Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 272

Thread: Trek Fat bike

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7

    Trek Fat bike

    I was cruising the internet and found this. I don't think anyone has posted it yet. Unfortunately there weren't any specs for it.

    Trek Fat bike-trek-fat-bike.jpg

  2. #2
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,711
    I saw freewheel bike in MN posted that... they may have gotten it from somewhere else though. Fork looks carbon.

    And so the tidal wave continues...
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smithcreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    496
    Interesting, looks like a tight fit on a Knards. 170? I thought all the new bikes would be 190 and fit the big tires.

  4. #4
    Levi Early
    Reputation: Levi707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    223
    Im all for seeing the big three getting involved in the fat bike market. Hopefully this will drive the price of some things down.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    480
    me thinks these trek, specialized fat bikes are to the simply surly steels, what the surly steels are to the walgoose...

    maybe it's just the paint job

  6. #6
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,235
    They had the chance at putting out a fat fuel...but noooooo.....lol.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1
    Where'd you find that pic? Any other goodies?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7
    I found it on my LBS's facebook page. No other information or photos, just that one. I am surprised at the lack of clearance (maybe its just a bad camera angle). Also I was kinda hoping for some Bontrager tires and wheels.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    463
    Looks a lot like a Stache 8 with a different fork, but a fat rear would never fit in that frame, would it? Are those 26" wheels or 29+?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bethany1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    712
    That rear tire looks like it barely fits. Not even remotely interested.

  11. #11
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    looks like my sawyer fork

    Who installed the tires on there? they are completely off the valve, obey the rules!
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  12. #12
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,033
    Trek needs to stay in the back seat and stay quiet.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    381
    looks pretty useless with clearance like that - bet you wouldnt get a nate in there for winter

  14. #14
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,319
    Oh thank the lord!

    Now everyone that calls me, asking which brands I carry that are ridden in the 'Tour, and wants a fatbike, will be ecstatic since I can tell them their wishes have been granted.

    Everyone knows, unless your bike brand has bikes in the TDF, they are junk.

    My guess, Cervelo will be next......
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,290
    ...Bianchi...they've been in the winter racing thing for YEARS...they've sponsored Rocky Reifenstuhl in the ITI for quite a while, at least since the Dan Bull days...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    I have always wondered why people want a bunch of room around their tires in the fram. I don't care how much clearance there is between my stays and the tire, as long as the tire I want to use fits and doesn't rub. I have often run wider tires in my older MTB frames that barely clear, and never worried about how much mud clearance there was. I never felt like the close stays getting caked up with mud slowed me down anymore than ones with plenty of room. The mud/ or snow is going to build up to the point where it is sheared off anyways if it is thick and sticky enough to matter.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,601
    Wow. Another rigid fatty. Nice to see the big guys really pushing the envelope.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: masterofnone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,219
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I have always wondered why people want a bunch of room around their tires in the fram. I don't care how much clearance there is between my stays and the tire, as long as the tire I want to use fits and doesn't rub. I have often run wider tires in my older MTB frames that barely clear, and never worried about how much mud clearance there was. I never felt like the close stays getting caked up with mud slowed me down anymore than ones with plenty of room. The mud/ or snow is going to build up to the point where it is sheared off anyways if it is thick and sticky enough to matter.
    I guess you've never ridden in mud sticky and thick enough to stop your wheels dead like hitting the brakes. I consider tire clearance very important, just as important as flotation. Stopping to scrape off your tires every 30 seconds sucks.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    I guess I haven't. Where do you find mud like that?

    Most of the mud I see around here is black dirt, with a good bit of clay in it, but also a little sand, which might keep it from getting that sticky. It's probably not nearly as sticky as the red stuff. Usually the tire pushing through the mud gives me a lot more resistance than the mud/tire/frame interface.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133

  21. #21
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    The first one I see with a new tyre that doesn't say Surly or any of the other current offerings im going to get excited. Until then its really only a different named, different coloured version of sh1t we already have.... and by the look of the above, a step back to 135mm rear hubs or could be 170mm with a 73mm BB.

    Saying that it probably wont be long till someone makes a tyre as the big names are making bikes.
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I guess I haven't. Where do you find mud like that?....
    The UK.

    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    673

  24. #24
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,319
    I know everyone is all excited for things to get cheaper because a name bigger than Surly got involved.

    Lest we forget, some of the biggest niche extortionists have some of the biggest names.

