Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 268
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    432

    2017 Trek Farley EX Full Suspension Fat Bike

    Available in Alloy and Carbon
    Farley EX 8 $3499 and Farley EX 9.8 $5499 USD
    Farley EX 8 $4600 and Farley EX 9.8 $7200 CDN

    2017 Trek Farley EX Full Suspension Fat Bike-12983955_10154107210554555_7688439161536692141_o.jpg2017 Trek Farley EX Full Suspension Fat Bike-12970969_10154107210434555_9162489861595609849_o.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,640
    Thinkin about getting out of the Framed game are ya'?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Thinkin about getting out of the Framed game are ya'?
    Not at the moment but it sure would be a nice option to have in the stable.
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    838
    Nailed it.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Nailed it.
    What, Trek nailed it? Just asking a question from one Framed fanboy to another.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,754
    whoa..love my Farley so far and I loved my old EX9 as well.
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2016 Trek Farley 7
    2017 Diamondback Haanjo Trail Carbon
    2016 Scott Solace 10 Disc

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,000
    I was wanting a fuel ex 9, maybe ill sell the 6 and get just a farley ex 8 and a second 29 wheelset
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  8. #8
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,285
    Yawn, another me too, copy cat "option" from the evil empire of the industry, yay, not.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Yawn, another me too, copy cat "option" from the evil empire of the industry, yay, not.
    Who did Trek copy with this bike?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Yawn, another me too, copy cat "option" from the evil empire of the industry, yay, not.
    I've considered them as such ever since they bought and pimped Gary Fisher.

    Not sure on the copycat, perhaps the Bucksaw? 11nine? Lenz? That said, we all knew it was coming. Next up, where's Spesh's version?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Aceldama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Yawn, another me too, copy cat "option" from the evil empire of the industry, yay, not.
    This is a great point. If you want a bike you should have to build it yourself from the frame up.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,640
    After you build the frame, after you pull the tubing, after you mine the raw ore and smelt it... of course. Nothing like doin' a job yourself.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  13. #13
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,285
    They copied the *idea* of fat fs, not any particular model. Had they been a true leader, they would be first, not say, 6th.

    They haven't been relevant in a long time, they simply follow trends then leverage their might to foist product on as many people as are willing to spend the $.

    Anybody here know that Gary Fisher, Keith Bontrager, Gary Klein, Greg Lemond et al, actually made bikes under their own names before being crushed like bugs by Trek who fears/buys any competitor they can?

    Fisher liked 29ers, was one of the early pioneers in the movement. Trek wasn't sure they were a license to print money yet, so they kept him around, just long enough for proof of concept, then gave him the axe. Nice.

    I could go on, but it's boring industry stuff like screwing long serving LBS dealers, filling the parts supply chain with vast amounts of grey market parts on the web based companies, etc....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    They copied the *idea* of fat fs, not any particular model. Had they been a true leader, they would be first, not say, 6th.

    They haven't been relevant in a long time, they simply follow trends then leverage their might to foist product on as many people as are willing to spend the $.

    Anybody here know that Gary Fisher, Keith Bontrager, Gary Klein, Greg Lemond et al, actually made bikes under their own names before being crushed like bugs by Trek who fears/buys any competitor they can?

    Fisher liked 29ers, was one of the early pioneers in the movement. Trek wasn't sure they were a license to print money yet, so they kept him around, just long enough for proof of concept, then gave him the axe. Nice.

    I could go on, but it's boring industry stuff like screwing long serving LBS dealers, filling the parts supply chain with vast amounts of grey market parts on the web based companies, etc....

    I was sure you were going to end all that with a "Now get off my lawn" blast.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Aceldama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    They copied the *idea* of fat fs, not any particular model. Had they been a true leader, they would be first, not say, 6th.

    They haven't been relevant in a long time, they simply follow trends then leverage their might to foist product on as many people as are willing to spend the $.
    Nearly every industry leader in every market has copied ideas and improved on them to get where they are today. Apple copied the idea of the graphical user interface... why should it stop people from buying their products?

    When you copy an idea you still need to make it better or a better value than your competitors in order for people to buy it.

    I wasn't really concerned with who came up with the idea first when I was choosing which bike to purchase. I chose based on which one I liked riding the best. It happened to be a Farley 8.

  16. #16
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,285
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    I was sure you were going to end all that with a "Now get off my lawn" blast.
    Ha!

    As for the rest, if buying from the Koch Industries of the bike world works for you, all good.

    And yes, I understand there's nothing new under the sun, I just prefer supporting brands that don't act like they invented the wheel and that their poop doesn't stink....

    I'm out, just spreading a little sunshine everywhere I go today.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,057
    Trek's fat bike are arguably the best designed out there, generally receive very favorable reviews, and are a great value. I didn't really want to buy a Trek (fattie), but I did and I love it. That's the only Trek I've ever owned.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,598
    Now lets see a better RS offering and something from Fox.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Ha!

    As for the rest, if buying from the Koch Industries of the bike world works for you, all good.

