Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 243
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    53
    No open stock. Mine has been on order since October with an expected eta for mine of 4/22. I hope this thing gets here already, race season is here.

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation: scruffy mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33z0n3r View Post
    Seems like there is still a big delay on this model. Any ideas on if/how one might find shops with one on the floor in my size? I'd be willing to consider travelling regionally (NE) to pick one up.
    What size? It may be further than you want to drive but the trek store in chattanooga tn has most sizes, or at least they did, in stock.

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33
    Drat! They have it, but TN is too far.

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33
    Build, Trek! Build like the wind! (order is in)

  5. #205
    J79
    J79 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    97
    Spent my evening prepping my SF100 for this seasons first big test on wednesday. 10th Edition of the infamous, at least in Belgium, Cimes de Waimes




    But when re-torque-ing the frame bolts, i've done about 500km on the bike. I noticed the bolts on the left side of the suspension link are bolted directly into the link. There appear to be no washers or bolts on the left side of the frame, is that correct or have I lost some parts along the way???

    2013 Superfly 100 Elite SL eta ?-link.jpeg

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    771
    j00r picture is set to private

  7. #207
    J79
    J79 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    97
    Should be working now... fixed the link

  8. #208
    J79
    J79 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    97
    Just searched this thread, found the answer on the previous page... Duh...

    Bolts should be directly threaded in the suspension-link. So nothing to worry about.

    Should read first, before asking questions...

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9
    Thanks to our shop sponsor, Jax Bicycle Center, our team was able to be outfitted with 3 new 2013 Superfly Elite bikes (2 FS 100's, and 1 HT). I've only been able to ride the FS Superfly 100 Elite three times and the HT Superfly Elite once, but these are very fast and capable bikes out of the box. A large (19") Superfly 100 Elite (full XT kit), stock but tubeless setup and with CB Candy pedals weiged 24lbs 11oz. Not bad at all! More details and photos chronicling the build and its first race are on my blog, here: Superfly for a Superfly! | natespin

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33
    Woohoo! It came in ~6 weeks.

    2013 Superfly 100 Elite SL eta ?-2013-05-24-20.31.31.jpg

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    12
    what do you think about this review?
    This is worst review of TOP brand bike i ever read (though parts are good)
    And iam (or i was) in process to upgrade my 2012 SF 100.
    Trek Superfly 100 Elite SL Review - BikeRadar

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by prague77 View Post
    what do you think about this review?
    This is worst review of TOP brand bike i ever read (though parts are good)
    And iam (or i was) in process to upgrade my 2012 SF 100.
    Trek Superfly 100 Elite SL Review - BikeRadar
    I should note, I am riding a Superfly 100 SL (not Elite) that I put on a diet --

    I would say they aren't far from the mark in the review, but something was definitely lost in translation. My first few rides on my SL were a bit unnerving coming from an alloy Jet9, it was not very confidence inspiring, it felt perhaps a slight bit noodley compared to the Jet and the very overbuilt wheelset I was running on that bike. I think you do give up a little bit of stiffness in the name of weight, but the bike is by no means a wet noodle, it tracks and holds a line very well just perhaps not quite as well as something intended for more "all mountain/trail" riding.

    My first 20-30 miles on the bike my impression of it is best described by saying it felt a little "uninspired". It did not fill me with confidence, especially with the 2.0 tires probably intended to give it a low floor weight. As I have become more confident on the bike, however, I have come to realize that it was not that the bike was not inspiring my confidence but rather that it was just very neutral handling and I was used to a bike that had a racier/faster feel. With 150 miles on my SL now I am setting PR's almost every ride on both climbs and descents (on the tiny stock tires still too).

    I find the rear suspension quite well behaved and took me no time to adapt to coming from the Jet, apart from the fact that it is a bit racier -- the small bump compliance isn't as buttery as some bikes on the market, this one rides a little bit like an Epic. Once you are into the travel the suspension is very active and is continually inspiring more confidence, especially on descents as I throw it at gnarlier terrain. As far as the anti-squat/climbing performance/etc., I can only say this -- I love hardtails and the pedal action of this suspension bothers me not one bit and it has me setting strava PR's on climbs that I had previously set on a hardtail several years ago and was not able to match on my Jet9.

    My summary of this bike really comes down to this: The proof is in the pudding. It is fast, light and easy to ride -- even if it does take a little getting used to for someone that is used to riding a similar bike with less neutral handling.

