Analysis paralysis: 2016 Trek Fuel EX9 or Pivot 429 Trail X1???- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 202
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546

    Analysis paralysis: 2016 Trek Fuel EX9 or Pivot 429 Trail X1???

    I've been back and forth between these two bikes. Can't decide which one I should go with.
    2016 Trek Fuel EX9 Fuel EX 9 29 - Trek Bicycle
    Pivot 429 Trail X1 Mach 429 Trail | Pivot Cycles | Performance Redefined

    Both bikes seemingly fill the same role as a medium travel, 29er, FS trail bike. (I'm replacing a 2013 Giant Trance 29er X1.)

    Similiar geometry on both bikes (slightly slacker HTA on the 429 Trail.)

    Trek's frame is Aluminum. Pivot is Carbon. Trek's frame warranty is lifetime. Pivot's is only 3 years.

    Similiar build specs. Both are Boost 148/110. (Trek comes with a Dropper Seatpost as part of base build spec.)

    Both have received great reviews by the media and, more importantly, actual riders.

    The Trek dealer is less than 30 minutes from my house. I've bought from them in the past and they are good to work with, though their focus and primary knowledge base is more road oriented. They are offering 10% off the Fuel MSRP of $3999.

    The Pivot dealer is approximately 1.5 hour drive away. Offered 6% off MSRP $4299.

    Unfortunately, a demo or extensive ride comparison isn't an option.

    Is there anything else I'm not considering?

    Has anyone rode both bikes and which would you choose?


    Thank you, in advance.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,451
    The EX9 is the only Fuel with 130mm fork travel.
    But you could go with a 9.8 carbon frame and build with a 130mm fork.
    I would consider a Evil Following as a third choice.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by eb1888 View Post
    The EX9 is the only Fuel with 130mm fork travel.
    But you could go with a 9.8 carbon frame and build with a 130mm fork.
    I would consider a Evil Following as a third choice.
    Yeah, I saw that about the 130mm fork. That makes the Fuel EX9 all the more appealing.
    I looked into building up on a frameset and it would put me out of my price range of +/- $4000.
    Evil's The Following was a consideration till I saw they weren't using Boost 148. It may sound strange to some, but I'm trying to future-proof this purchase as much as possible. My kids will be attending college in the next couple years, so money for things like new bikes, new cars, clothing, food, etc. will be non-existent.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Yeah, I saw that about the 130mm fork. That makes the Fuel EX9 all the more appealing.
    I looked into building up on a frameset and it would put me out of my price range of +/- $4000.
    Evil's The Following was a consideration till I saw they weren't using Boost 148. It may sound strange to some, but I'm trying to future-proof this purchase as much as possible. My kids will be attending college in the next couple years, so money for things like new bikes, new cars, clothing, food, etc. will be non-existent.
    142 hubs aren't going anywhere.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Yeah, I saw that about the 130mm fork. That makes the Fuel EX9 all the more appealing.
    I looked into building up on a frameset and it would put me out of my price range of +/- $4000.
    Evil's The Following was a consideration till I saw they weren't using Boost 148. It may sound strange to some, but I'm trying to future-proof this purchase as much as possible. My kids will be attending college in the next couple years, so money for things like new bikes, new cars, clothing, food, etc. will be non-existent.
    Look at the component prices at Bikecomponents.de, Hibike, Bike24, Starbike, Ribble and Merlin. You can go M8000 11sp with wheels built with Dt 350 Boost hubs(when they come out in Dec) and wide rims to take advantage of the Boost. With cash bargaining only with a manager, maybe after checking a number of shops, I would get 20% off the price of a frame.

  6. #6
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,621
    fuel ex all the way, mine is awesome. plus the mino link adds a nice degree of adjustability.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    I've ridden both and prefer the Pivot, but I have a higher end build. The parts on the X1 are pretty heavy (wheels, alloy pieces) and the lacks the Factory shock/fork.

    I do prefer the slacker head angle on the Pivot, and I'm a big fan of DW-Link in general. The Re:activ shock is very nice, though, so I'd have trouble deciding. The build kit on the Fuel is nicer imo (though you don't get a carbon frame)

    I would dislike having a shock that has to be sent off if something breaks on it, though.

  8. #8
    I Tried Them ALL... SuperModerator
    Reputation: Cayenne_Pepa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,700
    I rode both, and the Pivot is indeed sweet. It is not flexy and tears up the gnar. Then, I rode the Fuel EX and I can confidently say it outdoes the 429T, Ripley LS, Smuggler and BMC Trailfox. The Re:Aktiv and Boost148 is a straight up game-changer....
    "This is a male-dominated forum... there will be lots of Testosterone sword-shaming here" ~ Kenfucius

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Zachariah View Post
    I rode both, and the Pivot is indeed sweet. It is not flexy and tears up the gnar. Then, I rode the Fuel EX and I can confidently say it outdoes the 429T, Ripley LS, Smuggler and BMC Trailfox. The Re:Aktiv and Boost148 is a straight up game-changer....
    Where did you ride a LS?
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    I've been back and forth between these two bikes. Can't decide which one I should go with.
    2016 Trek Fuel EX9 Fuel EX 9 29 - Trek Bicycle
    Pivot 429 Trail X1 Mach 429 Trail | Pivot Cycles | Performance Redefined

    Both bikes seemingly fill the same role as a medium travel, 29er, FS trail bike. (I'm replacing a 2013 Giant Trance 29er X1.)

    Similiar geometry on both bikes (slightly slacker HTA on the 429 Trail.)

    Trek's frame is Aluminum. Pivot is Carbon. Trek's frame warranty is lifetime. Pivot's is only 3 years.

    Similiar build specs. Both are Boost 148/110. (Trek comes with a Dropper Seatpost as part of base build spec.)

    Both have received great reviews by the media and, more importantly, actual riders.

    The Trek dealer is less than 30 minutes from my house. I've bought from them in the past and they are good to work with, though their focus and primary knowledge base is more road oriented. They are offering 10% off the Fuel MSRP of $3999.

    The Pivot dealer is approximately 1.5 hour drive away. Offered 6% off MSRP $4299.

    Unfortunately, a demo or extensive ride comparison isn't an option.

    Is there anything else I'm not considering?

    Has anyone rode both bikes and which would you choose?


    Thank you, in advance.
    Frame - 2000-2600 (or whatever)
    pike in whatever travel - $700
    XT drive train and brakes from merlin - $400
    (Shimano XT M780 Disc Brake Groupset Sale | Groupsets | Merlin Cycles)
    light bicycle chinese carbon wheels $600
    additional bits (seat, bar, stem, headset, seatpost parts bins/chinese carbon?) - 0-$300

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Zachariah View Post
    I rode both, and the Pivot is indeed sweet. It is not flexy and tears up the gnar. Then, I rode the Fuel EX and I can confidently say it outdoes the 429T, Ripley LS, Smuggler and BMC Trailfox. The Re:Aktiv and Boost148 is a straight up game-changer....
    I really noticed very little difference in suspension performance shock-wise between the 429T and the Re:Aktiv. The EX seemed a bit more efficient out of the saddle, but not enough to make me like it over the slack HTA of the 429T. The 429T is also Boost148.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    758
    I owned and rode an XL 429C w/120 fork in 2014(similar geo to 429T) and now a 2015 FuelEX29 w/120 fork and Re:Aktiv in a 21". Although, the geometries are similar, I think the two bikes fit differently. IMHO the Pivot 429 rides in a more upright relaxed trail position while the FuelEX rides in a more aggressive XC one. Maybe the 3/4" larger headtube of the Pivot XL gives it this different setup feel that I experienced. I'd give the climbing advantage to the DW link Pivot. Overall handling advantage goes to the G2 of the FuelEX29. Both bikes descend like no tomorrow.

    I've demoed the 2016 FuelEX29 a couple of times, but unfortunately the stem/bar combo wasn't at all working for me to see whether the geometry changes and boost were the real deal. Bike looked awesome though. I haven't demoed the 429T yet but the improvements Pivot has made look very promising.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    I've been back and forth between these two bikes. Can't decide which one I should go with.
    2016 Trek Fuel EX9 Fuel EX 9 29 - Trek Bicycle
    Pivot 429 Trail X1 Mach 429 Trail | Pivot Cycles | Performance Redefined

    Both bikes seemingly fill the same role as a medium travel, 29er, FS trail bike. (I'm replacing a 2013 Giant Trance 29er X1.)

    Similiar geometry on both bikes (slightly slacker HTA on the 429 Trail.)

    Trek's frame is Aluminum. Pivot is Carbon. Trek's frame warranty is lifetime. Pivot's is only 3 years.

    Similiar build specs. Both are Boost 148/110. (Trek comes with a Dropper Seatpost as part of base build spec.)

    Both have received great reviews by the media and, more importantly, actual riders.

    The Trek dealer is less than 30 minutes from my house. I've bought from them in the past and they are good to work with, though their focus and primary knowledge base is more road oriented. They are offering 10% off the Fuel MSRP of $3999.

    The Pivot dealer is approximately 1.5 hour drive away. Offered 6% off MSRP $4299.

    Unfortunately, a demo or extensive ride comparison isn't an option.

    Is there anything else I'm not considering?

    Has anyone rode both bikes and which would you choose?


    Thank you, in advance.

    The 2016 Fuel EX9 has a bout a 67.5* HA by the way. Trek does not list that on their site.
    The Fuel's chainstays are also shorter. The RE:aktiv works very very well. The bike is nimble and climbs well, decends very well also.

    I know a few people that have some pivots. The love them. I know one person that bought one only cause they didn't want to wait for the Trek to get here. But would have rather gotten the Trek.
    Too Many .

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    The 2016 Fuel EX9 has a bout a 67.5* HA by the way. Trek does not list that on their site.
    The Fuel's chainstays are also shorter. The RE:aktiv works very very well. The bike is nimble and climbs well, decends very well also.

    I know a few people that have some pivots. The love them. I know one person that bought one only cause they didn't want to wait for the Trek to get here. But would have rather gotten the Trek.
    Is availability really that much of an issue with the Fuels? My "season" is coming to a close here in PA, so I don't mind a wait over winter months. That said, I still like to know what I'm in for.

    (Then I think, with its upcoming re-release, what will the new Santa Cruz TBLT bring in January?)

    I started this thread, leaning towards the Pivot. Now, I've been switching over to the Fuel, based on all positive responses.
    I just wish the EX9 was a different color. I know color *shouldn't* matter, but it is just so "loud."

    With regard to either bike: should the warranty disparity effect the decision? Is that an issue?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Is availability really that much of an issue with the Fuels? My "season" is coming to a close here in PA, so I don't mind a wait over winter months. That said, I still like to know what I'm in for.

    (Then I think, with its upcoming re-release, what will the new Santa Cruz TBLT bring in January?)

    I started this thread, leaning towards the Pivot. Now, I've been switching over to the Fuel, based on all positive responses.
    I just wish the EX9 was a different color. I know color *shouldn't* matter, but it is just so "loud."

    With regard to either bike: should the warranty disparity effect the decision? Is that an issue?

