of the worst.

    I like that they went with the 27 x 4" tire, that size plays better with 29+ for three season use.

    Anyone see a spec for rear end travel? If they stuck to 100mm like Salsa, then they're dead out of the gate.

    They need to junk the Bluto, I can't even fathom putting a Reba based fork on any fat bike over the 2k pricepoint, espo one that is not rigid.

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post

    Anyone see a spec for rear end travel? If they stuck to 100mm like Salsa, then they're dead out of the gate.
    It's 120 MM rear travel as per the Pinkbike article:

    Trek's Farley EX Full Suspension Fat Bike - Sea Otter 2016 - Pinkbike

    In addition to further smoothing out rough terrain, the bike's 120mm of front and rear travel makes it easier to keep the undamped rebound created by the big tires in check.
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2016 Trek Farley 7
    2015 RSD Mayor Bluto (sold)
    2014 Giant TCX SLR1
    2012 Giant TCR Advanced SL3

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,963
    Quote Originally Posted by kntr View Post
    69 degree headangle... no thanks.
    68.8, BUT, that's with a Bluto 120...make it a 140 and you have ~67.8deg which is not too shabby.

    I'd prefer a 140 rear, 140 front, 68deg, then you could slack it more depending on use by using an angleset or by increasing front travel.

    The 197mm rear hub spacing is a real bummer, that'll really increase pedal strike and reduce heel clearance.

    I'm in this one just to see a big player pushing for more fork options. What would have made this a super huge win is a fat Manitou fork...rumors of one in the works, so perhaps we'll see it on the production carbon.

    Seriously, if you are gonna market a bike like this to a non-snow crowd, they need to start thinking about how the bike will be ridden and what that crowd needs. In terrain where a fat FS is most beneficial, pedal clearance side to side, and BB height are a problem. I just got back from a SW tour, rode trails in Moab, Cortex, Sedona, St George, where I had numerous tight rock squeezes which became walks on my Mutz because a 100mm BB puts the pedals out too far. And yet, the super traction was just the ticket for clamboring over rocks and shelves; I was running 27+, but with enough spacing I woudl have ran 29+ without a thought.

    A 73mm BB (maybe 83mm), 27.5 x 4" tire, spacing for 29+, 1X drivetrain is ideal for an FS fatty. I'd also include a flipchip to lower the BB and slack out the HTA and/or offer a long travel fork option.

    120mm rear travel is not bad for an all around bike, though kind light for my needs; it certainly makes the BS less relevant.

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Yawn, another me too, copy cat "option" from the evil empire of the industry, yay, not.
    I don't understand the hate, the bike industry is tough to survive in. At least Trek advanced the Fisher vision for 29ers and provided Bontrager the opportunity to do what he does best with components, wheels and tires. Would it have been better for those companies to vanish or exist in the nether world ala Richey? Having a major player enter the full suspension fat world will hasten the availability of a trail worthy, long travel fork. That is good for everyone.

    Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

  23. #73
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Stu Pidassle View Post
    I don't understand the hate
    Already said my bit on it, do some research if you're actually curious and not just blindly supporting the brand, discover why, they are killing the industry, not saving it.

    Politely, no, they didn't advance it, they bought out a competitor, then let him do the heavy lifting then dumped his brand like a bad habit. Wash, rinse, repeat.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Stu Pidassle View Post
    I don't understand the hate, the bike industry is tough to survive in. At least Trek advanced the Fisher vision for 29ers and provided Bontrager the opportunity to do what he does best with components, wheels and tires. Would it have been better for those companies to vanish or exist in the nether world ala Richey? Having a major player enter the full suspension fat world will hasten the availability of a trail worthy, long travel fork. That is good for everyone.

    Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
    It's not hate. I think Mendon (like me) is looking for a little more advancement in the product development that big companies bring vs taking the easy line and selling stuff AFTER others take the chance and build the market; or killing off a brand.

    I suppose Trek does break some ground, like the Stache, 27.5 x 4/4.5" tires, and bringing Manitou back to the table, same with Specialized who has invested in the plus size earlyish.