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33

    Upset

    Quote Originally Posted by baltistyle View Post
    Tires are not as listed on the website and are a 2.0 instead of 2.2.
    This definitely caused me some problems first ride out. I must have washed out 10 times. I am disappointed that this spec change isn't updated on the website. I'm planning on sternly asking my LBS about it. I should have noticed it, but it also shouldn't be getting changed. I think I need 2.2's, having riden them nicely on my old bike.

    Is everyone getting 2.0's?


    Also, noticed that the size sticker incidates "17.5 Virtual / 16.5 Actual". Another disappointment, which may be irrelevant if the bike fits. Not sure how you get away with 2 sizes, and posting the virtual size as Actual on the website. A little sneaky.
    Last edited by fr33z0n3r; 05-27-2013 at 07:01 AM. Reason: adding in sizing issue

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    355
    It took me awhile to dial in my 2013 SF100 Elite as well. Changed the wheels and tires, seatpost, saddle, stem and bars, but that's not uncommon for me with any bike I ride. The biggest difference for me though was getting the air pressure right in the rear shock. I had to up the pressure 10-15 psi over what the Trek website suggested to get the rear suspension working the way I wanted it. Plus I had to slow the rebound down. Now, it's riding like a rocket ship racer.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    225
    This review is, in my opinion, a lot closer to the mark.

    Review: 2013 Trek Superfly 100 | Mountain Bike Review

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33z0n3r View Post
    Is everyone getting 2.0's?


    Also, noticed that the size sticker incidates "17.5 Virtual / 16.5 Actual". Another disappointment, which may be irrelevant if the bike fits. Not sure how you get away with 2 sizes, and posting the virtual size as Actual on the website. A little sneaky.
    Mine came with 2.0's, I am not a fan of them either. The floor weight sucks with tubes installed anyway, I would have preferred the 2.2's as well.

    16.5 is just the actual seat tube measurement, if they quoted that as the size then everyone who already knows what size mountain bike they ride would have ordered themselves a size too large. I would have ended up on an XL and that wouldn't have worked at all at 5'11" ...

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gambo2166's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    379
    I love my Sl Elite. At 215lbs I find it stiff and responsive. It tears up the downhills! I have set some PR on some climbs. LOVE IT!!! Not sure what bike BikeRadar was riding in there review.

  18. #218
    J79
    J79 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    97
    Iīve been riding my SL Elite for a few weeks now. Have done my first marathons with the bike and was kind of surprised with the conclusion of the BikeRadar review.

    First of all, I am not a racer, Iīve been riding mountainbikes for well over 15 years. My riding style can be best discribed as go anywhere. I just ride the bike over the local trails or take it for a marathon ride. I know what I can and can not do on a bike and just ride to have fun. I am 34 years old and mostly ride in the Netherlands (Limburg) and Belgium (Ardennes), and one week a year in the Austrian Alps.
    The SF was to replace my '04 Fuel 98 (carbon) and `06 Sugar 292. I test drove a 2012 SF Elite, Cannondale Scalpel and a Specialized Epic before purchasing the SF100.

    I agree with the verdict on the 2.0 tires, at least for the short ride I made with those. I got my bike end of march. It was (still is actually) cold and wet outside, those tires werenīt the best in those conditions. Just had one ride on them and switched to Michelin 2.25 wildgrippr in tubeless setup. Which seem to have worked pretty well over the last 600km. But in my experience there are no tires that would fit every possible condition out there, so it is very well possible that the 2.0 in other conditions would have been a good tire to ride.

    The suspension set-up, it took a little while for me to get it dailed in. Comming from an "old" full suspension platform like the Fuel/Sugar, this bike has a complete different feel. It feels a lot more active, and lively, than I was used to on my old bike. I am now running at a bit higher pressure as suggested by Trek, the above mentioned 10 psi is about right. Havenīt changed the rebound setting though. This setting seems to work out quite nice for me on the trails Iīve ridden so far. I found it worth the time to try out various settings and finally got it set up to fit my riding. The way I have set up the bike at this moment I do not feel the need to switch the CTD setting and keep on riding with the Trail mode engaged.

    I was completely puzzled by the rear-end stiffness problems as described by BR. What I did notice on my bike were poorly set up wheels. When I converted to tubeless I did a much needed re tightened the spokes of my wheels. So the out of the box wheel setup wasnīt what it should be. Actually did some more setup-tweaks, the initial setup by my LBS was not what you should expect, cleared it with my LBS and we are still friends
    But after the tuning of the wheels the responsiveness and stiffness of the bike was all that I expected. Especially compared to my old bikes, the SF is a very stiff and stable bike, and comparing the G2 geometry of the SF to the Genesis geometry of my Sugar, the handling has much improved and is in line with the sharpness I got from my Fuel.
    I donīt have the idea that the bike is less stiff than itīs competitors. From experience with test ride of the Scalpel, Epic and the 2012 SF100, I canīt imagine these bikes to be any stiffer or "better" than the SF100, at least not for the way I ride this bike, maybe a for a racing rider it is a different story.

