Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 272

Thread: Trek Fat bike

  1. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by blum585 View Post
    Because it's not carbon, and if this thing had 2.0" tires they could not charge more than $1899, but because it's fat there is a $800 up charge - Why? Because they can apparently. Its stupid.
    Soooo... if carbon weighs the same as aluminum, it's still more valuable? How's that work?

    And you've got it backwards. If a pugsley had 2" tires, they couldn't charge more than $800, but because it's fat and sold by hipsters there is an $800 upcharge. Welcome to the world of fatbikes.

    Paying more for carbon just because it's carbon is stupid.

  2. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,104
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    Soooo... if carbon weighs the same as aluminum, it's still more valuable? How's that work?
    Can't compare the two without more info. If the aluminum had to be as thin as a beer can to achieve the same weight as a decently built carbon fiber frame, would it be more valuable?

  3. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Can't compare the two without more info. If the aluminum had to be as thin as a beer can to achieve the same weight as a decently built carbon fiber frame, would it be more valuable?
    Man, we are willing to give carbon some serious leeway just because it's carbon.

    Carbon is great stuff. But the current rush to carbonize everything on a bike reminds me of the old saying, "when a carbon fiber hammer is your most profitable tool, the whole world looks like a metal nail."

    Carbon is probably better for manufacturers than it is for riders.

    Bike and component prices have reached stratospheric levels because of carbon. Is it worth it? I think it's funny that Zipp (great lovers of carbon) released their "Service Course" line of parts because European pros didn't want carbon bars and bits. Aluminum bends, carbon breaks. And you can finish a race on bent bars, can't finish or broken bars.

    I'll be interested to see the trek fatty when it comes out. I'll be interested to see the carbon beargrease when it comes out, or would have been interested had the local salsa dealer not just gone out of business...

  4. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,104
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    Man, we are willing to give carbon some serious leeway just because it's carbon.

    Carbon is great stuff. But the current rush to carbonize everything on a bike reminds me of the old saying, "when a carbon fiber hammer is your most profitable tool, the whole world looks like a metal nail."

    Carbon is probably better for manufacturers than it is for riders.

    Bike and component prices have reached stratospheric levels because of carbon. Is it worth it? I think it's funny that Zipp (great lovers of carbon) released their "Service Course" line of parts because European pros didn't want carbon bars and bits. Aluminum bends, carbon breaks. And you can finish a race on bent bars, can't finish or broken bars.

    I'll be interested to see the trek fatty when it comes out. I'll be interested to see the carbon beargrease when it comes out, or would have been interested had the local salsa dealer not just gone out of business...
    I'm no carbon weenie. I've owned only one carbon mountain bike in my life (the ill-fated carbon/magnesium Cannondale Raven from a dozen years ago). On the other hand, I admit to being attracted to the swoopy lines and 21lb weights of some of the new carbon fatbikes. I'm not likely to buy one since I just finished paying off my Ti fatbike, but I enjoy drooling over them and would love to try one on the trails.

  5. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    U can buy the Trek Farley Frameset
    Farley Frameset - Trek Bicycle

  6. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,578
    I'm confused. It says internal cable routing, but it shows down tube and chainstay stops for what looks like shifter housing, plus the rack mounts on the seat stays- where are the other mounts? I don't know how this will stack up against a bike like the 907 which is less expensive.

  7. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    971
    The internal routing is the front derailleur, rear derailleur and dropper post. Rear brake goes on the outside of the down tube. The price does include a fork, headset and convertible dropouts. Also the frame is suspension corrected. There are things I would have done different but I think they did a fair job.

    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    I'm confused. It says internal cable routing, but it shows down tube and chainstay stops for what looks like shifter housing, plus the rack mounts on the seat stays- where are the other mounts? I don't know how this will stack up against a bike like the 907 which is less expensive.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  8. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    992
    It will be a nice frame for guys that only want to run 4" tires.
    The LPG

  9. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    120
    Has anyone learned the axle - crown measurement on the Farley fork?