    I bought it for the color. Lol

    I waited two weeks for mine. If you don't mind waiting. I'd wait for it

    warranty wise. I like Lifetime. Their lifetime only applies to the original owner of the bike. I had a friend crack his seat tube mounting area, Trek took care of it but they didn't make that bike anymore. Walked away with a Superfly is a awesome color, which fit his riding style better now.
    Last edited by brent701; 10-26-2015 at 06:53 PM.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    99
    I like the Fuel, hope to demo one in a few weeks! Just based on the same reviews you have probably seen online. Good luck with it!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,451
    Availability changes as orders are booked. So it might be February today and April in two weeks. That said, your bike usually comes in ahead of your date because shops put in orders for their shops they can cancel when they come due if they change what they need.
    I haven't used Trek's warranty but I like lifetime.
    To negotiate you'll need to put 60% down when you order no refund.

  18. #18
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    The carbon Fuel EX with the 120mm fork has spot on geo for all around trail riding. By that I mean will do very well on the climbs, and DH, ad pedally twistys.

    I've got a Pivot M6 and think the brand is great, but between the long stays and super slack HTA, for a 29er, the 429 Trail, doesn't seem like a very good trail bike to me -based on the numbers.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    The carbon Fuel EX with the 120mm fork has spot on geo for all around trail riding. By that I mean will do very well on the climbs, and DH, ad pedally twistys.

    I've got a Pivot M6 and think the brand is great, but between the long stays and super slack HTA, for a 29er, the 429 Trail, doesn't seem like a very good trail bike to me -based on the numbers.
    17.2 isn't exactly short for a 29er CS anymore. Funny how the Fuel EX comes out and it's described as short chain stays, yet the TBLT and Ripley are slammed for being too long at 17.4.

    Makes me think about the "Are we suckers for marketing?" thread.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    If you arent a fan of the colour just get some plasti-dip and do it in whatever colour makes you happy. When you bored of it peel it off.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    The carbon Fuel EX with the 120mm fork has spot on geo for all around trail riding. By that I mean will do very well on the climbs, and DH, ad pedally twistys.

    I've got a Pivot M6 and think the brand is great, but between the long stays and super slack HTA, for a 29er, the 429 Trail, doesn't seem like a very good trail bike to me -based on the numbers.
    The stays are only 0.2 longer than the Fuel, and the slacker HTA makes the bike imo. Much more forgiving on descending ledges and rock garden descents.

    Given the budget, I'd go with the Fuel EX. Better build with the aluminum bike and you get the nice shock. The 429 X1 build has some heavy components to get it into that price range, especially the wheels, and you get the Performance line of shocks with less tuneability.

    I prefer the geometry of the Pivot based on my time on both (about 8 hours on the Fuel and 15ish on the Pivot).

  22. #22
    western NC
    Reputation: HPIguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Is availability really that much of an issue with the Fuels?
    Yep, it is, but from what I understand it's due to shortages of the components. Ordered mine mid October, and there are two shipment windows coming up, one on 11/9 and one on 12/5 as of right now. Hoping I'm in the first shipping window. I did a demo day and rode a few bikes, including the Remedy which I figured I'd love but that wasn't the case, felt at home on the Fuel 29er immediately, not to mention the performance all around so that's what I went with. Best of luck on whatever you decide.

  23. #23
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    17.2 isn't exactly short for a 29er CS anymore. Funny how the Fuel EX comes out and it's described as short chain stays, yet the TBLT and Ripley are slammed for being too long at 17.4.

    Makes me think about the "Are we suckers for marketing?" thread.


    Suckers, maybe. But...

    The TBLTc, which I've owned for 4 seasons, has longer stays than you say - by quite a bit. I've measured them.

    The EX's stays at 17.16 (lets not forget that .04mm, about a RCH width) are still considered short for a 29er in my book.

    The Pivot's HTA seems just too slack for every day trail riding.


    Marketing... I think the "suckers for marketing" are riders looking for super slack bikes when I'd guess they rarely need them. A slack bike is just not that much fun to ride on a trail ride. Everyone thinks they are in an Enduro race or something. Fact is what most people are doing most of the time is old fashioned trail riding. Believe it or not a good trail bike that crushes the climbs, and rips the twisties, can still be hucked if the rider has some skill.

    Marketing right now is about pushing riders toward more bike than they really need.

    The saying "I live for the downs" cracks me up. Yeah, ride a bike that is great for like 2% of the ride, instead of riding a trail bike that is good for 100% of the ride. If you are all about the downs get a DH bike and a lift ticket.

  24. #24
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Suckers, maybe. But...

    The TBLTc, which I've owned for 4 seasons, has longer stays than you say - by quite a bit. I've measured them.

    The EX's stays at 17.16 (lets not forget that .04mm, about a RCH width) are still considered short for a 29er in my book.

    The Pivot's HTA seems just too slack for every day trail riding.


    Marketing... I think the "suckers for marketing" are riders looking for super slack bikes when I'd guess they rarely need them. A slack bike is just not that much fun to ride on a trail ride. Everyone thinks they are in an Enduro race or something. Fact is what most people are doing most of the time is old fashioned trail riding. Believe it or not a good trail bike that crushes the climbs, and rips the twisties, can still be hucked if the rider has some skill.

    Marketing right now is about pushing riders toward more bike than they really need.

    The saying "I live for the downs" cracks me up. Yeah, ride a bike that is great for like 2% of the ride, instead of riding a trail bike that is good for 100% of the ride. If you are all about the downs get a DH bike and a lift ticket.
    Someone obviously didn't look at the geo specs. The Pivot is .2 degrees slacker, and that's with the Trek in the steep position. Making it out to be a massive difference, or even noticeable is silly. But I guess that gives you all you need to make your rant about the damn kids on your yard, so kudos on that.

    The Pivot will have a stiffer, lighter, frame, with the same level of suspension components and a MUCH better suspension design. The one thing you can't upgrade is the frame, so get the best frame that you can.

    The bad thing is that the frame in question is much more expensive (and lighter, and stiffer, with a better suspension design) than the AL Trek, so if you're bargain hunting, you're going to have to make some compromises...but that's the problem, you're making a comparison between a mid-market bike to a high-end bike. If you were comparing carbon Treks and Pivots, the price difference evaporates and even starts to lean towards the Pivot, since an X01 Pivot is just $200 more than a carbon X1 Fuel EX.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Okay, there is something confusing me regarding the EX9's HTA. According to Trek's own specs, the Fuel with the 120 fork has a hta of 68.8 in the slack position. Now, we know the EX9 has a 130mm fork. Am I to understand that adding only 10mm of fork travel lowers the hta comparable to that of the 429T (67.5)?
    I'm not telling. I'm asking.
    I really appreciate everyone's input so far. It's been very helpful.

    Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Okay, there is something confusing me regarding the EX9's HTA. According to Trek's own specs, the Fuel with the 120 fork has a hta of 68.8 in the slack position. Now, we know the EX9 has a 130mm fork. Am I to understand that adding only 10mm of fork travel lowers the hta comparable to that of the 429T (67.5)?
    I'm not telling. I'm asking.
    I really appreciate everyone's input so far. It's been very helpful.

    Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

    The Fuel EX9 29er sits about about 67.5* HA
    Too Many .

  27. #27
    western NC
    Reputation: HPIguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,634
    From what I've always read, 20mm is equal to roughly 1deg in HTA, so I'd bet the 9 is 68.3 or thereabouts in the slack mode. Or, I can tell you next week when mine gets here.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    My 2016 Fuel EX9 reads 67.5* HA

    I guess cause we really want to get into the specs thing on the bikes

    HA's are the same
    Fuel has a short chainstay
    Fuel's frame is life time warranty
    Pivots is not
    Fuel is a 120/130mm bike
    Pivot is a 116/130mm bike
    Brakes on the Fuel are better ( Yes I have owned the brakes on the 429) Not sure what size rotors are on the Pivot but the Fuel is 180/180
    Fuel comes with a dropper.
    Pivot does not
    the Fuel is cheaper
    30 min drive vs 1.5 hour drive if anything goes wrong
    Forks are the same
    Shock on the fuel is better. Yes Trek's RE:aktiv works that good.
    Rear DER's are the same
    Fuel has X1 shifters. Pivot GX shifters
    Too Many .

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    My 2016 Fuel EX9 reads 67.5* HA

    I guess cause we really want to get into the specs thing on the bikes

    HA's are the same
    Fuel has a short chainstay
    Fuel's frame is life time warranty
    Pivots is not
    Fuel is a 120/130mm bike
    Pivot is a 116/130mm bike
    Brakes on the Fuel are better ( Yes I have owned the brakes on the 429) Not sure what size rotors are on the Pivot but the Fuel is 180/180
    Fuel comes with a dropper.
    Pivot does not
    the Fuel is cheaper
    30 min drive vs 1.5 hour drive if anything goes wrong
    Forks are the same
    Shock on the fuel is better. Yes Trek's RE:aktiv works that good.
    Rear DER's are the same
    Fuel has X1 shifters. Pivot GX shifters
    Are you measuring the HTA? I'd agree that 120 - 130 shouldn't make 1.3 difference from the geo listed on the site (68.8).

    The suspension performance is pretty close - I've ridden both quite a bit on the same trails. I'd probably give the edge to the Fuel at this level because you're not getting the Factory fork/shock like on the higher price range 429T.

    Also, if you're comparing the two, you should mention that the Pivot frame is full carbon, Fuel EX is full alu.

    I'll stick with what I said earlier though - Given the budget you're at, assuming you don't plan on any upgrades anytime soon, the Fuel might be a better choice, as you don't get the nicer suspension parts and the wheels are a boat anchor.

  30. #30
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,271
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    Fuel has a short chainstay (but longer wheelbase)
    Fuel's frame is life time warranty
    Pivots is not
    That warranty is against manufacturer defects, if you can't break a carbon frame in three years of normal use, you won't ever. Carbon is just stupidly strong when compared to AL.

    Throw either one down the trail and dent the frame? You're ass out.

  31. #31
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    B
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Someone obviously didn't look at the geo specs. The Pivot is .2 degrees slacker, and that's with the Trek in the steep position. Making it out to be a massive difference, or even noticeable is silly. But I guess that gives you all you need to make your rant about the damn kids on your yard, so kudos on that.

    The Pivot will have a stiffer, lighter, frame, with the same level of suspension components and a MUCH better suspension design. The one thing you can't upgrade is the frame, so get the best frame that you can.

    The bad thing is that the frame in question is much more expensive (and lighter, and stiffer, with a better suspension design) than the AL Trek, so if you're bargain hunting, you're going to have to make some compromises...but that's the problem, you're making a comparison between a mid-market bike to a high-end bike. If you were comparing carbon Treks and Pivots, the price difference evaporates and even starts to lean towards the Pivot, since an X01 Pivot is just $200 more than a carbon X1 Fuel EX.

    Agree, people aren't looking at the numbers correctly.

    Talking about the carbon Trek, since we are comparing it to the carbon Pivot.

    68.8 HTA in slack mode, 69.4 in steep for the carbon Trek with its spec'd 120 fork.

    67.5 for the Pivot with its spec'd fork.


    If you put a 130 on the Trek, then yes, they are much closer. Going by primary spec however, the angles would be different enough to feel on the trail for many riders.

    Yes, the Pivot is a nice bike. Love the DW and have been on a Mach 6 for 2 years.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Someone obviously didn't look at the geo specs. The Pivot is .2 degrees slacker, and that's with the Trek in the steep position. Making it out to be a massive difference, or even noticeable is silly. But I guess that gives you all you need to make your rant about the damn kids on your yard, so kudos on that.

