Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

2013 Superfly 100 Elite SL eta ?

53K views 242 replies 59 participants last post by  J79 
#1 ·
placed a order for a 2013 Superfly 100 Elite SL (17.5) today. was told wont be available till march 2013 ! :confused:
 
#205 ·
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???

Bicycle accessory Bicycle part Bicycle chain Bicycle drivetrain part Crankset
 
#209 ·
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
 
#212 ·
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.
 
#214 ·
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.
 
#218 ·
I´ve 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, I´ve 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 weren´t 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. Haven´t changed the rebound setting though. This setting seems to work out quite nice for me on the trails I´ve 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 wasn´t 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 don´t have the idea that the bike is less stiff than it´s competitors. From experience with test ride of the Scalpel, Epic and the 2012 SF100, I can´t 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 don´t see any reason to doubt my own experience after reading BR´s 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!
 
#219 ·
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.
 
#222 ·
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 0ºx50mm
Avid XX Brakes - 160mm HSX Front, 140mm HSX Rear
SRAM XX1 Trigger Shifter
Ergon GX1 Leichtbau Grips
Shimano PD-M780 Pedals
 
#223 ·
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.
 
#229 ·
It's not bad at all. Dropping the fork is a must and removing the crank and bottom bracket's internal bearing shield is helpful.

If you're familiar with the most current generation Top Fuel, then you've got a leg up as the process is very similar. I used a fresh hydraulic line. The Top Fuel's used to come packaged with a new line for this purpose. The new Superfly SL's do not, however.
 
#230 ·
After a 2 month of riding new Superfly 100 Elite sl, here is my review:
- ultra happy, i think its way better than 2012 model
(under 11kg in XL, better suspension, good and fast wheelset)
- its stiff or as stiff as 2012 full carbon model
(i was really scared after i read review at bikeradar, which i found totally inaccurate now)

Best bike, best 29er i ever rode (Niner R.I.P, Niner JET, Trek SF100 2012, Scott Spark)
 
#231 ·
Quick question:

Right now I ride a Fuel EX 9 but its a few years old and looking for a new bike for the stable. Choosing between the Superfly 100 or the EX 9 29er. I don't race, or do crazy downhill, just singletrack flowy trails is the best way to put it. I do however want to have a great climbing bike.

Would the SuperFly be a good bike for me? I've heard some say it's a great trail bike and others say it doesnt take the chatter that well, and I'm better off with the Fuel. Thoughts?

Thanks!
 
#233 ·
I think the Superfly would be a great bike for you. I just bought a 2014 Fuel EX 9. I think the Fuel would make you a great bike too for the kind of riding you do if you changed out the wheels to something lighter. My 2014 Fuel EX 9 21" frame came in at 30.4 lbs stock with XT clipless pedals. I want to lose about 1 pound with a wheel upgrade soon to make it a better climber.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top