  10. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    971
    Yes: 490MM

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockland View Post
    Has anyone learned the axle - crown measurement on the Farley fork?
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  11. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    Yes: 490MM
    Thanks.

  12. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    99
    Seriously contemplating a frameset Farley, after looking at the Norco Bigfoot and the Specialized Fatboy, I think the trek will be the best of both worlds and as a frameset it comes pretty well spec'd. Just hope they come into Australia, as they aren't listed on the Trek Australia webpage.

  13. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    99
    Well it looks like the Australian consumers miss out again with Trek Australia not bringing in the Farley. Now to work out where to buy one from in the US and import it. Finding a Trek online seller is proving to be an issue, especially one that replies to emails, postage and freight forwarding isn't the issue thankfully...

    Anyone got any ideas??

  14. #164
    Albany West Oz
    Reputation: Freediver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    285
    Crazyjose,

    Trek like many other brands want you to buy at local shop and won't ship even if the bike you want is available in Aus and sold out, I went through this with one of their bikes.

    Ideas - yep, get the real deal and buy from someone who was around when these things were not supermarket items. I have a Fatback and couldn't be happier. Not being elitist, just following good service.
    Don't grow up, it's a trap.

  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,132
    You won't find a Trek dealer that can send you a bike or frameset, you may find one that will but they're not supposed to. If you really want one you're going to have to travel to get it or have someone who is pick one up for you. Several of the more reputable brands have the same thing their dealer agreements.

  16. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    99
    Yeah I have just found that out, I have a few mates in Florida who can help me out, so it looks like I will getting them to buy it, and ship it to my freight forwarder in CA. I looked at a 907 but can't get an XL centred one anywhere, and the Trek comes with a fork, so I am on the way so to speak with the Trek. Surly and Salsa seem to have more relaxed dealer agreements, Trek and specialized not so...

  17. #167
    turtles make me hot
    Reputation: NYrr496's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7,843
    crazyjose, the new 190mm 9zero7's are centered and come with a fork. They'll be delivered any day now.
    I like turtles

  18. #168
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Freediver View Post
    Crazyjose,

    Trek like many other brands want you to buy at local shop and won't ship even if the bike you want is available in Aus and sold out, I went through this with one of their bikes.

    Ideas - yep, get the real deal and buy from someone who was around when these things were not supermarket items. I have a Fatback and couldn't be happier. Not being elitist, just following good service.
    My sentiments exactly!

  19. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4
    Framesets are available - mine built up to 24.2pounds.

    Trek Fat bike-fy3clg.jpg

  20. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    33
    Love to hear more about ride impressions and tire clearance with huskers

  21. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    99
    Looks good, no dramas with the build I see. I got a Powder blue one jetting its way to my post office at the moment. Can't wait to build it.

  22. #172
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712

    Re: Trek Fat bike

    Quote Originally Posted by 3speed View Post
    Framesets are available - mine built up to 24.2pounds.
    Wow... nice job. Build specs?
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  23. #173
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    213
    That's a nice looking bike, but I'm scratching my head on the rear der. cable.

  24. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: marathon marke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by 3speed View Post
    Framesets are available - mine built up to 24.2pounds.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fy3clg.jpg 
Views:	5290 
Size:	146.6 KB 
ID:	839552
    I thought that rear brake cable housing looked familiar!
    - Mark Ehlers
    The Prodigal Cyclist

  25. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    70
    24.2!!! How 'bout a rundown on your wheels?

  26. #176
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Fwilpum View Post
    24.2!!! How 'bout a rundown on your wheels?
    Those appear to be Schlick Northpaw rims, we'll see what he says they are laced to....
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  27. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4
    Wheels are Northpaw Rims & Northpaw Hubs connected with Wheelsmith DB-14 Spokes. Milwaukee representing!

    Only 1 ride on the bike yet, I'll get a bigger post up soon!