    EX.
    I think someone is obviously looking looking at the STA on the Trek instead of the HTA.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    Deep thoughts:
    1. If that funky green is the only color choice for the Fuel EX9, that might be a deal breaker for me.

    2. Suspension on the Treks is really very good, despite not being the multi link type. In fact, it is one of the plushest I have tested. It has a different feel than a DW link, but better or worse is a matter of preference.

    3. Even if you can't go out on a real trail ride to test these bikes, go to the shops and do the best test ride you can around the neighborhood. Don't hesitate to ask for a stem length adjustment, and fine tuning of the shock air pressure etc. Get it set up as if you just bought it. Then go out and hit curbs, ride on people's lawns, find a dirt lot with some ruts, a steep hill to test climbing, etc. You can learn a lot from an "in town test ride".

    4. They are both great bikes that will make you happy. A lot of the decision might just have to come down to looks, price and most importantly, the feel in the test ride. One bike will feel more comfortable, maneuverable, just a bit better for your taste, and you should pick that one.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    That warranty is against manufacturer defects, if you can't break a carbon frame in three years of normal use, you won't ever. Carbon is just stupidly strong when compared to AL.

    Throw either one down the trail and dent the frame? You're ass out.
    My LBS had a pivot in the shop with a crack in the down tube. From what the owner said pivot wasn't warranting it

    My friends trek stache cracked at the seat post mount. Warrantied.

    I was only posting specs.

    Even treks carbon framed fuel is a lifetime warranty

    The HTA was measured at the shop and compared to one of the EX8's they had in stock. Matched up to the specs on treks site

    Yeah the rims are a little sluggish. I don't have a problem with them.

    But in slaps replacing them with WTB rims and I9 hubs

  35. #35
    western NC
    Reputation: HPIguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,634
    I'd be willing to bet the rims feel sluggish becuase for some stupid reason SRAM thought a 24 spoke wheel would be a great idea on a trail bike. My favorite wheels are actually heavier than those, but they sure don't feel like it, because they are stiff and responsive instead of mushy and flexy. The wheels are one thing I worry about, since I'm not a little guy, I need good wheels. Probably going to spring for some I9's with the tax refund.

  36. #36
    I Tried Them ALL... SuperModerator
    Reputation: Cayenne_Pepa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,700
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    That warranty is against manufacturer defects, if you can't break a carbon frame in three years of normal use, you won't ever. Carbon is just stupidly strong when compared to AL.

    Throw either one down the trail and dent the frame? You're ass out.
    That is so true. My 23-pound, 2012 Superfly FS was(finally) made so well....I can't seem to just give it up yet. I tested the Fuel EX 29er and only found the Superfly is still only slightly less performance.
    "This is a male-dominated forum... there will be lots of Testosterone sword-shaming here" ~ Kenfucius

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    My LBS had a pivot in the shop with a crack in the down tube. From what the owner said pivot wasn't warranting it

    My friends trek stache cracked at the seat post mount. Warrantied.

    I was only posting specs.

    Even treks carbon framed fuel is a lifetime warranty

    The HTA was measured at the shop and compared to one of the EX8's they had in stock. Matched up to the specs on treks site

    Yeah the rims are a little sluggish. I don't have a problem with them.

    But in slaps replacing them with WTB rims and I9 hubs
    You don't know the circumstances, I guaranty you if Trek feels the damage to a frame is negligence, they won't cover it as well.

    Sample sizes of 1 are useless.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  38. #38
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,271
    Quote Originally Posted by fontarin View Post
    I think someone is obviously looking looking at the STA on the Trek instead of the HTA.
    You're right. I keyed into the number that makes sense for a trail bike (more of a compromise between 66 degree enduro bikes and 70 degree XC bikes), which was 67.7. Head tube angles in the neighborhood of 69 degrees are far more XC, in the tall position the EX is imperceptibly slacker than a Superfly which would make the EX more of a long travel XC bike than an actual trail bike.

    For perspective, Pivot's XC bike, the 429SL has a 69.3 degree head angle, the trail version is slacker at 67.5...because it's a trail bike. I forgot how slow most of the big brands are in adopting new technology/ideas and were still making such steep bikes.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    You don't know the circumstances, I guaranty you if Trek feels the damage to a frame is negligence, they won't cover it as well.

    Sample sizes of 1 are useless.

    You're right. But it's still something I have seen.

    Fuel or 429
    really comes down to what feels best when riding them
    I feel the best bang for the buck is the Fuel. Ys is AL. I personally have a hard time wanting to ride a Carbon bike in my area. AZ is 90% rock
    Too Many .

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735

    Analysis paralysis: 2016 Trek Fuel EX9 or Pivot 429 Trail X1???

    I am looking at a few bikes myself and should include the 429 Trail as an option. However, as you said - 'analysis paralysis' can take hold. I think that with these options and some that I'm looking at it ends as splitting hairs. Yeah the bikes are gonna have differences in how they ride, but what I mean is that when a decision is made I think either bike would be a blast to ride. In my case I'm leaning towards the Fuel EX 9 simply because it would be the easiest to get in my area and it would come in at a lower price than my other options.

    Not to mention that beyond the lowest priced of my options (and against the 429 Trail) it needs the least upgrades. Yes it's aluminum, but by all accounts it's a great frame and awesome bike.

  41. #41
    my church is the woods
    Reputation: moonraker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,066
    I went bike shopping a few weeks ago at my LBS. I went in thinking I wanted a Remedy 29 after reading all the glowing reviews. So I tested a leftover 2015 Remedy 27.5 and 29. The 27.5 steered like poo, so on to the 29er. Tried a 2016 Remedy 9.8 29, and was wow'd by it. However, the 19" felt really short (I'm 5'11"), and no discounts on the 2016 models. They also had a Pivot 429 Trail in a medium, and I asked to take a spin on it just because it was so nice looking. After just riding the Trek with the re:active shock, I started pedaling the Pivot and was immediately amazed at how much better and quicker the Pivot felt to pedal. While the Trek was very stable and didn't bob, it also felt rather dead and unplayful. The Pivot was a more active and just sprang to life, very playful, easily wheelie/manual, easy to bunnyhop, and carved turns like it was on rails. Even the size felt great, surprising considering I usually ride a large. But being a 29er, the medium with a shorter wheelbase made more sense for the tight rocky singletrack here in PA. Long story short, I ended up buying the 429 Trail and I'm just loving it on my local trails. Best bike I've ever ridden, and I've owned and demo'd a lot of bikes over the years.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by moonraker View Post
    I went bike shopping a few weeks ago at my LBS. I went in thinking I wanted a Remedy 29 after reading all the glowing reviews. So I tested a leftover 2015 Remedy 27.5 and 29. The 27.5 steered like poo, so on to the 29er. Tried a 2016 Remedy 9.8 29, and was wow'd by it. However, the 19" felt really short (I'm 5'11"), and no discounts on the 2016 models. They also had a Pivot 429 Trail in a medium, and I asked to take a spin on it just because it was so nice looking. After just riding the Trek with the re:active shock, I started pedaling the Pivot and was immediately amazed at how much better and quicker the Pivot felt to pedal. While the Trek was very stable and didn't bob, it also felt rather dead and unplayful. The Pivot was a more active and just sprang to life, very playful, easily wheelie/manual, easy to bunnyhop, and carved turns like it was on rails. Even the size felt great, surprising considering I usually ride a large. But being a 29er, the medium with a shorter wheelbase made more sense for the tight rocky singletrack here in PA. Long story short, I ended up buying the 429 Trail and I'm just loving it on my local trails. Best bike I've ever ridden, and I've owned and demo'd a lot of bikes over the years.
    Congratulations on the Pivot, but I curse you for making my decision more difficult! I am like the OP except considering more bikes - Fuel EX 9 vs 429 T X1 would be comparison though. Trek would cost me roughly 800 less by the time I added a dropper to the pivot so that weighs heavily on my decision.

    My question though, as you pedaled a Remedy it has more travel - do you think the Fuel may have felt more snappy like the Pivot?

  43. #43
    my church is the woods
    Reputation: moonraker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    Congratulations on the Pivot, but I curse you for making my decision more difficult! I am like the OP except considering more bikes - Fuel EX 9 vs 429 T X1 would be comparison though. Trek would cost me roughly 800 less by the time I added a dropper to the pivot so that weighs heavily on my decision.

    My question though, as you pedaled a Remedy it has more travel - do you think the Fuel may have felt more snappy like the Pivot?
    I don't know, I didn't really consider the Fuel at the time, although they kept encouraging me to try one as they had a lot of leftovers on heavy discount. I just compared the numbers on the Fuel vs. 429trail, and I think there are a few differences that I'd still prefer in the Pivot. First, the head angle; I'm running a 140mm Fox 27.5+ fork, 51mm offset, and it feels awesome in all instances, but especially on the downhills! Pivot also has a lower BB and shorter wheelbase, and that, I think contributes to the great handling too.

  44. #44
    western NC
    Reputation: HPIguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,634
    GT5050 makes a valid point, it was much easier for me to get the bike and support should I need it with the Trek. As far as suspension designs, it's all personal preference. I prefer a suspension design that remains active and isn't affected by braking or pedaling forces, but again, just my preference. From my demo day on the Remedy and Fuel EX's, the Fuel is much snappier than the Remedy. The Remedy was fantastic bombing down things, but I didn't care for the geometry, and it had some odd handling traits in the 29er flavor personally. The Fuel by contrast is much better for 95% of my riding, felt lighter, snappier and more playful. But YMMV, and honestly, any modern trail bike you go out and buy these days is going to be awesome at this price point. As long as you're riding, and having fun, that's all that really matters.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    I'll add that the '16 Fuel Geo is close (near identical) to the pivot in BB height and wheelbase, compared to EX9 with 130 fork the 429 is .5-.8 degree slacker head tube. But if I were at the shop and the pivot presented itself to me and the Fuel was last year's model, I'd have walked out with the pivot all day long too!

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by moonraker View Post
    ...They also had a Pivot 429 Trail in a medium, and I asked to take a spin on it just because it was so nice looking. After just riding the Trek with the re:active shock, I started pedaling the Pivot and was immediately amazed at how much better and quicker the Pivot felt to pedal....
    Curious what level spec/pricepoint of the 429T you test rode/bought? Was it a fair, apples-to-apples comparison?
    I ask 'cause I'm a poor dad and husband who pretty much has capped the future bike cost at +/- $4000.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Curious what level spec/pricepoint of the 429T you test rode/bought? Was it a fair, apples-to-apples comparison?
    I ask 'cause I'm a poor dad and husband who pretty much has capped the future bike cost at +/- $4000.
    I'm in your boat too man! It's funny that we're looking at 'value' price points of bikes at around $4000 but it's all relative I guess! And I know after a summer of forced minimal time on a bike how much riding contributes to my sanity. I look at that money as an investment into better health, productivity, and family harmony.