    I don't own either brand, so I can't speak to how they function. I tend to go with smaller builders and homegrown stuff, not because it's better, but because I feel better riding it

    I want more info on the Manitou fat fork...

  25. #75
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    It just dawned on me. Apparently I own the two most hate bicycle brands on the interwebs.

    If I wasn't having so much fun riding them I may have developed a complex.
    No you need a Specialized to bring the real hate. Please Specialized lawyers don't sue me for typing your trademarked name.
    ptarmigan hardcore

  26. #76
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Already said my bit on it, do some research if you're actually curious and not just blindly supporting the brand, discover why, they are killing the industry, not saving it.

    Politely, no, they didn't advance it, they bought out a competitor, then let him do the heavy lifting then dumped his brand like a bad habit. Wash, rinse, repeat.
    Too bad they did not pick up Wildfire Fatbikes back in 2004.
    ptarmigan hardcore

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    It's not hate. I think Mendon (like me) is looking for a little more advancement in the product development that big companies bring vs taking the easy line and selling stuff AFTER others take the chance and build the market; or killing off a brand.

    I suppose Trek does break some ground, like the Stache, 27.5 x 4/4.5" tires, and bringing Manitou back to the table, same with Specialized who has invested in the plus size earlyish.

    I don't own either brand, so I can't speak to how they function. I tend to go with smaller builders and homegrown stuff, not because it's better, but because I feel better riding it

    I want more info on the Manitou fat fork...
    Expecting a large manufacturer to drive innovation is akin to looking to small bike companies to offer cost effective solutions based on economies of scale. Small frame builders survive by offering revolutionary and/or higher quality products, large companies survive by offering cost effective solutions that appeal to the masses. Two different business models, together they influence the parts manufacturers to keep pace. It is great that you can afford to buy from niche manufacturers, not everyone can. If all bikes cost $10k, the industry would die.

    I am not an advocate for Trek, but this bike is very innovative based on the fact that it is available before a suitable fork is on the market. FWIW, I agree with you that the 120/197 combination is less than optimal because of Q factor and heel clearance issues.

    Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

  28. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,134
    Did someone hold a gun to Gary Fisher's head and force him to sell out? Nah, his suspenders wearing ass took the money and bent the knee.

  29. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,778
    I was wondering why this thread was four pages long. I was not disappointed!

  30. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,778
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    27.5 x 3.8s would be plenty wide for me.

    If I consider this bike then there is no reason for me to consider 27.5+ wheel/tyres for my remedy 9.8 eh =D
    If you buy this bike, think of how much money you'll save on your Remedy!

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Stu Pidassle View Post
    Expecting a large manufacturer to drive innovation is akin to looking to small bike companies to offer cost effective solutions based on economies of scale. Small frame builders survive by offering revolutionary and/or higher quality products, large companies survive by offering cost effective solutions that appeal to the masses. Two different business models, together they influence the parts manufacturers to keep pace. It is great that you can afford to buy from niche manufacturers, not everyone can. If all bikes cost $10k, the industry would die.

    I am not an advocate for Trek, but this bike is very innovative based on the fact that it is available before a suitable fork is on the market. FWIW, I agree with you that the 120/197 combination is less than optimal because of Q factor and heel clearance issues.

    Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
    Actually, it's a combination of the two. With the maturation of the bike market, it takes real engineering and real R&D to do innovation. A lot of that is getting beyond the scope and budgets of a small company - no different than a lot of other industries.

    You can get some sense of that by listening to the https://fat-bike.com/2015/10/fat-cam...rek-engineers/ Looks like the Farley 2016 fatbikes were something like 2 years in development.

    J.

  32. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    40
    You may not even want the second set of wheels! The 3.8s on wide rims may help to make you ride better?

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    6
    I'm riding a Surly Pug Ops right now and I was interested in the Farley 9.8 last year, but I held off. I like the upgrades that they did for this year on the 9.8 (hard tail) and thinking about pulling the trigger on a pre-order. I've read elsewhere that Trek dealers should be able to wiggle on the price, but my LBS is telling me it's firm MSRP. This is quite a large purchase so I'm wondering what other people's thoughts on this are.