    Does anyone really think that a small run of tires from one of these guys, will suddenly rain down upon us at $40 a pop, and be all that anyone wants them to be?

    We have that, Origin8's. How many folks are running to them saying these are the best things since sliced bread? A few. When Specialized introduces their tire, it will be pegged at close to the same prices are Surly, mark my words, why would they want to charge less than the going rate?

    The broader market has had high end tire prices for years anyway, ever price a Criterium Seta Extra? MSRP was over 2 bills, 20+ years ago. Quit yer whinin'.

    These parts all cost money because the production runs are small.

    A new manufacturer isn't going to suddenly make 30,000 tires at $20 MSRP just because they made a fat bike and they like you, and don't like Surly. And if they do, it'll be heavy, stiff, and ride like sh*t.

    And, who sells more bikes that costs range into the nosebleed range? Yeah, the big guys. They love to make money, not pacify riders desire to save money.

    So now we have three "big boys" making crap we already can buy, they haven't revolutionized anything, most complain about the Kona, and the other two, well, really?

    They are simply following a trend so they don't get left out on a place at the feed trough. Anyone that can show me that they have your wallet staying fuller as their prime objective, and I'll eat my hat.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    85
    Specialized, Trek.... We do not need new frames.

    We need new tires and rims to escape the SURLY/SALSA domination.

  26. #26
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I guess I haven't. Where do you find mud like that?

    Rocky Gap State Park by bundokbiker, on Flickr
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | ssoft | flickr

  27. #27
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Does anyone really think that a small run of tires from one of these guys, will suddenly rain down upon us at $40 a pop, and be all that anyone wants them to be?......

    ....These parts all cost money because the production runs are small. .....

    A new manufacturer isn't going to suddenly make 30,000 tires at $20 MSRP just because they made a fat bike and they like you, and don't like Surly. And if they do, it'll be heavy, stiff, and ride like sh*t.
    I agree that having more, (be they bigger companies or smaller), in the fat bike tire market will not necessarily drive down prices. If fat bike tires quit selling like hot cakes and/or the market gets saturated, well then.....maybe.

    To my mind, the bigger point to be made with companies like Specialized dropping in is that , IF their tires are better quality at a similar price than Surly's, (which wouldn't be a stretch to imagine), then I would hope this would force Surly to up their game a little and make a better tire as well in the future.

    Competition in the marketplace of fat bike specific components has been somewhat lacking. (Really- Vee Rubber hasn't made a dent with the stuff they've brought to the table) So- IF Specialized does what they do with their other tires, and IF they sell the fat bike "Ground Control based" 4.8"er aftermarket at a competitive to Bud & Lou price, I feel that will be a good thing for fat bikers now and into the future.

    But yeah.....I am totally with you on the economics of the bigger companies.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  28. #28
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    I know everyone is all excited for things to get cheaper because a name bigger than Surly got involved.

    Lest we forget, some of the biggest niche extortionists have some of the biggest names.

    Does anyone really think that a small run of tires from one of these guys, will suddenly rain down upon us at $40 a pop, and be all that anyone wants them to be?
    Nope, I don't really care about the price... I'll let the manufacturers care about that if they are tyring to compete with others.

    Considering I clad every bike I have in Racing Ralphs at $60+ a tyre I will hardly expect my CURRENTLY $200 buds to be $40 a pop.

    It will just be exciting to have a big named manufacturer on board and letting QBP know that the niche game is over and they need to work a bit harder for customers, at the moment there is no competition for Surly/45NRTH tyres period.
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    Maybe it's not that easy to make a good performing, durable and lightweight fatbike tire, and the price accurately reflects the costs associated with production. Just a thought...

  30. #30
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    When a really good road tyre costs $80, a really good CX tyre costs $80, a really good MTB tyre costs $80, its not about the rubber used coz my missus's car has (rated for towing, speed and weight) 15kg tyres for $100, so the fact that a fatbike tyre that's good for 30psi max rather than a roadie tyre that's good for 150psi costs $200 is something that still raises an eyebrow.

    I really don't give a sh1t as we here in Oz will pay through the nose anyway but it has to get somewhat better ?
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7
    I think more companies making fat bikes will lead to more fat bike component options, not just frames, but rims, tires, cranks, and forks. The prices may not drop but at least there will be lots of choices. I have an 9zero7 thats been waiting patiently for a RockShox fat specific fork.