  28. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    201
    I had a chance to check out a new built-up Farley at my LBS yesterday afternoon. Knard 3.8's, HRD rims, Salsa hubs (surprised me), hydraulic brakes, green-anodized RaceFace crankset, internal cable routing, various anodized bits, and an extremely slick-looking frame. I also noticed that there is almost no extra room in the rear triangle between the tire and both the seat tube and the front derailleur. I would only hope that Nates will fit - but absolutely forget anything bigger. This bike just screams "I'm built for speed". LBS said it is sub-30 pounds. I thought that the "lines" of the frame up by the headtube are a little weird looking - there's that big space between the down tube and the front wheel that I guess is intended to allow for a suspension fork. The non-suspension fork that comes on the bike is kinda weird looking too - the entire front end looks pretty jacked up.

  29. #179
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,074
    Northernbreed, it looks a very nice bike.... and easy to drop a few lb's too.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  30. #180
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775

    Trek Fat bike

    Northernbreed, your LBS has one? Mine is still expecting three but with an unknown ETA. They are hoping December but it may be January before they get one.
    Craigslist & MTBR --free ads for all

  31. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by heyyall View Post
    Northernbreed, your LBS has one? Mine is still expecting three but with an unknown ETA. They are hoping December but it may be January before they get one.
    Yup - one built-up Farley in stock.

    Right now I'm trying to determine if it will take a Nate on the rear wheel and still retain some semblance of clearance between the tire and the seat tube and front derailleur. It's really pretty tight in there already with the Knard 3.8, but the LBS fellow said he thought the Knard casing might be a bit bigger than a Nate, and that he didn't think it would be an issue. I might even see if they'd be willing to throw a Nate on the read wheel and remove all doubt. It's one snappy fatbike - but I do wish they'd made allowances for a wider real wheel/tire setup. I guess that's what Specialized has done. :-)

  32. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Northernbreed View Post
    Yup - one built-up Farley in stock.

    Right now I'm trying to determine if it will take a Nate on the rear wheel and still retain some semblance of clearance between the tire and the seat tube and front derailleur. It's really pretty tight in there already with the Knard 3.8, but the LBS fellow said he thought the Knard casing might be a bit bigger than a Nate, and that he didn't think it would be an issue.
    http://surlybikes.com/uploads/downlo...Geometries.pdf

    There are some variations from tire to tire, but the specs from Surly show the 3.8 Knard to be smaller than the Nate in width - both casings and knobs.

    Worth throwing one in the frame just to validate the chart.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  33. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    http://surlybikes.com/uploads/downlo...Geometries.pdf

    There are some variations from tire to tire, but the specs from Surly show the 3.8 Knard to be smaller than the Nate in width - both casings and knobs.

    Worth throwing one in the frame just to validate the chart.
    Wow - yeah, I should have gone to that chart and looked - thanks! If the Farley won't handle a Nate on the rear wheel, then I fear that this "... is like another fall of man."

    :-)

  34. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Northernbreed View Post
    Wow - yeah, I should have gone to that chart and looked - thanks! If the Farley won't handle a Nate on the rear wheel, then I fear that this "... is like another fall of man."

    :-)
    With all these first year fatbikes coming out there are bound to be some learning curve issues. Fatbikes aren't as "obvious" as they seem to all of us. Trek can sort that out for next year and up the tire clearance.

    So this bike will fit a Larry & Knard....how wide is the On One Floater compared to a Knard?

    What is the stock tire on the Farely...a Knard?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  35. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    With all these first year fatbikes coming out there are bound to be some learning curve issues. Fatbikes aren't as "obvious" as they seem to all of us. Trek can sort that out for next year and up the tire clearance.

    So this bike will fit a Larry & Knard....how wide is the On One Floater compared to a Knard?

    What is the stock tire on the Farely...a Knard?
    That's fine if you haven't already bought a Farley - sadly, one wouldn't be able to download the FarleyFrame 2.0 upgrade and instantly get a bit more clearance.