    Anyway, I'm with you. The X1 429 has a nice build but some things leave me wondering - the wheelset seems really heavy and I'd want a dropper post.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Curious what level spec/pricepoint of the 429T you test rode/bought? Was it a fair, apples-to-apples comparison?
    I ask 'cause I'm a poor dad and husband who pretty much has capped the future bike cost at +/- $4000.
    Component spec isn't going to affect the suspension feel as much as you think.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  49. #49
    my church is the woods
    Reputation: moonraker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Curious what level spec/pricepoint of the 429T you test rode/bought? Was it a fair, apples-to-apples comparison?
    I ask 'cause I'm a poor dad and husband who pretty much has capped the future bike cost at +/- $4000.
    Well, it was spec'd with XT, and priced identically to the Remedy 9.8 I tested just before it. apples to apples: yes!

    I ended up buying the frame and buying my parts kit separately, as I already had a saddle, cranks, bars, stem, brakes, tires and rims.
    So along with the frame I bought a new fork, reverb, hubs, spokes, and BB, which kept it under $4k.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    I'm in your boat too man! It's funny that we're looking at 'value' price points of bikes at around $4000 but it's all relative I guess!
    Exactly. I had to laugh when a previous post alluded to "bargain shopping" at this price point. I'm well aware you can spend a lot more on a bike, but when you REALLY step back and disassociate yourself from what we know about the "actual cost" of bikes, it is kind of ludicrous considering the cost of materials and (overseas) labor.

    I've found you get a better understanding for what things REALLY cost when you are paying cash, versus just handing over a credit card. I guess that is wisdom finally kicking in after all these years.

    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    And I know after a summer of forced minimal time on a bike how much riding contributes to my sanity. I look at that money as an investment into better health, productivity, and family harmony.
    ...
    And THAT is exactly how I justify the cost. Let me fool myself in peace.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Component spec isn't going to affect the suspension feel as much as you think.
    This is true.

  52. #52
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    895
    "Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker
    I've found you get a better understanding for what things REALLY cost when you are paying cash, versus just handing over a credit card. I guess that is wisdom finally kicking in after all these years.

    So true. Shop around and find a dealer willing to work with you and knock off 15-20% off your 4,000 budget bike if you pay cash. With so many bikes being equal is a lot of ways, for me, one of my biggest decisions is based on finding a bike store willing to work with me. I'm torn between a few different bikes and knowing I can save 450 off MSRP on the Ex9 makes it a lot more desirable, even if I'm blided by the color. The EX9 looks a lot nicer in person, I must say.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    ^ yup! And that's where I am with it, the deal I can get on the EX9 makes it tough to beat. I'm in a position to get a bike at this price because I've incrementally worked up to it. Started cheaper, sold, added a bit, gonna sell again, adding a bit more out of pocket. But the less I have to add out of pocket the better!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    To the OP, to add to your analysis paralysis have you looked at the Transition Smuggler? Check out the 3 model:
    http://www.transitionbikes.com/2016/Bikes_Smuggler.cfm

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicane32 View Post
    "Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker
    I've found you get a better understanding for what things REALLY cost when you are paying cash, versus just handing over a credit card. I guess that is wisdom finally kicking in after all these years.

    So true. Shop around and find a dealer willing to work with you and knock off 15-20% off your 4,000 budget bike if you pay cash. With so many bikes being equal is a lot of ways, for me, one of my biggest decisions is based on finding a bike store willing to work with me. I'm torn between a few different bikes and knowing I can save 450 off MSRP on the Ex9 makes it a lot more desirable, even if I'm blided by the color. The EX9 looks a lot nicer in person, I must say.
    Choosing a bike based on a ~ $500 difference is a bad way to go. Might get lucky, might regret it later and you'll lose a lot more selling.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  56. #56
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,633
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    To the OP, to add to your analysis paralysis have you looked at the Transition Smuggler? Check out the 3 model:
    http://www.transitionbikes.com/2016/Bikes_Smuggler.cfm
    Their travel is the only thing similar about the Smuggler and these two.

    It won't pedal anything like them.
    Death from Below.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Their travel is the only thing similar about the Smuggler and these two.

    It won't pedal anything like them.
    Pretty good point. Probably a fair bit heavier too. But looks fun!

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735

    Analysis paralysis: 2016 Trek Fuel EX9 or Pivot 429 Trail X1???

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Choosing a bike based on a ~ $500 difference is a bad way to go. Might get lucky, might regret it later and you'll lose a lot more selling.
    I agree but I think the OP feels the bikes are a close call, so what's left to sway things is price and support. I don't think there's necessarily a compromise going with the Trek, it's not like it's a 'lesser' bike because it's a big brand. One could also regret the more expensive choice after all.

    Now if it's more like "man I'd really lust for that more expensive one but I'll settle for the price savings" then that's different!

  59. #59
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Choosing a bike based on a ~ $500 difference is a bad way to go. Might get lucky, might regret it later and you'll lose a lot more selling.
    There's a lot of other factors, including how the bike fits, which is my biggest factor. Not to mention the great reviews from everyone who has ridden the Fuel and Trek happens to moot me well. Since we are comparing the Pivot, isn't the price difference a 1000+ after a dropper is added to the Pivot? I'm not sure why some bike companies feel they have to be secretive and not post the price on their site. I only have a idea of the price from a previous post.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    I agree but I think the OP feels the bikes are a close call, so what's left to sway things is price and support. I don't think there's necessarily a compromise going with the Trek, it's not like it's a 'lesser' bike because it's a big brand. One could also regret the more expensive choice after all.

    Now if it's more like "man I'd really lust for that more expensive one but I'll settle for the price savings" then that's different!
    Agreed.
    Please, don't anyone go by a jacked-up quote tree that is, literally, putting words in my mouth.
    If it was only a question of a few hundred dollars, the nod would have gone to the Fuel. That would be easy and this thread wouldn't exist.

    Incidentlly, I absolutely agree with GT5050 in that the Trek isn't a compromise because of their size (big brand.)
    Considering economies of scale, engineering, and development capability - it is actually a plus. It just doesn't carry the trail head exclusivity too many riders feel they need.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicane32 View Post
    There's a lot of other factors, including how the bike fits, which is my biggest factor. Not to mention the great reviews from everyone who has ridden the Fuel and Trek happens to moot me well. Since we are comparing the Pivot, isn't the price difference a 1000+ after a dropper is added to the Pivot? I'm not sure why some bike companies feel they have to be secretive and not post the price on their site. I only have a idea of the price from a previous post.
    Fuel EX9 MSRP is $4000. Pivot 429 Trail X1 Build is 4299. Pivot has slightly lesser components, but carbon frame. OP mentioned he could get deeper discount on EX9 also.

  62. #62
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post

    Incidentlly, I absolutely agree with GT5050 in that the Trek isn't a compromise because of their size (big brand.)
    Considering economies of scale, engineering, and development capability - it is actually a plus. It just doesn't carry the trail head exclusivity too many riders feel they need.
    Well said.

    If Trek had had the Top Fuel 9.8 out in August, I might not be riding my Yeti ASRc. Trek makes fantastic bikes, and I'm willing to bet they've learned more about bike construction from their millions of bikes sold than the "boutique" brands. Don't get stuck on brands.

    If the ASRc was a Niner, Scott, Trek or Giant, I'd still be on it, because it was the best bike I threw a leg over and gave 'er some gas. Honestly, if it was the last two, that would be even more enticing. A big brand supporting you is NEVER a bad thing.
    Death from Below.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    79
    Great information in this thread! I'm also looking at both bikes and will pull the trigger sometime next summer. Big thing for me will be seeing which bike has the best compatibility with 27.5+ wheels & tires. Seems like this will shake out over the winter months.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    There are guys out there who have converted a 2016 Fuel EX to 27.5+, I've seen this over in the Trek section.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    There are guys out there who have converted a 2016 Fuel EX to 27.5+, I've seen this over in the Trek section.
    I'll go take a look. Thanks!

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by mn_biker View Post
    Great information in this thread! I'm also looking at both bikes and will pull the trigger sometime next summer. ...k
    I'm grateful for the advice I got. Unfortunately, while definitely more informed, I'm still not 100% decided on which one I will go with. Each one has their appeals - though if I were pressed, I would admit to leaning towards the Fuel.
    Last edited by Coal-Cracker; 11-06-2015 at 04:46 PM.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    I'm grateful for the advice I got. Unfortunately, while definitely more informed, I'm still not 100% decided on which one I will go with. Each one was their appeals - though if I were pressed, I would admit to leaning towards the Fuel.
    I road the Fuel last month at a demo day and loved it! However I kind of vowed that my next bike would be carbon fiber which put the Pivot on my radar as the Carbon Fuel is way out of range for my budget. Lots of great bikes out right now!

  68. #68
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    895
    Just curious if someone can give me their opinion on the difference in the rims for each bike?

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicane32 View Post
    Just curious if someone can give me their opinion on the difference in the rims for each bike?
    That's a question I've been wondering myself. I'm curious as to how much I would notice the "boat anchor" wheels that come with the X1 Pivot?

    Would the rotational weight be that much worse than the factory wheels on the Giant Trance X 29er 1 I rode for the past couple years?

    The plan, if I were to buy the Pivot, is to eventually upgrade/replace the wheels within a year or two.

    Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicane32 View Post
    Just curious if someone can give me their opinion on the difference in the rims for each bike?
    The ROAM 30 rims are shit. I know this due to owning a set
    Which are being replaced with WTB rims and I9 hubs. Wider stronger and I don't HAVE to use SRAM's stupid valve for the Roam rim.

    SRAM sucks.
    Too Many .

  71. #71
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    The ROAM 30 rims are shit. I know this due to owning a set
    Which are being replaced with WTB rims and I9 hubs. Wider stronger and I don't HAVE to use SRAM's stupid valve for the Roam rim.

    SRAM sucks.
    I heard they were junk from your previous post, but I'm curious about the Sun/Ringle Charger Comp if I decide on a Pivot. Also curious how much better the DT Spline Two M1700, which come on the Pivot one model up from the X1. 1,000 different options, now buy a bike.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicane32 View Post
    I heard they were junk from your previous post, but I'm curious about the Sun/Ringle Charger Comp if I decide on a Pivot. Also curious how much better the DT Spline Two M1700, which come on the Pivot one model up from the X1. 1,000 different options, now buy a bike.
    two buddies have DT Swiss. No problems.
    One is X1700 20mm IW
    One is X1900 25mm IW from what I can find

    The Roams are 21mm IW Hub is a 2 pawl can be upgraded to a 4 pawl but need to buy another XD driver and take two of the pawls out. SRAM for some reason doesn't just sell pawls
    Too Many .

  73. #73
    western NC
    Reputation: HPIguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,634
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    The ROAM 30 rims are shit. I know this due to owning a set
    Which are being replaced with WTB rims and I9 hubs. Wider stronger and I don't HAVE to use SRAM's stupid valve for the Roam rim.

    SRAM sucks.
    Other than proprietary parts (which other wheel / hub companies also do), what makes them shit if you don't mind me asking?