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,601
    Is there another LBS that sells Trek? Play the dealership game, get a quote and go to the other LBS and see if they can do better, repeat until satisfied. My mom did this with the last car she bought, she ended up purchasing the car for a dollar over dealer price. I should add though the she paid a good amount in cash and worked out a package deal where the dealership added paneling and a couple other "upgrades". So, play them off each other and tell them you have some cash and see if that loosens up the price a little. Another option is to see what you can get for store credit or extended shop warranty.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  35. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Is there another LBS that sells Trek? Play the dealership game, get a quote and go to the other LBS and see if they can do better, repeat until satisfied. My mom did this with the last car she bought, she ended up purchasing the car for a dollar over dealer price. I should add though the she paid a good amount in cash and worked out a package deal where the dealership added paneling and a couple other "upgrades". So, play them off each other and tell them you have some cash and see if that loosens up the price a little. Another option is to see what you can get for store credit or extended shop warranty.
    ? Did she buy Clark Griswold's Family Truckster?

    "At least I'm enjoying the ride"

    16' Trek 8.4 DS
    16' Farley 7
    and I'm OK admitting..
    16' Sturgis

    Minneapolis MN

  36. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,601
    Sadly no.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  37. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    6
    What I have heard so far, talking to a few shops, is that Trek sets the prices and the dealers have to stick to them. Maybe it is only on the used bikes and potentially other brands where there is room for negotiation.

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    43
    i talked to a shop near my house..they want 2k down payment for the bike.. what is the better deal, a Santa cruz hightower, or this trek.? only problem i have, is i can get the SC now, but I have to wait until august to get the trek. what is your guys opinion a fat bike vs. mid fat bike..

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,601
    If you will be using the bike in the snow/sand then it may be better to go with the fat bike. Also, you can run 650b+ or 29+ in a lot of fatty frames. Although, I'm not sure on the clearance for these Treks, so ask the dealer or see if they have a wheel they can throw in the rear to check for clearance. It's a personal decision based on your preferred terrain and style.

    Personally, I'd go fat and build a 2nd wheelset. My 2 pennies.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    6
    My feeling on fat vs mid is that it depends on where you are coming from. If you are used to riding 4"+ width, then going back down to mid will probably take some adjusting in terms of gripping through the turns.

    I borrowed a Stache 9 from the shop for a couple of days, and I found myself pushing it too hard in corners for the grip level it was giving me. That is most likely just because I'm so used to riding the Pugsley with so much grip. I did have a lot of fun on the Stache though, and it is much less expensive than the Farley 9.8.

    I opted to go with a 2016 Farley 9.8 because I like the black/red color scheme and it is available now instead of waiting until August. My LBS price matched the new year model so that saved me a couple hundred. They didn't have one in stock, but had to call around and ultimately got one from several states away and it is on its way to us now.

    And for what it's worth, but not really on topic, I got an AMEX offer in the mail to spend a certain amount of money in the first 3 months and get $450 back, so I decided to open that account and save about 10% on the bike cost and get 12 months no interest. Obviously this tip won't work for everyone, but just something to consider doing.

  41. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,143
    I'd go fat if you want to extend your riding season. I actually enjoy riding my fatbike more than I ever did with my MTB. With the Trek, you can go skinner as well as fat, so that adds more versatility.

    J.

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by ALC0R73Z View Post
    i talked to a shop near my house..they want 2k down payment for the bike.. what is the better deal, a Santa cruz hightower, or this trek.? only problem i have, is i can get the SC now, but I have to wait until august to get the trek. what is your guys opinion a fat bike vs. mid fat bike..
    Since I have both I can give you a fairly Honest Opinion.

    Trek Farley w/Bluto 4" Jumbo Jim's / 26" HED Carbon Wheels

    -- This is a bike I can easily ride year round. The light weight wheel make this bike feel like my Jamis Dakar Pro 27.5 bike. There really isn't much this bike can't do. Well maybe "Big Air" but lets be honest I am 49, broken 20+ bones, Surgery 13x and Cancer twice so I pretty much keep the wheels close to the ground.



