Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 272

Thread: Trek Fat bike

  1. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Psf View Post
    Any idea/guesses on price?
    I'll guess $2500 based on the parts spec. Definitely doesn't look like another "entry-level" fatbike.

  2. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    680

    More details emerge.

    The Farley is being offered in 5 sizes from 14.5 to 21.5 Tapered (E2) head tube Aluminum frame with internal routed front derailleur and dropper post. They do not give geometry for the bike or the axel to crown measurement of the fork but do list it as suspension corrected.

    Price is TBD.

    Trek Fat bike-farley_frame.jpg

  3. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5

    Specs

    Trek Fat bike-image.jpg
    Trek Fat bike-image.jpgTrek Fat bike-image.jpg

  4. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,034
    Anyone know what is going on here?

    Name:  trek.jpg
Views: 2256
Size:  14.1 KB

  5. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,613
    Real nice spec on the bike. X9, RF Turbine, Rolling Daryl's, and Huskers.
    Noogie...Noogie...Noogie.

  6. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    680
    I believe it is a stiffener. Given the fork is suspension corrected it has longer legs and this keeps the flex under control. It may have the negative effect of not allowing 29 Knards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    Anyone know what is going on here?

    Name:  trek.jpg
Views: 2256
Size:  14.1 KB

  7. #82
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,838
    Looking for a suspension corrected frame and even though I'm excited about the big kids jumping in I will look for another.
    And I love beer!!

  8. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    698
    Perhaps the fact it's running a suspension-corrected fork (even with the stupid brace) means that they're working on a fat suspension fork? Just thinking out loud...

  9. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Looking for a suspension corrected frame and even though I'm excited about the big kids jumping in I will look for another.
    Not sure what the A-to-C measurement is for the Trek fork, but it looks similar to the Mukluk, which uses a 468mm fork. I'd think that any of the bikes designed to use a 468mm fork will take a suspension fork just fine. The Pugs (and my Twenty2) are designed for a 450mm fork, and might not feel right with a suspension fork.

  10. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    I am surprised they didn't use some bontrager King earl cranks on a Howitzer 100mm BB, or maybe they will be using a Bontrager version of the new X9 once they get it ready.
    I assume Bontrager tires will be in the works too.
    I think either this fat bike thing is about to get real big, or there will be a glut of unsold bikes and parts available if it doesn't.

    Judging by the amount of interest I have seen in the fat bikes on the floor of bike shops around here from the general public, the latter case is more likely.

    I can see some further growth from people who happen to know someone who already has one, but most people look at them and think they will be so slow as to not be any fun to ride. It is a hard message to get across, unless they actually ride the thing. The typical sales guys at the big bike shops are usually into whatever makes a bike go faster, and really wide tires are of no interest to them.
    A good racing effort with fat bikes in regular bike races, with ringer riders could help change that though.
    Trek needs to get some seriously fast riders, that are not that well known to go around winning some races against skinnier tire bikes. If well known fast riders are used, it would be discounted.

  11. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I think either this fat bike thing is about to get real big, or there will be a glut of unsold bikes and parts available if it doesn't.
    Or something in between. None of the new offerings from Trek, Specialized or Kona represent an "all in" approach to fatties. All are low to mid-level entries with evolutionary tech at best. Just another bike in their massive lineups (Kona, for instance, announced 25 new models at the same time as their fatty.) We'll just have to wait and see if they'll sell. I guess none are currently available for delivery yet?

  12. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    What would an "all-in" approach be?
    I am thinking you want to see them offer something significantly better or different than what is currently offered. So would I, especially if it involved suspension, front or fully.

    I even think it would make sense from a cost to develop perspective.
    A 29" fully frame could easily be used. They could make some BB cups for any of the current shell standards to fit fat bike cranks currently available. one of the wider press fit style shells would work best. then they could design a wider version of their rear suspension swingarms and links to use the exact same pivot points, dropouts, and all, just made wider for the tire clearance and wider rear hub(170or190mm). It would take less development time than designing a new rigid frame from scratch, or even redesigning a current rigid 29er frame. Then the main frame could come straight from the current production run, and they could scale the production level of the other needed parts to whatever quantity they expect to sell.
    Obviously they see that the market for rigid framed bikes is solid enough since bike sales are already there in quantities high enough to justify breaking into an existing market with a similar product, rather than guessing if something a little different would sell.

    I think it should be fairly obvious that the sales numbers are already far exceeding the snow/sand market, and if people are riding them on fair weather trails, suspension fat bikes will have a market, but the decision makers at the big bike companies rarely make that big of a leap of faith.

    Or, I guess it might be more a matter of having a fork manufacturer on board. The bike makers don't want to invest in the frame design without having the forks available, and the fork makers don't want to invest in the fork design without the frames being available.
    Too bad Cannondale hasn't shown any interest in fat bikes yet. they could develop the fork to go with it as well. In fact they don't have to do much, MCS and others have done the groundwork for them.
    Last edited by autodoctor911; 07-21-2013 at 08:38 PM.

  13. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I think either this fat bike thing is about to get real big, or there will be a glut of unsold bikes and parts available if it doesn't.

    Judging by the amount of interest I have seen in the fat bikes on the floor of bike shops around here from the general public, the latter case is more likely.
    I had the same thought. Now that the Wallgoosepocalypse has passed and the $200 fatty market is saturated it will be interesting to see how many fatbike Special Ed, Trek, Norco, Kona, etc... are hoping to sell at the other end of the spectrum.