  32. #32
    Levi Early
    Reputation: Levi707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    223
    I dont ever expect to see a $40 fat bike tire but I sure would like to see more options for under $100. The fact that replacing both tires on my muk ends up costing more than replacing 4 tires on my crv makes me raise an eyebrow.

    back to talking about the bike.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,176
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Maybe it's not that easy to make a good performing, durable and lightweight fatbike tire, and the price accurately reflects the costs associated with production. Just a thought...
    +1 - it's so easy to talk about building stuff awesome and cheap....actually doing it is another thing.

    Big tires are particularly tough. We want them light and fast rolling which is possible, but we also want them tough/long lasting and cheap which is possible. The trouble comes when we want them light, fast rolling, tough and cheap!

    I am actually hopeful there is a technological breakthrough possible that can get us to light, fast rolling and tough from a puncture perspective. It will require advanced materials and construction techniques and it sure as heck won't be cheap.

    My buddy put a small stick through his 27TPI Knards last tour. A very small stick. Running tires that easy to puncture doesn't make me happy, but I'm still sticking with 120TPI Knards because running slow/stiff/heavy tires is worse.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  34. #34
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,643
    Wonder if they will they offer this bike in a WSD design? Or if it will have G2 Geometry?

  35. #35
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    Many other tyres have special sidewalls, triple compounds, puncture protection.... blah blah blah. Fatbike tyres are basically rubber bags with knobs attached, ive spiked a HuDu twice and a Bud once, the HuDus are the worst wearing tyres ive ever owned. Ive had 5 different fat tyres now and yet to see anything special apart from the price.

    Is anyone really going to stick up for the $150-$200 price tag of these ???

    Yeah were a bit off topic but at least its something constructive rather than 90% of the other repeated topics on here lately.
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    Is anyone really going to stick up for the $150-$200 price tag of these ???
    My first fat tire was the Endo at ~$100. It was the only choice.

    I'm happy to see more fat tire options on the market and $150 doesn't blow me away for a niche tire.

    I spend $80-$90 on every tire for my 26er MTB and those tires are selling 10-100 to every fatbike tire so they enjoy a massively larger economy of scale.

    In terms of the puncture protection if you look at what a "big" MTB tire weighs say a 26 x 2.4" UST Conti Trail King you are at ~1200g which is what some of good the 4" fatbike tires are coming in at. Add in conventional puncture protection and we are back to heavy slow stiff fat bike tires that don't interest me. Which is why I think we need some new materials that can improve puncture protection without a big weight penalty.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    673
    It's not just what Spesh and Trek/Bontrager bring to market. The fact that they are in the market at all will encourage WTB, Schwalbe etc to come out with more options too.

  38. #38
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Which is why I think we need some new materials that can improve puncture protection without a big weight penalty.
    100% agree, if im going to pay those prices I want more than a QBP rubber bag.
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    100% agree, if im going to pay those prices I want more than a QBP rubber bag.
    If you want that next level of innovation plan to pay more than current prices....

    or hope that fat bike sales are so amazing that we start to close in on the volume of skinny MTBs [unlikely].

    Every company that makes a fat tire has to recoup its investment costs over the volume of tires it will sell. So the more they can sell the cheaper the tires will be.

    If we divide up the volume of sales by lots more players I can't see anyone being able to sell cheap fat tires that are of a quality most people will be happy with.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  40. #40
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    When a 2.4 MTB tyre has "many technologies", a 23mm roadie has all that stuff too. What extra am I going to pay for ? Rubber ?

    The technologies are there, all they need is the market and at the current time its us paying for the nicheness <<< Oh, I invented a new word

    Yeah they are going to join the gouging bandwagon and charge the same prices or more initially as the fatbike popularity increases ..... but at least we can expect more than the current crap.</invented>
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    When a 2.4 MTB tyre has "many technologies", a 23mm roadie has all that stuff too. What extra am I going to pay for ? Rubber ?
    You are paying for low volume sales. Tire costs have little to do with rubber costs. That's why a knobby tire for my motorcycle costs $100 using a ton more rubber than any fat bike tire or MTB tire. They sell more of them than they do fat bike tires.

    If you want cheap fat bike tires companies have to sell a lot more of them.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  42. #42
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    I don't want cheap tyres Vic, I pay quite good cash for good quality MTB and CX tyres. Im just hoping that sometime soon we get a manufacturer who makes a tyre worth the $150+ price tag that has some of the technologies that my regular bike tyres have.