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by HPIguy View Post
    Other than proprietary parts (which other wheel / hub companies also do), what makes them shit if you don't mind me asking?
    With their system installed. Meaning rim strip and valve. Mounting a tire can be a force to be delt with.
    Rear tire took me 1 hour couldn't get it in
    Lbs took 20 mins. Not able to get it on. Due to the strips and the nipple cutouts in the strip

    The rims bend and dent very easy. Which sucks here in az. Mostly rock. After that they have a hard time holding air.
    The blade spokes are neat looking though.
    They do make noise when hard in leans
    They feel a little sluggish to get up and rolling


    After all the problems in 2-3 months I have had with SRAM.( other things with SRAM also) I'm replacing these rims

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,605
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    With their system installed. Meaning rim strip and valve. Mounting a tire can be a force to be delt with.
    Rear tire took me 1 hour couldn't get it in
    Lbs took 20 mins. Not able to get it on. Due to the strips and the nipple cutouts in the strip

    The rims bend and dent very easy. Which sucks here in az. Mostly rock. After that they have a hard time holding air.
    The blade spokes are neat looking though.
    They do make noise when hard in leans
    They feel a little sluggish to get up and rolling


    After all the problems in 2-3 months I have had with SRAM.( other things with SRAM also) I'm replacing these rims
    Can't you just remove the rim strip and use some standard stans tape and valve?

  76. #76
    western NC
    Reputation: HPIguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,634
    Hmmm, interesting. I had no issues mounting up my Bontrager tires tubeless, went just as quick as my stans rims and have held air just as well. But, I've heard they're hit and miss for some. I've also had no noise from them on mine, not yet anyway. Not sure about the sluggish part, as I don't have another boost wheelset to do a direct comparison on this bike. Also, I'm used to heavier wheelsets, and I'm a bigger guy so maybe I just don't notice it.

    I do notice the rear hub, the low POE on it sucks, and I do notice it compared to my nice wheelsets on other bikes. And I have heard reports of them bending easily, and I also will be replacing mine simply due to the limited POE and my size, I simply don't trust a 24 spoke wheel pounding through the terrain I plan to ride this bike in at my weight. Like you I'll be riding in some really rocky terrain, and I'll take a heavier wheelset I never have to wonder about vs the alternative.

    Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    33
    I'm curious as to some statements here and other threads about dealers willing to do deep discounts with cash as opposed to credit card. I can see the 2-3% for the card fees but 10-15% or more for cash?

  78. #78
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by latif View Post
    I'm curious as to some statements here and other threads about dealers willing to do deep discounts with cash as opposed to credit card. I can see the 2-3% for the card fees but 10-15% or more for cash?
    Ya. When you have 19 Trek dealers within 25 miles where I live it's probably easier to find one willing to work with you. One offered me the 20off on the 16's. I looked at the Pivot T this weekend and they will take 20%off on Black Friday, but I'm sure they will give me this same deal the week before of after. Cash deal not mentioned.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by latif View Post
    I'm curious as to some statements here and other threads about dealers willing to do deep discounts with cash as opposed to credit card. I can see the 2-3% for the card fees but 10-15% or more for cash?
    The impression I've always been under is that some businesses prefer cash purchases as their is no "paper trail" come yearly tax time. With a credit card, there is a record of a paid transaction taking place and the business must account for that transaction.

    Plus, cash "talks."

    Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

  80. #80
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    The impression I've always been under is that some businesses prefer cash purchases as their is no "paper trail" come yearly tax time. With a credit card, there is a record of a paid transaction taking place and the business must account for that transaction.

    Plus, cash "talks."

    Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk
    20%off + no tax would be a huge savings. Some businesses due this and not just bike shops, but in my case, they have to charge tax. Still a 400-500 savings.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Coal-Cracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicane32 View Post
    20%off + no tax would be a huge savings. Some businesses due this and not just bike shops, but in my case, they have to charge tax. Still a 400-500 savings.
    Agreed. "20% + no tax", would be a huge savings and I'd jump on that kind of opportunity. I spoke with a couple more dealers this weekend, and while I haven't found a better deal on the Trek, I was able to get a $3900 cash price on the Pivot (X1 build.) I'm sure, the dealer would agree to a $4000 out the door on a 100% paid factory order as the dealer has no risk (inventory) and only profit.
    Either way, as both of these bikes (Fuel and 429T) are relatively new yet in the market, I'm waiting for any negatives and buyer's remorse to start rearing its head. As an example, are the reports of the 429Ts "flexy" rear end unfounded or legitimate? Time will tell. I can't afford an expensive, yet avoidable, mistake.

    Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by HPIguy View Post
    Hmmm, interesting. I had no issues mounting up my Bontrager tires tubeless, went just as quick as my stans rims and have held air just as well. But, I've heard they're hit and miss for some. I've also had no noise from them on mine, not yet anyway. Not sure about the sluggish part, as I don't have another boost wheelset to do a direct comparison on this bike. Also, I'm used to heavier wheelsets, and I'm a bigger guy so maybe I just don't notice it.

    I do notice the rear hub, the low POE on it sucks, and I do notice it compared to my nice wheelsets on other bikes. And I have heard reports of them bending easily, and I also will be replacing mine simply due to the limited POE and my size, I simply don't trust a 24 spoke wheel pounding through the terrain I plan to ride this bike in at my weight. Like you I'll be riding in some really rocky terrain, and I'll take a heavier wheelset I never have to wonder about vs the alternative.

    Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.
    In comparison I only have my DT swiss wheel set with I9 hubs on my SS. they are heavy but they move well. and I love the way the hub feels that POE is amazing.
    Next set for the fuel is I9 hubs, having the ordered tomorrow.
    Too Many .

  83. #83
    western NC
    Reputation: HPIguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,634
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    In comparison I only have my DT swiss wheel set with I9 hubs on my SS. they are heavy but they move well. and I love the way the hub feels that POE is amazing.
    Next set for the fuel is I9 hubs, having the ordered tomorrow.
    Jealous here, but congrats man. I gotta wait till tax return time for my wheel build unless my hard tail and wheels off it sell before then.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,451
    Quote Originally Posted by latif View Post
    I'm curious as to some statements here and other threads about dealers willing to do deep discounts with cash as opposed to credit card. I can see the 2-3% for the card fees but 10-15% or more for cash?
    Cash is only part of the negotiating position you are taking to show the manager(not a sales guy-no power) you are putting in the effort required to get the best price you can.
    This includes paying upfront a 60% non-refundable deposit. It includes no special shipping. Have the bike come with a regular stock shipment. It may require shopping 4-6 stores to find a manager who will work with you to get a deal done. You can also negotiate parts swaps and credits for parts off the bike you don't want to use. The store can give you 20% or more off future purchases they order for you. Think of this as a long-term mutually beneficial relationship.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal-Cracker View Post
    Agreed. "20% + no tax", would be a huge savings and I'd jump on that kind of opportunity. I spoke with a couple more dealers this weekend, and while I haven't found a better deal on the Trek, I was able to get a $3900 cash price on the Pivot (X1 build.) I'm sure, the dealer would agree to a $4000 out the door on a 100% paid factory order as the dealer has no risk (inventory) and only profit.
    Either way, as both of these bikes (Fuel and 429T) are relatively new yet in the market, I'm waiting for any negatives and buyer's remorse to start rearing its head. As an example, are the reports of the 429Ts "flexy" rear end unfounded or legitimate? Time will tell. I can't afford an expensive, yet avoidable, mistake.

    Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk
    From what I saw on the flex issue, there's been one reviewer (2 reviews but the same reviewer) that mentioned it, and he didn't actually notice flex when riding, but from grabbing the seat/rear wheel. I think it's probably a non-issue.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    I just got done demo for 1 week 2016 Trek Fuel 9.8, in the past I had 1- 429c, 2-429sl and 1-429 trail. The sl was the fastest of the 4 Pivots, the Trail I thought had trouble with the front end staying down on climbs and not feeling planted around corners.

    The Trek Fuel is better in everyway and I love the rear shock, going down hill on this bike is amazing how smooth and controlled It was taking all I could dish out. This frame feels much stiffer the the 429 all of them, at the time I thought the Pivot felt stiff.

    The Trek front end to me is perfect and I like the chip that can be easily changed slacking the front end and lowering the BB or vice-versa. The Fuel handles great through tight turns, I do a lot of steep rocky technical climbs and the Trek held the line better than the Pivot. I think the seat tube angle on the Pivot is too slacked out back, maybe why the front end felt weird. Traction is better on the Trek also, when I get air on the Trek I have more control in the air and the landing. I was also thinking about the new Ripley LS and Evil but I think I will get the 9.9 Fuel frame and build up. This bike will allow me to race cat 1 about 5 races/year+ have a great light about 24.5 trail bike that's really fun to ride.

    I can't stress enough how important it is to have a bike for awhile to get a good feel about the bike before you buy. I week demo 79 bucks and the money goes towards the purchase at my shop, great way to buy a bike. I have never been a TREK guy, but that has changed!!

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    I just got done demo for 1 week 2016 Trek Fuel 9.8, in the past I had 1- 429c, 2-429sl and 1-429 trail. The sl was the fastest of the 4 Pivots, the Trail I thought had trouble with the front end staying down on climbs and not feeling planted around corners.

    The Trek Fuel is better in everyway and I love the rear shock, going down hill on this bike is amazing how smooth and controlled It was taking all I could dish out. This frame feels much stiffer the the 429 all of them, at the time I thought the Pivot felt stiff.

    The Trek front end to me is perfect and I like the chip that can be easily changed slacking the front end and lowering the BB or vice-versa. The Fuel handles great through tight turns, I do a lot of steep rocky technical climbs and the Trek held the line better than the Pivot. I think the seat tube angle on the Pivot is too slacked out back, maybe why the front end felt weird. Traction is better on the Trek also, when I get air on the Trek I have more control in the air and the landing. I was also thinking about the new Ripley LS and Evil but I think I will get the 9.9 Fuel frame and build up. This bike will allow me to race cat 1 about 5 races/year+ have a great light about 24.5 trail bike that's really fun to ride.

    I can't stress enough how important it is to have a bike for awhile to get a good feel about the bike before you buy. I week demo 79 bucks and the money goes towards the purchase at my shop, great way to buy a bike. I have never been a TREK guy, but that has changed!!
    You're in a unique position. Many can't get a demo, let alone a week for that price. Around here the few demos you can take out are $75-$90 for a single day. Better than nothing, but still very limited.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  88. #88
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,633
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    You're in a unique position. Many can't get a demo, let alone a week for that price. Around here the few demos you can take out are $75-$90 for a single day. Better than nothing, but still very limited.
    This. I paid $100 for my last shop demo. In a big cycling town. For a single day.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    This. I paid $100 for my last shop demo. In a big cycling town. For a single day.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Same

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    I guess I really should have not been mad when he told me the price went up from 50/week to 79/week. The bike was bran spankin new and carbon, I had 4 great rides on it. I keep thinking about the build I will do on the 9.9, I will go only 32mm carbon rims on this build with Project 321 hubs and no dropper at first. Keeping it light but not fragile.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,122
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    I just got done demo for 1 week 2016 Trek Fuel 9.8, in the past I had 1- 429c, 2-429sl and 1-429 trail. The sl was the fastest of the 4 Pivots, the Trail I thought had trouble with the front end staying down on climbs and not feeling planted around corners.

    The Trek Fuel is better in everyway and I love the rear shock, going down hill on this bike is amazing how smooth and controlled It was taking all I could dish out. This frame feels much stiffer the the 429 all of them, at the time I thought the Pivot felt stiff.