    I am still absolutely satisfied with the performance of my bike, and donīt see any reason to doubt my own experience after reading BRīs review. And I will still recommend anyone in the market for this bike to go out and experience it for themselves, because in my experience the SF100 is an awesome bike!

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33
    I bought a Mountain King 2.2 tire for the front, since I was going to die at a rainy race that night if I didn't . The tire made a huge difference. I had almost no issues at speed.

    My LBS did call and pass on my feelings about the difference. Trek didn't really care. Which I pointed out was just poor customer service. My LBS has been great, its not them.

    The MK is worth the money if you need more grip. I didn't notice much rolling resistance.

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    172
    Got mine.

    2013 Superfly 100 Elite SL eta ?-a46d4y.jpg

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by jason745 View Post
    Got mine.
    Happen to weigh the frame when you had it stripped?

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    172
    I unfortunately only thought to weigh it after I had it partially assembled. It was about 6.3 lbs with the following:

    15.5" Superfly 100 SL (base level model with the full Aluminum back end)
    Rockshox Monarch RT3
    Sram XX1 Derailleur
    Bontrager XXX Seatpost
    Bontrager Evoke RXL Carbon Saddle
    Bontrager Apollo AL Seat Clamp
    Trek GXP BB Bearings

    Going by claimed weight on the above items, that would put the frame at about 4.3lbs. Trek claims the SF100SL Pro weighs in at 1650g (3.63lbs), so that full carbon back end accounts to an approximately 7 tenths of a pound weight savings over the base model. I also suspect that Trek is claiming that weight without rear shock and hardware, otherwise there would be a much more significant difference. Regardless, my build above is 23.25 lbs as she sits. It's not a totally weight-optimized build though, and I'm really enjoying it as a snappy-pedaling light duty trail bike. I utilized my 2011 Top Fuel 9.9 much in the same way with really good results.

    In addition to the parts listed above, here's the rest of the spec sheet:

    Rockshox SID 29 RCT3 120mm
    SRAM Rise 60 29 Wheels
    XX1 GXP Crank 170mm
    Wolf Tooth Components Direct Mount 32t Ring
    Schwalbe Nobby Nic EVO TL Snakeskin 2.35
    Schwalbe Racing Ralph EVO TL Snakeskin 2.25
    Bontrager RXL Low Rise Bar 720mm
    Easton Haven Stem 0šx50mm
    Avid XX Brakes - 160mm HSX Front, 140mm HSX Rear
    SRAM XX1 Trigger Shifter
    Ergon GX1 Leichtbau Grips
    Shimano PD-M780 Pedals

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by jason745 View Post
    I unfortunately only thought to weigh it after I had it partially assembled. It was about 6.3 lbs with the following:

    15.5" Superfly 100 SL (base level model with the full Aluminum back end)
    Rockshox Monarch RT3
    Sram XX1 Derailleur
    Bontrager XXX Seatpost
    Bontrager Evoke RXL Carbon Saddle
    Bontrager Apollo AL Seat Clamp
    Trek GXP BB Bearings

    Going by claimed weight on the above items, that would put the frame at about 4.3lbs. Trek claims the SF100SL Pro weighs in at 1650g (3.63lbs), so that full carbon back end accounts to an approximately 7 tenths of a pound weight savings over the base model. I also suspect that Trek is claiming that weight without rear shock and hardware, otherwise there would be a much more significant difference.
    Thanks for the numbers. For reference, Trek claims..

    "Full OCLV Mountain Carbon chainstay reduces frame weight by about 100g and dramatically increases stiffness."

    as well,

    "Full OCLV Mountain Carbon seatstay reduces frame weight by about 100g."

    Fox says the rear shock weighs 208 grams.

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by evilsjg View Post

    "Full OCLV Mountain Carbon seatstay reduces frame weight by about 100g."

    Fox says the rear shock weighs 208 grams.
    Thanks for that. 100+208= 308g or .67 lbs, so I guess they're telling the truth.

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation: packfill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by evilsjg View Post
    I should note, I am riding a Superfly 100 SL (not Elite) that I put on a diet --

    I would say they aren't far from the mark in the review, but something was definitely lost in translation....

    lost in translation...from Boulder, CO?

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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