    I ride quite hard on rough terrain (no snow here) and more reliable, tougher and even possibly lighter tyres are hopefully not too far away.
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,176
    Not considering the impact of low production/sales volumes compared to "normal" bike tires is the same thing as wanting cheap tires.

    I feel your pain. I would love tires to be cheaper, but I don't think we are being gouged by Surly or anyone else.

    If fat tires are marked up so terribly than there would be a huge incentive for new players to produce and sell them at a lower cost.

    Schwalbe et al know exactly how many tires they need to sell at a specific cost to make a new tires worthwhile. If such an amazing opportunity existed in the fatbike niche they'd be all over it. They produce other niche tires such as for recumbents. So they aren't scared of trying something away from the mainstream.

    I bet we'll see a few more tires come on the market from Special Ed for example, but they stay around the same price and won't be radically better in terms of the technology used.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  44. #44
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    Look how long it took the "bigger" companies to get on the 29er bandwagon, Specialized alone were 3 years late.

    They have all jumped on 650b quick fast.... that might be why we are getting the "test the water" bikes but no innovation.
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,176
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    Look how long it took the "bigger" companies to get on the 29er bandwagon, Specialized alone were 3 years late.

    They have all jumped on 650b quick fast.... that might be why we are getting the "test the water" bikes but no innovation.
    +1 - and if Special Ed/Trek/? sell fat bikes like gangbusters they'll invest more money in R&D for them.

    If OTOH the small pie that is fatbikes is cut into too many pieces we'll see innovation stifled - possibly even with companies that have historically been willing to invest in fatties like QBP.

    One other possibility is companies that want to spend $$ on new stuff despite the other new competitors may try going in a direction that's not compatible with what others are offering. Sort of like what Surly did with 29ers and the Krampus. If you can create a new fatbike standard that people want and that only works with your bikes you've got a leg up.

    What will determine all of this is how many fatbikes get sold each year and much upgraditis occurs in the fatbike world for existing owners.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jaredbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    258
    I am very excited for Trek and Specialized to enter our world and look forward to their products. My first mountain bike had the original ground control tires and I would love to have them on a fat bike. Whether or not new tires will be better or cheaper I am continually amazed that my fat bike tires ride so much lighter than they look like they should. I think the endomorph and then the tires to follow are almost the complete reason fat bikes became so popular and moved beyond long distance Alaska winter gear and into all sorts of other rides most of us do.
    laotzucycles.blogspot.com

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    As I think back to when 2.3's on Snow Cat's (often w/ trimmed tread just to fit in the frame) were considered the highest floatation available and looked HUGE compared to everything else... I could only have dreamed of what's going on now. These are good times for high floatation cycling!

    Now let's hope rumors of susp fork(s) ring true as well...

    Cheers!

  48. #48
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,643
    I wonder if Trek will eventually do a 69er version of the fat bike, where the front is a Rabbit Hole and the rear is a Marge Lite

  49. #49
    bhc
    bhc is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    442

    name for Trek's fat bike

    Trek has a name for their fat bike. The Farley.

    Sneak Peek 2014 Trek Bikes | Rutland Cycling

    I have no affiliation with Rutland Cycling. Just came across the site on a search.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jaredbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    258
    If I had a Farley the first thing I would do is put it in my van and go for a ride down by the river.
    laotzucycles.blogspot.com

  51. #51
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Drevil View Post
    I sure hope that wasn't a dedicated MTB trail....local trail builders are cringing when they see that.

    Now if that is just some non-maintained trail in the woods then have fun

  52. #52
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by bhc View Post
    Trek has a name for their fat bike. The Farley.
    Would that be Charles Ulmer Farley?
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  53. #53
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,711
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Would that be Charles Ulmer Farley?
    Chris Farley???

    <img src="http://www.rutlandcycling.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2014-Trek-Farley-Fat-Bike-Rutland-Cycling-e1374073609485.jpg"><img src="http://engscholar24.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/chris-farley-tommy-boy.jpg?w=269">
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    Many other tyres have special sidewalls, triple compounds, puncture protection.... blah blah blah. Fatbike tyres are basically rubber bags with knobs attached, ive spiked a HuDu twice and a Bud once, the HuDus are the worst wearing tyres ive ever owned. Ive had 5 different fat tyres now and yet to see anything special apart from the price.