    The Trek front end to me is perfect and I like the chip that can be easily changed slacking the front end and lowering the BB or vice-versa. The Fuel handles great through tight turns, I do a lot of steep rocky technical climbs and the Trek held the line better than the Pivot. I think the seat tube angle on the Pivot is too slacked out back, maybe why the front end felt weird. Traction is better on the Trek also, when I get air on the Trek I have more control in the air and the landing. I was also thinking about the new Ripley LS and Evil but I think I will get the 9.9 Fuel frame and build up. This bike will allow me to race cat 1 about 5 races/year+ have a great light about 24.5 trail bike that's really fun to ride.

    I can't stress enough how important it is to have a bike for awhile to get a good feel about the bike before you buy. I week demo 79 bucks and the money goes towards the purchase at my shop, great way to buy a bike. I have never been a TREK guy, but that has changed!!
    This^^^ I am building up a Fuel EX 29 full carbon frame now. I made a few modifications to my original parts list after discovering some important reliability issues or availability concerns. Instead of a Fox Float 34 Factory it is going to be a Rockshox Pike. Fox said they won't have forks until April at the earliest. I could get one now online, but I am working with my LBS (they need all the help they can get, all of them do!). I read great things about both of the '16 forks. It was a coin toss until the availability came up. I was going to use a KS LEV Integra but discovered some design problems which create reliability problems, so it will be a Reverb Stealth. Otherwise the original list is still coming. (Shimano XT, NOX, DT Swiss, Race Face, you know....) I already have the frameset.

    I also demoed the Pivot 429SL and Rocky Mountain Instinct BC. I came away liking them all, but loving the Trek. Your description fits my experience perfectly.

    Congrats on your choice!

    I race 5-6 times a year. Power of Four in Aspen is my favorite! Otherwise mostly local stuff and 24 hour events. Have fun out there!

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by beastmaster View Post
    This^^^ I am building up a Fuel EX 29 full carbon frame now. I made a few modifications to my original parts list after discovering some important reliability issues or availability concerns. Instead of a Fox Float 34 Factory it is going to be a Rockshox Pike. Fox said they won't have forks until April at the earliest. I could get one now online, but I am working with my LBS (they need all the help they can get, all of them do!). I read great things about both of the '16 forks. It was a coin toss until the availability came up. I was going to use a KS LEV Integra but discovered some design problems which create reliability problems, so it will be a Reverb Stealth. Otherwise the original list is still coming. (Shimano XT, NOX, DT Swiss, Race Face, you know....) I already have the frameset.

    I also demoed the Pivot 429SL and Rocky Mountain Instinct BC. I came away liking them all, but loving the Trek. Your description fits my experience perfectly.

    Congrats on your choice!

    I race 5-6 times a year. Power of Four in Aspen is my favorite! Otherwise mostly local stuff and 24 hour events. Have fun out there!
    If I can recommend 9point8 dropper over the Reverb, Race Face and Easton now use their technology. I have had 3 reverbs fail, I have a brand new one in the box for sale. I'm getting the 9point8 for the Fuel EX 9.9 but 4 week waiting list on it. A few guys have the 9point8 and love them!! Nice you have your frame!! I will have mine soon, enjoy.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    957
    note that with the new Fox 34 you can adjust any Trek Fuel from 120---130 mm ---any shop can do this for probably under $100=====it is just an internal part---the chassis does not change----

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,122
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    If I can recommend 9point8 dropper over the Reverb, Race Face and Easton now use their technology. I have had 3 reverbs fail, I have a brand new one in the box for sale. I'm getting the 9point8 for the Fuel EX 9.9 but 4 week waiting list on it. A few guys have the 9point8 and love them!! Nice you have your frame!! I will have mine soon, enjoy.
    I emailed Dan at 9Point8 and he said the way things stand now, it might be May before I would get a post from them. Their new 170mm dropper post looks crazy! I might just get the Reverb now and put myself on their waiting list. Did you order your frame already?

    I believe both the Pike and Fox Float 34 can have the travel altered fairly easily. Just remember that the longer the suspension travel, the higher the front end will be (along with slacker angles), and that has a big effect on climbing efficiency.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by beastmaster View Post
    I emailed Dan at 9Point8 and he said the way things stand now, it might be May before I would get a post from them. Their new 170mm dropper post looks crazy! I might just get the Reverb now and put myself on their waiting list. Did you order your frame already?

    I believe both the Pike and Fox Float 34 can have the travel altered fairly easily. Just remember that the longer the suspension travel, the higher the front end will be (along with slacker angles), and that has a big effect on climbing efficiency.
    Not yet, next week!! One other thing about the forks, I have both 2016 Fox 34 boost set at 130mm now will go 120mm, and pike 130mm both are easy to change travel by the air spring. 60 bucks for the Pike. The Fox fork is 1/2 pound lighter and just as good as the Pike. Fox got it right for 2016.

    Light Bicycles just came out with Asymmetric carbon rims 34mm outside and 28mm inside but price has gone up to 260.00 each.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,122
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    Not yet, next week!! One other thing about the forks, I have both 2016 Fox 34 boost set at 130mm now will go 120mm, and pike 130mm both are easy to change travel by the air spring. 60 bucks for the Pike. The Fox fork is 1/2 pound lighter and just as good as the Pike. Fox got it right for 2016.

    Light Bicycles just came out with Asymmetric carbon rims 34mm outside and 28mm inside but price has gone up to 260.00 each.
    '16 Fox 34 Float 29 120 Fit4 Factory Fork 51mm offset weighs in at 1883 grams with an axle to crown length of 527mm

    '16 Rock Shox Pike RCT3 29" Solo Air 120mm Fork 51mm offset weighs in at 1876 grams with an axle to crown length of 536mm

    These numbers came from the manufacturers. No doubt Fox got it right for '16, but RS upped their game too. Flip a coin.

    Those Light Bicycle hoops look good. Are you going that route? I am going with NOX Composites. They have a 2 year warranty and lifetime crash replacement service for 1/2 price of the rim or $320USD for them to rebuild/replace broken parts (excluding shipping). Since I live in the US, working with them is easier than an overseas company.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by beastmaster View Post
    '16 Fox 34 Float 29 120 Fit4 Factory Fork 51mm offset weighs in at 1883 grams with an axle to crown length of 527mm

    '16 Rock Shox Pike RCT3 29" Solo Air 120mm Fork 51mm offset weighs in at 1876 grams with an axle to crown length of 536mm

    These numbers came from the manufacturers. No doubt Fox got it right for '16, but RS upped their game too. Flip a coin.

    Those Light Bicycle hoops look good. Are you going that route? I am going with NOX Composites. They have a 2 year warranty and lifetime crash replacement service for 1/2 price of the rim or $320USD for them to rebuild/replace broken parts (excluding shipping). Since I live in the US, working with them is easier than an overseas company.
    The rims are the one thing not 100% sure, I have the boost Project 321 hubs. Trying to keep the rims light, the LB 34 are a bit over kill. I like the NOX 32mm rim Teocalli are perfect at about 400g or less. NOX are great to deal with, 3 of my friends have them no problems at all. I also have of set of Derby 35mm rims with Onyx hubs but to heavy for this build!! Not boost on my Niner WFO. My pike is 2015.

    What do you guys think about going with 170mm crank to help with pedal striks? RF Next SL is what I'm thinking.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by beastmaster View Post
    '16 Fox 34 Float 29 120 Fit4 Factory Fork 51mm offset weighs in at 1883 grams with an axle to crown length of 527mm

    '16 Rock Shox Pike RCT3 29" Solo Air 120mm Fork 51mm offset weighs in at 1876 grams with an axle to crown length of 536mm

    These numbers came from the manufacturers. No doubt Fox got it right for '16, but RS upped their game too. Flip a coin.

    Those Light Bicycle hoops look good. Are you going that route? I am going with NOX Composites. They have a 2 year warranty and lifetime crash replacement service for 1/2 price of the rim or $320USD for them to rebuild/replace broken parts (excluding shipping). Since I live in the US, working with them is easier than an overseas company.
    Several posts I've read said the Pike came in a fair bit heavier than spec'd weight, while the Fox was pretty close.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    The rims are the one thing not 100% sure, I have the boost Project 321 hubs. Trying to keep the rims light, the LB 34 are a bit over kill. I like the NOX 32mm rim Teocalli are perfect at about 400g or less. NOX are great to deal with, 3 of my friends have them no problems at all. I also have of set of Derby 35mm rims with Onyx hubs but to heavy for this build!! Not boost on my Niner WFO. My pike is 2015.

    What do you guys think about going with 170mm crank to help with pedal striks? RF Next SL is what I'm thinking.
    Boost 'supposedly is going to give you a stronger wheel build, why spend twice as much on a rim to get another 8%? I'd skip the NOX and go with LB.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Guys,

    I have a stock 9.9 build coming Monday. I have an Evil Following now which is built to the hilt with carbon goodness, but strong as well. With dropper and pedals, it is 27 lbs. The 9.9 with dropper and pedals is 23.5 lbs. They are both smalls. I will switch a few existing parts over to the 9.9 (bars, stem, tires, cassette) which by calculator will drop the 9.9 down to 23. Crazy.

    Why? I am intrigued my what the difference in weight will do. I demo'd an aluminum EX very briefly in the parking lot last week. I was immediately struck by how cool the suspension was. It was like butter on the speed bumps, curbs and surrounding turf without being squishy. Solid but so smooth. I climbed a grass hill which was likely 35* and it just firmed up and climbed. I also noticed that EX felt a little shorter although the specs says the ETT is a 1/2" less.

    I am very excited to ride side by side, but nervous as well. What is this replaces my beloved Evil?

    I ride East coast trails which are a combo of xc, rooty, rocky stuff without too many large drops. We have longish techy climbs. I love the idea of a light bikes that is good in the climbs. I get the feeling the 9.9 will be more nimble, feel better and be more user friendly.

    If I keep the 9.9, I would likely increase Fox to 130 or move over my Avalanche Pike which is 130. As well, thinking of whether or not I will keep the DT wheel are sell them now and get a wider, but lightest wheel such as the Farlow and Project 321.

    I have the new RF Turbine dropper and it is excellent. Works so well in the cold too. And it is available.

    Comments or thoughts?

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,122
    ...
    Last edited by beastmaster; 01-28-2016 at 09:08 PM.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    Guys,

    I have a stock 9.9 build coming Monday. I have an Evil Following now which is built to the hilt with carbon goodness, but strong as well. With dropper and pedals, it is 27 lbs. The 9.9 with dropper and pedals is 23.5 lbs. They are both smalls. I will switch a few existing parts over to the 9.9 (bars, stem, tires, cassette) which by calculator will drop the 9.9 down to 23. Crazy.

    Why? I am intrigued my what the difference in weight will do. I demo'd an aluminum EX very briefly in the parking lot last week. I was immediately struck by how cool the suspension was. It was like butter on the speed bumps, curbs and surrounding turf without being squishy. Solid but so smooth. I climbed a grass hill which was likely 35* and it just firmed up and climbed. I also noticed that EX felt a little shorter although the specs says the ETT is a 1/2" less.

    I am very excited to ride side by side, but nervous as well. What is this replaces my beloved Evil?

    I ride East coast trails which are a combo of xc, rooty, rocky stuff without too many large drops. We have longish techy climbs. I love the idea of a light bikes that is good in the climbs. I get the feeling the 9.9 will be more nimble, feel better and be more user friendly.