    Trek Farley w/Bluto 3.5 Fat-B-Nimble / 27.5+ WTB Scrapper Rims

    -- Now this bike is "FUN & FAST" so fast that it actually scarred me on one of my last rides. It rolls pretty much over everything in it's path and corners better then anything that I have ever ridden. One thing that I have to get used to on this bike is when heading into a corner full speed just hang the heck on and don't brake as the bike will corner and and not lose grip. It's crazy how well this bike handles with this wheel combo.

    Not let's be honest the 3.5's are actually 2.8's on the 45mm rims. Let's just call it a fishing story when it comes to actually size.

    Jamis Dakar Pro w/Revelation 27.5 / 2.2 Rocket Ron's

    -- Great bike that I used to love to ride. I will be gifting this to my lovely wife so she has a nice bike.

    In the end when Trek built the Farley they screwed up in my opinion. Why, because I haven't seen another bike that I want as much as the Farley. I love this bike and it has become my do-all bike. I like it so much I may buy a third Farley and set it for Winter only and be done.

    Honestly I don't work for Trek I just love the heck out of this bike.
    Marty
    12 JamisDakar650B
    14 FarleyBlue,Bluto,i9-Hed,4.JumboJims
    14 FarleyBlack,Jackalope
    17 Farley 9.6 Under Construction

  43. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    So HED is now doing a 27.5 x 80mm carbon rim for this bike. I think that is the first non-bontrager adoption of the 27.5 x fat spec, right?

  44. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    So HED is now doing a 27.5 x 80mm carbon rim for this bike. I think that is the first non-bontrager adoption of the 27.5 x fat spec, right?
    Not sure about that. But if they are making them then I'm in
    Marty
    12 JamisDakar650B
    14 FarleyBlue,Bluto,i9-Hed,4.JumboJims
    14 FarleyBlack,Jackalope
    17 Farley 9.6 Under Construction

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,143
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    So HED is now doing a 27.5 x 80mm carbon rim for this bike. I think that is the first non-bontrager adoption of the 27.5 x fat spec, right?
    Hmm. Good sign. From what I'm hearing, Trek sold a ton of the 27.5" Farleys. If HED is getting in, that is also a good sign because it means they see a market for it.

    J.

  46. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    5
    Paid for the new EX-8, now I wait. I hate waiting. Put my Farley 6 up for sale with the "I don`t want to sell it" price. Of course some guy paid it. Now I sit with out a fat bike. Booo.

  47. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    The problem I see with these new FS bikes is that they will not take the 27.5 x 4.5 tires that just came out. I ran the 27.5 x 3.8's last winter, and even studded, I wished that I had a bit more width. The 27.5 x 4.5 is wider, but they still need to go wider, and with the FS EX frame, this would not be an option for winter riding.

  48. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,143
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    The problem I see with these new FS bikes is that they will not take the 27.5 x 4.5 tires that just came out. I ran the 27.5 x 3.8's last winter, and even studded, I wished that I had a bit more width. The 27.5 x 4.5 is wider, but they still need to go wider, and with the FS EX frame, this would not be an option for winter riding.
    I agree with that. While I see the 3.8 tires doing most of it for me and that I found them much more capable than I had thought, for a fat bike I'd hate to be locked out of the biggest tire sizes.

    J.

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,132
    My only guess is that they wanted to keep the chainstays short, but as it doesn't fit larger than 4", it'd be better off with a narrower 177mm hub for better q-factor.

    IMHO a bike with a 197mm rear hub should be able to run 27.5x4.5"/26x4.8".
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,249
    there is already a Nextie rim 27.5x65mm. its in same ball park. i have one coming to use with a Barbegazi...

    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    So HED is now doing a 27.5 x 80mm carbon rim for this bike. I think that is the first non-bontrager adoption of the 27.5 x fat spec, right?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-17-2015, 07:26 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 11:31 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 01:17 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-27-2013, 05:15 PM
  5. SPAM: Trek Liquid 30 full suspension bike
    By appleSSeed in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2013, 04:31 PM

Posting Permissions

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