    Is anyone really going to stick up for the $150-$200 price tag of these ???

    Yeah were a bit off topic but at least its something constructive rather than 90% of the other repeated topics on here lately.
    Hey Ozzy, get some On-One Floaters from the UK. I got mine at $65 each and free shipping. Awesome tyres and fantastic pricing

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    Would that be Charles Ulmer Farley?
    Or this guy?
    Richard Farley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: masterofnone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,219
    In the northeast it varies from year to year, but more often than not we'll get a few weeks of peanut butter mud after the snowmelt. I realized a few years ago that the "skinny tires are better in mud" is a load of crap. The only things better than a fatbike in mud have a motor attached.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,524
    I think that will replace my moonlander, not said ever by any moonlander owner.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BurkeVT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    578

    Trek Fat bike

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaredbe View Post
    If I had a Farley the first thing I would do is put it in my van and go for a ride down by the river.
    Brilliant
    -Chris

  59. #59
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,093
    Quote Originally Posted by shanesbw View Post
    Hey Ozzy, get some On-One Floaters from the UK. I got mine at $65 each and free shipping. Awesome tyres and fantastic pricing
    Ive got a little stock pile of hudu's here... hoping for a 4" hans dampf triple nano snakeskin by the time I go through them
    Evil Following
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    IndyFab Deluxe 29
    FM190 Fatty
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  60. #60
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    I sure hope that wasn't a dedicated MTB trail....local trail builders are cringing when they see that.

    Now if that is just some non-maintained trail in the woods then have fun
    Pretty sure it isn't a dedicated mtb trail. We're uber conscientious about not riding muddy MTB trails and help out a lot during trailwork days...
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | ssoft | flickr

  61. #61
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,235
    Glad to hear it

  62. #62
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Drevil View Post
    Pretty sure it isn't a dedicated mtb trail. We're uber conscientious about not riding muddy MTB trails and help out a lot during trailwork days...
    I've been doing my part too;

    We've had so much flippin rain around here... I'm riding through all the mud holes and leveling out the ruts left by the skinny tire crowd.
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vaultbrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by TrailMaker View Post
    I've been doing my part too;

    We've had so much flippin rain around here... I'm riding through all the mud holes and leveling out the ruts left by the skinny tire crowd.
    I've done this. Works pretty well on some of our trails with certain types of mud. ::

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    You are paying for low volume sales. .
    Basically. Despite the thought that making a wider tire is as easy as molding a new wider tire, companies still have to pay to retool their machines to make this new tire. It's not free. You also are paying extra for the time the machines are using to make the tire vs making something else more profitable.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by GTR-33 View Post
    Basically. Despite the thought that making a wider tire is as easy as molding a new wider tire, companies still have to pay to retool their machines to make this new tire. It's not free. You also are paying extra for the time the machines are using to make the tire vs making something else more profitable.
    From what I've read, the tire molding process is somewhat primitive. It's not that easy to get the casing, bead and rubber to go where it needs to be. The margin for error is pretty slim when you're pushing the envelope on the sidewall thickness. This is why we see threads showing on the sidewalls and wide variations in tire weight, even for tires from the same run. This is less of a problem with car and motorcycle tires because customers aren't typically as concerned about the tires' weight as we cyclists are. I suspect that there could be a fairly high percentage of rejects, especially on the lighter versions, which contributes to the cost.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    From what I've read, the tire molding process is somewhat primitive.
    Take a look at this video of the tire manufacturing process. It looks pretty high tech to me.
    It's also easy to see why the cost of set up and tooling makes an order of say 10k tires cost a lot more per tire than 100k tires.
    By expanding the fat bike market overall, that's where the process begins to scale and costs should come down.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by GT_guy View Post
    Take a look at this video of the tire manufacturing process. It looks pretty high tech to me.
    It's also easy to see why the cost of set up and tooling makes an order of say 10k tires cost a lot more per tire than 100k tires.
    By expanding the fat bike market overall, that's where the process begins to scale and costs should come down.
    Yep, I've seen that one and a few others. There's one from Continental showing a guy throwing handfuls of various additives into the rubber mix like a chef who refuses to use a measuring device. Not seeing much in the way of computer controlled machinery or robotics. There seems to be quite a bit of human intervention. They all seem to get down to a guy laying up the tire by hand on a "barrel". How else do you explain the variations in weight, bead fit, roundness, etc., even within the same brand/model?