    I think the Knard is standard on them now - that's what their website says, and that's what this one has. Pretty cool tire - looks like it would work for summer trail use and probably it would be decent for pavement too.

  36. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Northernbreed View Post
    That's fine if you haven't already bought a Farley - sadly, one wouldn't be able to download the FarleyFrame 2.0 upgrade and instantly get a bit more clearance.
    If you want to buy a brand new bike model this is part of the risk. It's not a Trek thing. New model issues are relatively common. Year #2 is a lot safer - plus then you actually have some rider reviews to back up the spec sheet.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  37. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    If you want to buy a brand new bike model this is part of the risk. It's not a Trek thing. New model issues are relatively common. Year #2 is a lot safer - plus then you actually have some rider reviews to back up the spec sheet.
    Well, if there is a potential problem (like this) that is easily identified up front, then there is no risk - you simply don't buy the bike. Surprise averted. That's one reason why we share info like this.

    I just think the Nate on a 82mm rim is pretty much the minimum ante a bike maker needs to bring these days for a bike to be used in snow. If the Farley won't take a Nate on the 82mm rim, then that's a clear mistake on Trek's part.

    And if it does fit, then this is all moot!

  38. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Northernbreed View Post
    Well, if there is a potential problem (like this) that is easily identified up front, then there is no risk - you simply don't buy the bike. Surprise averted. That's one reason why we share info like this.
    +1 - that's what I love about MTBR.

    The risk is not everyone will think about tire clearance when they are buying and will get a surprise 1 yr in when they go to swap those Nates into the frame.

    Also not every issue is apparent on the showroom floor. Some take time to present themselves.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  39. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    120

    Actual data on the Farley

    A 19.5" frame only ( no seat collar or Trek rear wheel qr ) weighed in at 1813 g ( 'bout 4 lb even ). The fork ( with crown race & star nut ) 1172 g.

    I threw a wheel with an old Nate on a RD to measure. No problems at all with the Nate ( this old tire measured 98 mm @ the knobs, 99 mm @ the casing ).

    The max width between the seat stays ( roughly where Nate's shoulder knobs ) 123 mm. Max down between the chain stays not as much, 117 mm. There is about 12 mm between the O.D. of Nate and the closest thing on the seat tube ( one of the cable stops ).

    Everyone seems quick to pan Trek's effort, but I think they did a pretty good job. It's not going to fit the biggest tires on the market, but something had to give to achieve 440 mm long chain stays.










  40. #190
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775

    Trek Fat bike

    Looks good! I'm looking to some ride reports.
    Craigslist & MTBR --free ads for all

  41. #191
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712

    Re: Trek Fat bike

    I love that light blue. I don't think ive even seen one of those built up yet as they've all been the black frame. Post more pics when it is complete!
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  42. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    99
    I've got that colour frame on order, shipping now. Looks good so far, I'm fitting on-one wheels and tyres to mine, just gotta drill the rims some time this week to lighten them up and add some blue rim tape bling. Looking good so far Rockland 8)

  43. #193
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712

    Re: Trek Fat bike

    Quote Originally Posted by crazyjose View Post
    I've got that colour frame on order, shipping now. Looks good so far, I'm fitting on-one wheels and tyres to mine, just gotta drill the rims some time this week to lighten them up and add some blue rim tape bling. Looking good so far Rockland 8)
    Orange might look cool too with the orange decals on the blue frame
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  44. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockland View Post
    A 19.5" frame only ( no seat collar or Trek rear wheel qr ) weighed in at 1813 g ( 'bout 4 lb even ). The fork ( with crown race & star nut ) 1172 g.

    I threw a wheel with an old Nate on a RD to measure. No problems at all with the Nate ( this old tire measured 98 mm @ the knobs, 99 mm @ the casing ).