    And yes, I understand there's nothing new under the sun, I just prefer supporting brands that don't act like they invented the wheel and that their poop doesn't stink....

    I'm out, just spreading a little sunshine everywhere I go today.

    I understand, and if I were an LBS that didn't carry Trek who's to say I wouldn't feel the same way you do about them, but I think they are more forward thinking than you're giving them credit for.

    Domane was a really cool idea. Not that there's anything wrong with a road bike (cough, cough)

    27.5 fat tires were pretty cool, even if you weren't a fan of that tire size, it was still very cool of them to do it and it took some balls.

    I am sure I'm missing some, but the point is they do their own thinking from time to time and every bike company rips off something from somebody and tries to make it their own.

  20. #20
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,031
    27.5 fat is stupid. 27.5+ is the answer to more air volume with the same diameter as 29ers.

    27.5 fat is the answer to less air volume than 26x5.
    You change your own flats? Support your LBS and pay them to instead.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    27.5 fat is stupid. 27.5+ is the answer to more air volume with the same diameter as 29ers.

    27.5 fat is the answer to less air volume than 26x5.
    Nahhh.... We got packed trailed here, dont need that fat slow shit. If its speedier than 26 than im all for it. Treks about speed btw
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  22. #22
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,173
    Nice, they finally took my idea from 4 years ago..... About time.
    They would have sold way more if they hadn't let salsa release the bs first.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    Nahhh.... We got packed trailed here, dont need that fat slow shit. If its speedier than 26 than im all for it. Treks about speed btw
    So you're the guy that shows up a few weeks after the rest of us have done all of the work of getting a trail rideable. Next, maybe I should pay you money so you don't have to work?
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    367
    Really sucks that there's another fs fattie. Totally ruins my day.

    Furthermore, this is a blatant ripoff of the fuel.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    979
    Anyone have a geo chart for these? No press release yet?

  26. #26
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    Nahhh.... We got packed trailed here, dont need that fat slow shit. If its speedier than 26 than im all for it. Treks about speed btw
    Bikes aren't slow, I am.
    You change your own flats? Support your LBS and pay them to instead.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    So you're the guy that shows up a few weeks after the rest of us have done all of the work of getting a trail rideable. Next, maybe I should pay you money so you don't have to work?
    No all our trails are all in city limits along a river that divides the city and we maybe get 1-2 feet of snow max, so a few inches here and there. I actually try to go out and make fresh tracks but they get steam rolled flat by dog walkers and people before sunrise as it is.
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    707
    The writing has been on the wall for a while with this one, but I'm stoked about it! Don't know if I'll end up buying one, I already have a Remedy 9.8 and a Farley 7, I just can't wait to see what they do with the Stache this year...

  29. #29
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,451
    Bloody expensive
    always mad and usually drunk......

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kawidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    432
    Full specs and real world pic of the Alloy

    2017 Trek Farley EX Full Suspension Fat Bike-12985529_10153813744229191_3357024412033707519_n.jpg2017 Trek Farley EX Full Suspension Fat Bike-13015686_10154107654899555_8580407726698147850_n.jpg2017 Trek Farley EX Full Suspension Fat Bike-13006572_10154107655849555_1246878118546480029_n.jpg
    Current bikes:
    2015 Framed Alaskan Carbon
    2015 Framed Alaskan Alloy
    2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL Pro
    2014 Giant TCX SLR2

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    More details and pics here: SOC16: Trek Farley EX full suspension 27.5" fat bike crushes all seasons, hardtails get lighter - Bikerumor

    Looks like a cool bike and well spec'ed for the price. The low profile 27.5 tires make more sense on a FS bike than a rigid one.

    Only bummer is the 27.5x4 max tire size, why run a 197mm rear hub if it can't take bigger meats out back.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  32. #32
    Nice day for a ride..... Moderator
    Reputation: Bikin' Bric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,936
    Looks badass
    Bikin' Bric's Bike Blog

    2012 Norco CCX3
    2014 Nashbar Fat Bike
    2016 RSD Catalyst 700+
    2016 RSD Sergeant

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    492
    Based on those specs, seems like carbon frame model will be very light considering it's a fatty.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,754
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    More details and pics here: SOC16: Trek Farley EX full suspension 27.5" fat bike crushes all seasons, hardtails get lighter - Bikerumor

    Looks like a cool bike and well spec'ed for the price. The low profile 27.5 tires make more sense on a FS bike than a rigid one.

    Only bummer is the 27.5x4 max tire size, why run a 197mm rear hub if it can't take bigger meats out back.
    could always run 26 x 4.8 like on the current Farley's.

    At least they kept the standard hub width 12 x 197
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2016 Trek Farley 7
    2017 Diamondback Haanjo Trail Carbon
    2016 Scott Solace 10 Disc

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerny View Post
    could always run 26 x 4.8 like on the current Farley's.
    Height wise yes, width wise probably not judging from the pics.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    979
    head angle? chainstay length?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chad_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post

    Anybody here know that Gary Fisher, Keith Bontrager, Gary Klein, Greg Lemond et al, actually made bikes under their own names before being crushed like bugs by Trek who fears/buys any competitor they can?