    As a guy who makes stuff (furniture & cabinetry) and occasionally has to defend his pricing, I hate seeing the accusations of price gouging without any evidence to back it up. I don't mind paying more for the one component that makes a fatbike fat.

  68. #68
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,127

    Re: Trek Fat bike

    Personally I'm rather happy to see this, choices for fat bikes are rapidly increasing. But I do wonder if 3.8 tires being the biggest under this frame would my clyde status make a huge difference how it rides in the sand,mud, snow. I like trek (biased do to my Trek shop here has been insanely good to me) so this moves to top couple of fat bikes choices for next spring.

    Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

  69. #69
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,235
    That video is pretty cool. Far from primitive!

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944

    Re: Trek Fat bike

    Trek Farley is official....complete bike and frameset, early october. No pricing yet
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944

    Re: Trek Fat bike

    Alu frame, Alu fork. 170mm rear hub, 135mm front hub
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    170 hub? How retro of them.........haha.
    The LPG

  73. #73
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,980
    Quote Originally Posted by lancelot View Post
    170 hub? How retro of them.........haha.
    two rings up front is just too much complication you don't need with a snow-bike.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    I think the OnOne Floater is pretty good proof that the Surly tire prices aren't based purely on cost of production for low volume runs. Any one of the Surly tires has probably been produced in production runs bigger than the Floater. And from what I can tell the quality of the Floaters has been excellent. they might weigh a bit more than a couple of the high dollar QBP tires, but IMO that extra weight is well used to make the tire more durable, while still being quite flexible. I know the Mission and Devist8er aren't very well liked, but their quality seems to be pretty good, and the reasons they aren't well received are due to weight and tread pattern. The 60tpi casing is a bit cheaper, but most of the weight was due to the thick rubber, and kevlar reinforcements, which aren't things that make them cheaper to make. I think VeeRubber didn't quite hit the mark with the first two designs, but the Floater, and vee8 are going to be replacing a lot of more expensive Surly tires now.

    I don't think specialized is going to offer their Fat tires for real cheap, but I'm pretty sure they will be less than the 45NrTH, and high end Surly stuff. I remember getting a Specialized 26x2.5" when that was the only tire that wide available back in 1992 or so. I was so stoked to get a tire that big, and it barely cleared my rigid fork on my 1989 GT Avalanche. I'm pretty sure they only made a small run of those, and it wasn't that expensive.
    I'm not sure how big the fat bike market is going to get now, but even if the expansion isn't tremendous, having more players, big or small will bring prices down for a lot of things. It happens in every young product market, so I don't see why it wouldn't here. I definitely don't count on Specialized or Trek being any less greedy than QBP, in fact I am counting on their greediness. That's the only reason they would be making the stuff available at all. The prices will be what they will be based on competition and demand. If the big companies jump in and make a bunch of stuff, then the market ends up not being there, then there will be lots of cheap stuff available for a while.

  75. #75
    Psf
    Psf is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    12
    Any idea/guesses on price?

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    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.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    982

    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
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sp33dwagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    8

    Specs

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

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Anyone know what is going on here?

    Name:  trek.jpg
Views: 2721
Size:  14.1 KB

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Real nice spec on the bike. X9, RF Turbine, Rolling Daryl's, and Huskers.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    982
    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: 2721
Size:  14.1 KB
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  82. #82
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,917
    Looking for a suspension corrected frame and even though I'm excited about the big kids jumping in I will look for another.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    754
    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...

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    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.

  85. #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.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    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?

  87. #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.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,176
    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

  89. #89
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,917
    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

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,107
    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.)

  91. #91
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,127

    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

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,766
    So you can't run a tire larger than 4 inches in this frame? Kinda lame.

  93. #93
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,711

    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.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GnarBrahWyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,766
    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?

  95. #95
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,352
    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

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    996
    Where we like to ride and when conditions are right 4" just doesn't cut it.
    The LPG

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,553
    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: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sp33dwagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by sp33dwagon View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	11436 
Size:	155.4 KB 
ID:	817923
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	5674 
Size:	122.6 KB 
ID:	817922Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	759 
Size:	73.3 KB 
ID:	817924
    Guess someone didn't like my spec pages...

  99. #99
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,258
    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.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    224
    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 1 of 3 123 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, 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, 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

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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