    The max width between the seat stays ( roughly where Nate's shoulder knobs ) 123 mm. Max down between the chain stays not as much, 117 mm. There is about 12 mm between the O.D. of Nate and the closest thing on the seat tube ( one of the cable stops ).

    Everyone seems quick to pan Trek's effort, but I think they did a pretty good job. It's not going to fit the biggest tires on the market, but something had to give to achieve 440 mm long chain stays.
    For the record, I'm not one who is panning Trek's efforts at all. Fact is, I'm thinking of buying the bike, but after seeing it fully built-up in person, it was obvious that the Knard clearance to the body of the front derailleur was pretty tight, and I want to make sure that a Nate will clear it too. Otherwise, the bike looks really impressive at this price point - so much so that I mentioned to the LBS guy that I thought Salsa was gonna lose sales of their new Muk 2 bikes to this one.

    As for the 440mm chain stays ... I'd like to know more about whether that's some kind of perfect number for a fatbike chain stay length, and/or what the reason for that choice might have been.

  45. #195
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Northernbreed View Post
    this one.

    As for the 440mm chain stays ... I'd like to know more about whether that's some kind of perfect number for a fatbike chain stay length, and/or what the reason for that choice might have been.
    Right now the trend for bikes is short stays=lively and more fun and for a fat bike this is true as well but....... There are some negatives and one is that you loose some stability especially in snow. For summer riding and for winters where you don't get a lot of snow I think short is the way to go. I think the 17.3 on the Farley is pretty sweet.

  46. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Northernbreed View Post
    As for the 440mm chain stays ... I'd like to know more about whether that's some kind of perfect number for a fatbike chain stay length, and/or what the reason for that choice might have been.
    440mm looks to be about as short as the CX can be made for these size tires and still achieve reasonable clearance with the seattube (without resorting to bending the seattube). Short CS make the mike more maneuverable and make it easier to pop the front wheel off the ground.

  47. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    201
    Just took the Farley out for a (pavement) test ride. Very responsive and light. Love the Knards. Very nice overall ergos for me. Hydraulic brakes were great. Frame feels stiff. Fits me perfectly - I may buy it if I can determine the fit for a Nate in the rear. Again, it's the front derailleur body that shows the tight clearance for the Knard 3.8 that's on there, and given the numbers from the Surly tire/rim data sheet, running a bigger Nate could be problematic. I'll find out.

    http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downl...Geometries.pdf

  48. #198
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Northernbreed View Post
    Just took the Farley out for a (pavement) test ride. Very responsive and light. Love the Knards. Very nice overall ergos for me. Hydraulic brakes were great. Frame feels stiff. Fits me perfectly - I may buy it if I can determine the fit for a Nate in the rear. Again, it's the front derailleur body that shows the tight clearance for the Knard 3.8 that's on there, and given the numbers from the Surly tire/rim data sheet, running a bigger Nate could be problematic. I'll find out.

    http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downl...Geometries.pdf
    I road one today and 80's and Nates might be pushing it, I hope I'm wrong but there sure wasn't much room on either side of the Knards.

  49. #199
    GoCyco
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    351
    I just saw this bike on a website while researching bike shops in Vienna. And I was psyched to get my hands on one. After further inquiries I found out that they are sold out across Europe already and no one can even order one!

  50. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,132
    We just got a bunch into my shop today. Super fun bike to ride! Who needs one? Ya can't have the 15 though, that one is for me

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trek: should I ask for a new bike?
    By ChewynMe in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-17-2012, 06:28 PM
  2. My trek 800 bike
    By kimbruess in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 04-16-2012, 04:26 PM
  3. Wisconsin bike Trek sues Marin wine Trek
    By one.eleven in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 07:52 AM
  4. First Bike: Trek 3500 disc vs Trek 3700 disc
    By Joey Jiggles in forum Trek
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-11-2011, 03:53 PM
  5. New Bike (Trek) Help!
    By J_Mad18 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-16-2011, 12:40 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
  •