    Whatever happens it will be entertaining. Stay tuned!
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  14. #89
    Nuts
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Not sure what the A-to-C measurement is for the Trek fork, but it looks similar to the Mukluk, which uses a 468mm fork. I'd think that any of the bikes designed to use a 468mm fork will take a suspension fork just fine. The Pugs (and my Twenty2) are designed for a 450mm fork, and might not feel right with a suspension fork.
    Yeah it would be close, I figure a 100mm fork will have about a 500-510mm c-r so around and 480mm after sag. Off coarse that's just a guess because we have no forks to go by as of right now. That being said I have till next summer to get it done so I won't settle for close enough
    And I love beer!!

  15. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    What would an "all-in" approach be?
    I am thinking you want to see them offer something significantly better or different than what is currently offered. So would I, especially if it involved suspension, front or fully.

    I even think it would make sense from a cost to develop perspective.
    A 29" fully frame could easily be used. They could make some BB cups for any of the current shell standards to fit fat bike cranks currently available. one of the wider press fit style shells would work best. then they could design a wider version of their rear suspension swingarms and links to use the exact same pivot points, dropouts, and all, just made wider for the tire clearance and wider rear hub(170or190mm). It would take less development time than designing a new rigid frame from scratch, or even redesigning a current rigid 29er frame. Then the main frame could come straight from the current production run, and they could scale the production level of the other needed parts to whatever quantity they expect to sell.
    Obviously they see that the market for rigid framed bikes is solid enough since bike sales are already there in quantities high enough to justify breaking into an existing market with a similar product, rather than guessing if something a little different would sell.

    I think it should be fairly obvious that the sales numbers are already far exceeding the snow/sand market, and if people are riding them on fair weather trails, suspension fat bikes will have a market, but the decision makers at the big bike companies rarely make that big of a leap of faith.

    Or, I guess it might be more a matter of having a fork manufacturer on board. The bike makers don't want to invest in the frame design without having the forks available, and the fork makers don't want to invest in the fork design without the frames being available.
    Too bad Cannondale hasn't shown any interest in fat bikes yet. they could develop the fork to go with it as well. In fact they don't have to, MCS and others have done the groundwork for them.
    By "all in", I meant renouncing all non-fat bikes, growing beards and drinking PBR from the can.

    All kidding aside, you'd think at least one of the big boys would try to do something like you said, or make some kind of big move to help everyone forget that they're way late to the game. (Oops, sorry, big guys! Hope this won't affect any future warranty support if I end up buying one of your bikes.)

  16. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,128

    Re: Trek Fat bike

    So i walked into my trek shop today (have a good relationship with owner so i stop in to see how things are going etc) and asked him if he checked the new releases yet for this fall.

    He asked me " how the hell did you know about it so soon cause i just found out not too long ago?". Didn't even have to specify the what bike I was referring to,lol. He knows I'm planning on buying a fatty next year for winter riding. Told him it was on here about as fast as it was announced.

    I'm waiting to see one first hand so he said when they become available hell get one in my size in so i can drool over it while saving hehe.

    Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2
    Trek Marlin 29er

    Like It, Love It, Want Some More Of It!

  17. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,955
    So you can't run a tire larger than 4 inches in this frame? Kinda lame.

  18. #93
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378

    Re: Trek Fat bike

    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    So you can't run a tire larger than 4 inches in this frame? Kinda lame.
    Not really. If you're only riding trails with no snow it's fine. Even on snow fine. 4"+ fat bikes are just starting to take off in the last year other than the Moonlander.

  19. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,955
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    Not really. If you're only riding trails with no snow it's fine. Even on snow fine. 4"+ fat bikes are just starting to take off in the last year other than the Moonlander.
    I guess that question arises, for what application are 4 + inch tires really needed?

  20. #95
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,718
    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    I guess that question arises, for what application are 4 + inch tires really needed?
    Soft loose stuff, mainly. Here in arroyo-land, riding loose dry sand/gravel? More is better. Me on a Moonlander riding next to a buddy on a Pugsley on the same "surface" was enough of a difference to cause him to get a moonlander. In snow, it just depends on how deep/soft the snow is. The fatter your tires are, the better they float in the soft.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  21. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    933
    Where we like to ride and when conditions are right 4" just doesn't cut it.
    The LPG

  22. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,767
    Quote Originally Posted by GnarBrahWyo View Post
    I guess that question arises, for what application are 4 + inch tires really needed?
    Lots - there's plenty soft ground out there, especially if you don't stick to trails.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  23. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by sp33dwagon View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	5517 
Size:	155.4 KB 
ID:	817923
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	2911 
Size:	122.6 KB 
ID:	817922Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	506 
Size:	73.3 KB 
ID:	817924
    Guess someone didn't like my spec pages...

  24. #99
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,094
    News from Trek World: Farley is $2499.00 Rumored at 26lbs. There won't be a Bontrager tire or rim till 2015. They will use Surly Knards and Rolling Darryls for now.

  25. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    221
    That is crazy light for the money. It will be interesting to see the full specs. Weights pushing 25 lbs have to raise the bar for everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    News from Trek World: Farley is $2499.00 Rumored at 26lbs. There won't be a Bontrager tire or rim till 2015. They will use Surly Knards and Rolling Darryls for now.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 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, 05:28 PM
  2. My trek 800 bike
    By kimbruess in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 04-16-2012, 03:26 PM
  3. Wisconsin bike Trek sues Marin wine Trek
    By one.eleven in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 06:52 AM
  4. First Bike: Trek 3500 disc vs Trek 3700 disc
    By Joey Jiggles in forum Trek
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-11-2011, 02:53 PM
  5. New Bike (Trek) Help!
    By J_Mad18 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-16-2011, 11:40 AM

Posting Permissions

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