    ...
    Are you sure that is the way it worked between the mtb founders and Trek?

    Watch the Bike Ask the Founders video series. It seem like Trek rescued more than crushed...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvPMmlBZwg
    Ridley CX, Stumpjumper Carbon HT, Surly Wednesday

  38. #38
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,285
    If rescued were used in the sense that they rescued a dog and gave it a good home, health care, food and let it live out it's natural life in happy contentment, sure.

    But if you buy a "name" use it to your own financial advantage, then cut it's throat when it's not necessary to you anymore, I don't see that as a kind act of caring, I see it as business bullying 101.

    Sorry, said I was out, but was asked a direct question, out again now!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    553
    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?
    "At least I'm enjoying the ride"

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

    Minneapolis MN

  40. #40
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,173
    Quote Originally Posted by cmg71 View Post
    Bloody expensive
    Have you not looked at the other full suspension offerings?

    Gotta pay to play.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_G View Post
    I don't think the alloy is very expensive for FS at all. Or is it?
    I don't know what the UK price will be but I thought it reasonable as well bearing in mind the Farley 6 with mostly Deore level stuff and no suspension was £1300 while the SLX and Fox equipped Fuel Ex8 was £2500 therefore I was expecting a full suspension Farley to be a silly price. In some ways I wish it was a silly price to put it out of consideration as the idea of huge traction and full suspension is very tempting although I have bought the 29+ as my faster summer bike already.

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

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMcL7 View Post
    I don't know what the UK price will be but I thought it reasonable as well bearing in mind the Farley 6 with mostly Deore level stuff and no suspension was £1300 while the SLX and Fox equipped Fuel Ex8 was £2500 therefore I was expecting a full suspension Farley to be a silly price. In some ways I wish it was a silly price to put it out of consideration as the idea of huge traction and full suspension is very tempting although I have bought the 29+ as my faster summer bike already.

    John
    Agree on the bold.
    "At least I'm enjoying the ride"

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

    Minneapolis MN

  43. #43
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,133
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Yawn, another me too, copy cat "option" from the evil empire of the industry, yay, not.
    Geez Craig -- shut down the computer and go for a ride.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,464
    Quote Originally Posted by rfxc View Post
    head angle? chainstay length?
    It's all on here:

    Trek Farley EX - Sea Otter 2016 - Pinkbike

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Wish they rushed something out to be "first" and released something that handled like crepes and had many many faults and issues.


    Also, kinda hope they do a farley ex "5" or some sort of lower spec further down the line. Kinda blew my money on a remedy 9.8.... who am I kidding I'd prob rob a bank or sell my left testicle (actually possible) to get a farley ex 9.8

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DethWshBkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    ....sell my left testicle (actually possible) to get a farley ex 9.8
    You can do this?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by DethWshBkr View Post
    You can do this?
    Donate a Testicle The payout for this is $35,000

  48. #48
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,173
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    Dang, I could have enough for a new bike And a Corvette.... Where do I sign!

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    13
    If I didn't have a remedy 9.8 I would def get ther Farley 9.8 and maybe a set of 29+hoops.

    Looks like a cool bike! Still unclear if the 27.5x4.5'a will fit though

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8

    options

    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    More details and pics here: SOC16: Trek Farley EX full suspension 27.5" fat bike crushes all seasons, hardtails get lighter - Bikerumor

    Looks like a cool bike and well spec'ed for the price. The low profile 27.5 tires make more sense on a FS bike than a rigid one.

    Only bummer is the 27.5x4 max tire size, why run a 197mm rear hub if it can't take bigger meats out back.
    It can still take 26 x 4.8 with the 197 rear hub.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    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

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    553
    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

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Engineer90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    492
    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!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kntr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,654
    69 degree headangle... no thanks.

  55. #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

  56. #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.

  57. #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.

  58. #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?

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    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

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    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

  61. #61
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,173
    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.

  62. #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 $$$$

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    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

  64. #64
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,451
    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......

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    489
    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.

  66. #66
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,989
    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?

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,640
    ^ 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.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,205
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post

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


  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,205
    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.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,754
    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
    2017 Diamondback Haanjo Trail Carbon
    2016 Scott Solace 10 Disc

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,205
    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.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    108
    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

  73. #73
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,285
    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

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,205
    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...

  75. #75
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    799
    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

  76. #76
    sluice box
    Reputation: Co-opski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    799
    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

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    108
    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

  78. #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.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    I was wondering why this thread was four pages long. I was not disappointed!

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    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!

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    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.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    41
    You may not even want the second set of wheels! The 3.8s on wide rims may help to make you ride better?

  83. #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.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,640
    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.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    553
    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

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,640
    Sadly no.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  87. #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.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    63
    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..

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,640
    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.

  90. #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.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    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.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    576
    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

  93. #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?

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    576
    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

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    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.

  96. #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.

  97. #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.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,158
    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.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    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

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,294
    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 1 of 3 123 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

Members who have read this thread: 309

Posting Permissions

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