    If I keep the 9.9, I would likely increase Fox to 130 or move over my Avalanche Pike which is 130. As well, thinking of whether or not I will keep the DT wheel are sell them now and get a wider, but lightest wheel such as the Farlow and Project 321.

    I have the new RF Turbine dropper and it is excellent. Works so well in the cold too. And it is available.

    Comments or thoughts?
    I had a chance to ride a large Following a few months ago, this was right after I sold my Pivot 429 trail frame. I have been on the quest ever since for the right next frame for me. I really liked the Following and I too ride the East Coast rocky, rooty, punchy technical climbs. I live 2 miles from Brandy Wine Valley right off 202, the Wiss and French Creek are great also.

    I thought the Following was just too slacked out for tight turns and again the seat angle too slacked but loved the short stays. It pedaled really good with the front coming up anytime I wanted, really fun bike. I held off wanting ride more bikes. Keep in mind I have my Niner WFO at 28.4lbs!! Never had a chance to ride the Ripley LS, when I jumped on the Fuel 9.8 my gut told me this could be the bike. It was checking all the boxes for me and I can say this I could go faster on the downs on the Trek than the Evil.

    A bike I could build light enough to race XC, Fun, stiff, climbs great on rocky tech, Efficient, did I say FUN, handles really great around turns with the front end planted to the ground and just kills the downs with great Warranty because I need it after breaking 3 Pivot 429 frames.

    I only had one day on the Evil but there is something about this Fuel front end and back end I just love. I think it's partly the stiffness of the frame, rock solid!!

    I'm very anxious to here how the 9.9 compares to your Evil.

    I really like the lever on the Race Face dropper!! You can't go wrong with Project 321 hubs, better than the I9 stuff with better end caps and bearings, better anodizing and the hub flanges are offset or angled so spokes do not touch and just a few grams more weight than I9.

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    I had a chance to ride a large Following a few months ago, this was right after I sold my Pivot 429 trail frame. I have been on the quest ever since for the right next frame for me. I really liked the Following and I too ride the East Coast rocky, rooty, punchy technical climbs. I live 2 miles from Brandy Wine Valley right off 202, the Wiss and French Creek are great also.

    I thought the Following was just too slacked out for tight turns and again the seat angle too slacked but loved the short stays. It pedaled really good with the front coming up anytime I wanted, really fun bike. I held off wanting ride more bikes. Keep in mind I have my Niner WFO at 28.4lbs!! Never had a chance to ride the Ripley LS, when I jumped on the Fuel 9.8 my gut told me this could be the bike. It was checking all the boxes for me and I can say this I could go faster on the downs on the Trek than the Evil.

    A bike I could build light enough to race XC, Fun, stiff, climbs great on rocky tech, Efficient, did I say FUN, handles really great around turns with the front end planted to the ground and just kills the downs with great Warranty because I need it after breaking 3 Pivot 429 frames.

    I only had one day on the Evil but there is something about this Fuel front end and back end I just love. I think it's partly the stiffness of the frame, rock solid!!

    I'm very anxious to here how the 9.9 compares to your Evil.

    I really like the lever on the Race Face dropper!! You can't go wrong with Project 321 hubs, better than the I9 stuff with better end caps and bearings, better anodizing and the hub flanges are offset or angled so spokes do not touch and just a few grams more weight than I9.
    Are you riding an EX now?

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Based on your review, it seems like you mostly don't like slacked seat angles - that's probably why the Ex9 feels better than the 429/Following for you.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    Are you riding an EX now?
    I just gave it back after 1 week demo. I'm getting the 9.9 frame.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: massi.rav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    Guys,

    I have a stock 9.9 build coming Monday. I have an Evil Following now which is built to the hilt with carbon goodness, but strong as well. With dropper and pedals, it is 27 lbs. The 9.9 with dropper and pedals is 23.5 lbs. They are both smalls. I will switch a few existing parts over to the 9.9 (bars, stem, tires, cassette) which by calculator will drop the 9.9 down to 23. Crazy.

    Why? I am intrigued my what the difference in weight will do. I demo'd an aluminum EX very briefly in the parking lot last week. I was immediately struck by how cool the suspension was. It was like butter on the speed bumps, curbs and surrounding turf without being squishy. Solid but so smooth. I climbed a grass hill which was likely 35* and it just firmed up and climbed. I also noticed that EX felt a little shorter although the specs says the ETT is a 1/2" less.

    I am very excited to ride side by side, but nervous as well. What is this replaces my beloved Evil?

    I ride East coast trails which are a combo of xc, rooty, rocky stuff without too many large drops. We have longish techy climbs. I love the idea of a light bikes that is good in the climbs. I get the feeling the 9.9 will be more nimble, feel better and be more user friendly.

    If I keep the 9.9, I would likely increase Fox to 130 or move over my Avalanche Pike which is 130. As well, thinking of whether or not I will keep the DT wheel are sell them now and get a wider, but lightest wheel such as the Farlow and Project 321.

    I have the new RF Turbine dropper and it is excellent. Works so well in the cold too. And it is available.

    Comments or thoughts?
    I am very interested in your report after riding your new ex 9.9.p compared to the Evil.
    After being very close to get a used Evil the Following from my LBS, I finally chose to buy a Fuel EX 9.9 just based on the specs and...feeling. So the 9.9 is now my ride since 15 days.
    I did not have the chance to try and ride the Following but just sit on at the shop. It would have been interesting to have a ride comparison of the two. Just inspiring bikes, both of them.
    The 9.9 is an amazing ride and the 24lb of the medium size a real advantage for sure together with the overall stiffness of the frame and carbon wheels. Never been so fast on full suspended even if my experience is just based on all-mountain rides with 150mm travel.

    Ciao from Italy

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by massi.rav View Post
    I am very interested in your report after riding your new ex 9.9.p compared to the Evil.
    After being very close to get a used Evil the Following from my LBS, I finally chose to buy a Fuel EX 9.9 just based on the specs and...feeling. So the 9.9 is now my ride since 15 days.
    I did not have the chance to try and ride the Following but just sit on at the shop. It would have been interesting to have a ride comparison of the two. Just inspiring bikes, both of them.
    The 9.9 is an amazing ride and the 24lb of the medium size a real advantage for sure together with the overall stiffness of the frame and carbon wheels. Never been so fast on full suspended even if my experience is just based on all-mountain rides with 150mm travel.

    Ciao from Italy
    Cool. Interesting that so many are having the same comparison as me.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    a week long demo... for $79?!

    Thats baller! I paid $100AUD for a day (well I picked it up the evening before had it for the full day, and returned that evening.. so technically 2 days)
    And yeah $100 off my new bike purchase.

    I'm so happy I tested it tho.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    a week long demo... for $79?!

    Thats baller! I paid $100AUD for a day (well I picked it up the evening before had it for the full day, and returned that evening.. so technically 2 days)
    And yeah $100 off my new bike purchase.

    I'm so happy I tested it tho.
    What did you think and buy?

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    Guys,

    I have a stock 9.9 build coming Monday. I have an Evil Following now which is built to the hilt with carbon goodness, but strong as well. With dropper and pedals, it is 27 lbs. The 9.9 with dropper and pedals is 23.5 lbs. They are both smalls. I will switch a few existing parts over to the 9.9 (bars, stem, tires, cassette) which by calculator will drop the 9.9 down to 23. Crazy.

    Why? I am intrigued my what the difference in weight will do. I demo'd an aluminum EX very briefly in the parking lot last week. I was immediately struck by how cool the suspension was. It was like butter on the speed bumps, curbs and surrounding turf without being squishy. Solid but so smooth. I climbed a grass hill which was likely 35* and it just firmed up and climbed. I also noticed that EX felt a little shorter although the specs says the ETT is a 1/2" less.

    I am very excited to ride side by side, but nervous as well. What is this replaces my beloved Evil?

    I ride East coast trails which are a combo of xc, rooty, rocky stuff without too many large drops. We have longish techy climbs. I love the idea of a light bikes that is good in the climbs. I get the feeling the 9.9 will be more nimble, feel better and be more user friendly.

    If I keep the 9.9, I would likely increase Fox to 130 or move over my Avalanche Pike which is 130. As well, thinking of whether or not I will keep the DT wheel are sell them now and get a wider, but lightest wheel such as the Farlow and Project 321.

    I have the new RF Turbine dropper and it is excellent. Works so well in the cold too. And it is available.

    Comments or thoughts?
    Don't be scared! It's always fun to try new bikes and the Trek has gotten rave reviews. I am very interested to hear how it compares to the Evil. Good luck!

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    What did you think and buy?
    Coming from a HT Superfly 5.. I thought the EX9 was amazing. And thought that a 140mm travel remedy 9.8 would be better haha

    Ive ridden some pretty steep rooty rocky trails quite a few times on the SF5 as its whats local.
    Without even trying I managed to beat my PRs (didn't want to wreck a brand new bike that wasnt mine, and also wasnt used to it)
    I'd only imagine how much faster it would be once dialed in.

    Ended up going for a remedy 9.8 cause .. well, i felt i wanted more travel and more slack.
    Local trails usually get ridden by guys on DH rigs so figured the HT wasn't going to do it.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,122
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    Guys,

    I have a stock 9.9 build coming Monday. I have an Evil Following now which is built to the hilt with carbon goodness, but strong as well. With dropper and pedals, it is 27 lbs. The 9.9 with dropper and pedals is 23.5 lbs. They are both smalls. I will switch a few existing parts over to the 9.9 (bars, stem, tires, cassette) which by calculator will drop the 9.9 down to 23. Crazy.

    Why? I am intrigued my what the difference in weight will do. I demo'd an aluminum EX very briefly in the parking lot last week. I was immediately struck by how cool the suspension was. It was like butter on the speed bumps, curbs and surrounding turf without being squishy. Solid but so smooth. I climbed a grass hill which was likely 35* and it just firmed up and climbed. I also noticed that EX felt a little shorter although the specs says the ETT is a 1/2" less.

    I am very excited to ride side by side, but nervous as well. What is this replaces my beloved Evil?

    I ride East coast trails which are a combo of xc, rooty, rocky stuff without too many large drops. We have longish techy climbs. I love the idea of a light bikes that is good in the climbs. I get the feeling the 9.9 will be more nimble, feel better and be more user friendly.

    If I keep the 9.9, I would likely increase Fox to 130 or move over my Avalanche Pike which is 130. As well, thinking of whether or not I will keep the DT wheel are sell them now and get a wider, but lightest wheel such as the Farlow and Project 321.

    I have the new RF Turbine dropper and it is excellent. Works so well in the cold too. And it is available.

    Comments or thoughts?
    Monday came and went. Did the bike come in? You received it? How's it going? Any updates?

  113. #113
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    I just got done demo for 1 week 2016 Trek Fuel 9.8, in the past I had 1- 429c, 2-429sl and 1-429 trail. The sl was the fastest of the 4 Pivots, the Trail I thought had trouble with the front end staying down on climbs and not feeling planted around corners.

    The Trek Fuel is better in everyway and I love the rear shock, going down hill on this bike is amazing how smooth and controlled It was taking all I could dish out. This frame feels much stiffer the the 429 all of them, at the time I thought the Pivot felt stiff.

    The Trek front end to me is perfect and I like the chip that can be easily changed slacking the front end and lowering the BB or vice-versa. The Fuel handles great through tight turns, I do a lot of steep rocky technical climbs and the Trek held the line better than the Pivot. I think the seat tube angle on the Pivot is too slacked out back, maybe why the front end felt weird. Traction is better on the Trek also, when I get air on the Trek I have more control in the air and the landing. I was also thinking about the new Ripley LS and Evil but I think I will get the 9.9 Fuel frame and build up. This bike will allow me to race cat 1 about 5 races/year+ have a great light about 24.5 trail bike that's really fun to ride.

    I can't stress enough how important it is to have a bike for awhile to get a good feel about the bike before you buy. I week demo 79 bucks and the money goes towards the purchase at my shop, great way to buy a bike. I have never been a TREK guy, but that has changed!!

    Can you give us a little more detail on the 429 Trail review.

    The front end is a bit slack for a trail bike IMO, especially if you go too large a size, making it hard to keep the front end planted. How tall are you and what size bike were you running?

    I'm looking at the Pivot and Ex for my next trail bike. Here in the NE I'm most interested in a more nimble bike with a good feel to the suspension. Love Pivots dw but the Trail is looking a bit too slacked out. Might work for me if I size down as I'm in between a med and lg.

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by beastmaster View Post
    Monday came and went. Did the bike come in? You received it? How's it going? Any updates?
    Yep I have it. Been either too much snow or wet so just a few minutes of ride time. Initial thoughts is it is light and fast. Very nimble and really accelerates well. Excited to ride it. With stock stuff and my Xpedo ti pedals, 23.8 lbs. With a few switches of components, I am thinking 23.25 lbs.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Can you give us a little more detail on the 429 Trail review.

    The front end is a bit slack for a trail bike IMO, especially if you go too large a size, making it hard to keep the front end planted. How tall are you and what size bike were you running?

    I'm looking at the Pivot and Ex for my next trail bike. Here in the NE I'm most interested in a more nimble bike with a good feel to the suspension. Love Pivots dw but the Trail is looking a bit too slacked out. Might work for me if I size down as I'm in between a med and lg.

    I was in the same boat, really wanting the 429trail but concerned it might be a little too slacked out for most of the riding here in Michigan. I found and bought a 429sl with the new fox34 which should hopefully be just the ticket.

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,305
    can you do a 429sl with a works 1 degree angle set? That would get you to 68.3

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by goodmojo View Post
    can you do a 429sl with a works 1 degree angle set? That would get you to 68.3
    Or punch the fork out to 130, I have seen a few builds done this way.

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: massi.rav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    Yep I have it. Been either too much snow or wet so just a few minutes of ride time. Initial thoughts is it is light and fast. Very nimble and really accelerates well. Excited to ride it. With stock stuff and my Xpedo ti pedals, 23.8 lbs. With a few switches of components, I am thinking 23.25 lbs.
    23.25 lbs is a crazy weight. Well don if you reach it.
    What size are you riding?
    2016 Trek Fuel Ex 9.9
    2015 Specialized Enduro Expert 29
    2014 Pivot Mach 5.7 Carbon

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by massi.rav View Post
    23.25 lbs is a crazy weight. Well don if you reach it.
    What size are you riding?
    It is a small, 15.5.

    Changing to a Race Face Turbine dropper, moving over all of my Guide Ultimate brakes and centerline X rotors, xx1 cassette, derailleur and shifter, Enve stem and bars.

    Installing new nox Farlows wheels with Project 321 as well which will add 90g. Also new axles, Fox Kabolt and Carbon TI.

    I would like to break 23, but can't see doing it with a dropper or by sacrificing strength and durability. There are lighter bars, etc but at this point it doesn't matter.

  120. #120
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,633
    Quote Originally Posted by massi.rav View Post
    23.25 lbs is a crazy weight. Well don if you reach it.
    What size are you riding?
    Why is it crazy?

    I'm amazed at how heavy some people manage to make modern bikes.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  121. #121
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Why is it crazy?

    I'm amazed at how heavy some people manage to make modern bikes.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Guilty. 28 lb Ripley

    Would love to ride a FS 29er trail bike that's under 25 lbs. I'm just worried about popping my $6000+ bike spending cherry, as I know once I spend that much, it'll be easier to spend at least that much again.

    68.5 seems to be where I like the HA, where it's definitely not too slack for mellower hills/canyons and slower speed stuff. Rode a few bikes that were slacker, but I wanted to know what they were like with a steeper head angle or shorter fork. A stiffer fork and burlier tire up front helps if it's a little on the steep side for the mountains and higher speed stuff.

    Also curious about the 9.9. My Following was 29 lbs (parts transferred directly to the Ripley).

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Guilty. 28 lb Ripley

    Would love to ride a FS 29er trail bike that's under 25 lbs. I'm just worried about popping my $6000+ bike spending cherry, as I know once I spend that much, it'll be easier to spend at least that much again.

    68.5 seems to be where I like the HA, where it's definitely not too slack for mellower hills/canyons and slower speed stuff. Rode a few bikes that were slacker, but I wanted to know what they were like with a steeper head angle or shorter fork. A stiffer fork and burlier tire up front helps if it's a little on the steep side for the mountains and higher speed stuff.

    Also curious about the 9.9. My Following was 29 lbs (parts transferred directly to the Ripley).
    Well my 9.9 frame is 2 lbs lighter than my Following frame. Although I haven't had a significant ride on a it due to weather, I can tell the feel while pedaling due to the 4 lbs reduction in weight is vastly different. I am expecting big things....

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: massi.rav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Why is it crazy?

    I'm amazed at how heavy some people manage to make modern bikes.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Tried to be ironic.
    2016 Trek Fuel Ex 9.9
    2015 Specialized Enduro Expert 29
    2014 Pivot Mach 5.7 Carbon

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    23.8 lbs. With a few switches of components, I am thinking 23.25 lbs.
    Can you really notice the weight of a can of coke? *(edited in - while riding)
    Last edited by LinkyPinky87; 02-09-2016 at 04:47 AM.

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Nope.

  126. #126
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    I hope this thread keeps getting attention.

    The 429T and Ex are the 2 top contenders for the best 2016 Trailbike.

    It would be great to see a detailed shoot out between the two (beyond what is already posted here). Bike Mag did a nice job, but not a direct comparison.

    Seems like all the attention is getting grabbed by the 6" travel enduro-style rigs but its the Trailbike that is still the workhorse of mountain biking, and the most appropriate rig for most riders.

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    I hope this thread keeps getting attention.

    The 429T and Ex are the 2 top contenders for the best 2016 Trailbike.

    It would be great to see a detailed shoot out between the two (beyond what is already posted here). Bike Mag did a nice job, but not a direct comparison.

    Seems like all the attention is getting grabbed by the 6" travel enduro-style rigs but its the Trailbike that is still the workhorse of mountain biking, and the most appropriate rig for most riders.
    Yes that is true. I think the Enduro rigs get attention because it taps into the cool style of hard riding. More to film, testosterone stuff. But you are right.... When the weather breaks this week, I will be out on familiar trails with my new 9.9. It will have many component changes, but the fork and frame will be stock.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    734
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    I hope this thread keeps getting attention.

    The 429T and Ex are the 2 top contenders for the best 2016 Trailbike.

    It would be great to see a detailed shoot out between the two (beyond what is already posted here). Bike Mag did a nice job, but not a direct comparison.

    Seems like all the attention is getting grabbed by the 6" travel enduro-style rigs but its the Trailbike that is still the workhorse of mountain biking, and the most appropriate rig for most riders.

    Would like to see one too. Currently debating between these two but haven't yet been able to demo the 429T.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sml-2727's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,682
    Hey both these bikes are reviewed for bible of bikes and to make things a little harder so was the new camber comp carbon.

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SprSonik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    101

    my $.02

    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    I hope this thread keeps getting attention.

    The 429T and Ex are the 2 top contenders for the best 2016 Trailbike.

    It would be great to see a detailed shoot out between the two (beyond what is already posted here). Bike Mag did a nice job, but not a direct comparison.

    Seems like all the attention is getting grabbed by the 6" travel enduro-style rigs but its the Trailbike that is still the workhorse of mountain biking, and the most appropriate rig for most riders.
    I love passing guys on full blown enduro bikes downhill on my 18lb Rigid SS. So many people are overbiked (and over "tired") for the descent that they suffer on the climbs and the fun tight trails. I rode a Fuel EX 9.9 for 2 yrs and it was too flexy. Went to a Remedy 9.7 full custom spec (34 Float Factory up front) and just replaced that with a 429 Trail. Once you get above @ $5k any of the trail bikes are good enough, and it comes to rider preference. I love the balanced performance of the Pivot. Climbs great, agile, and descends with authority.
    Have at it!

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by SprSonik View Post
    I love the balanced performance of the Pivot. Climbs great, agile, and descends with authority.
    Same can be said of the new redesigned Fuel. Stiffer and more agile than the previous. Damn right man, above a certain price point one can not go wrong. Even shopping in the 3500 - 4000 price range I had lots of great options. This newer breed of trail bikes are awesome.

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sml-2727's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,682
    I have been reading up on the fuel in the trek forums and there have been a few who have complained about the shock, not that it does not work, just it breaks and needs repaired. Its under warranty but just seems to be a PITA
    2017 Surly Ogre

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by sml-2727 View Post
    I have been reading up on the fuel in the trek forums and there have been a few who have complained about the shock, not that it does not work, just it breaks and needs repaired. Its under warranty but just seems to be a PITA
    Overall I wouldn't be too concerned. I bought a Fuel even having seen those posts, but at the end of the day a forum is a sounding board for these things anyway, so the real percentage is not necessarily represented.

    Also, my purchase was based on a combination of application/geometry/components/value/price. The Fuel was simply the bike that best ticked the boxes for me. To worry about a single component would have meant compromise elsewhere. The rear shock and the way it works adds to the bike, and it is really a pretty simple system. Now IF the shock has an issue, I'll have peace of mind that it's covered AND that I had bought the bike that best suits me, which matters more for life of ownership really.

    Now the Fuel may not be the one that suits you the best. Maybe something slacker, etc. But if it is, I wouldn't worry.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,122
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    Overall I wouldn't be too concerned. I bought a Fuel even having seen those posts, but at the end of the day a forum is a sounding board for these things anyway, so the real percentage is not necessarily represented.

    Also, my purchase was based on a combination of application/geometry/components/value/price. The Fuel was simply the bike that best ticked the boxes for me. To worry about a single component would have meant compromise elsewhere. The rear shock and the way it works adds to the bike, and it is really a pretty simple system. Now IF the shock has an issue, I'll have peace of mind that it's covered AND that I had bought the bike that best suits me, which matters more for life of ownership really.

    Now the Fuel may not be the one that suits you the best. Maybe something slacker, etc. But if it is, I wouldn't worry.
    Exactly!

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    The Fuel EX9 29er sits about about 67.5* HA
    Can somebody comment on the Fuel EX head angle?

    If the Trek geo chart (low setting at 68.8) is correct, a 10mm longer fork should result at about 68.4 far from 67.5 in any case.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard View Post
    Can somebody comment on the Fuel EX head angle?

    If the Trek geo chart (low setting at 68.8) is correct, a 10mm longer fork should result at about 68.4 far from 67.5 in any case.
    Some have measured and came up slacker, but for science I'd rather use specs and hard numbers. Any geometry calculator would come up with 68.3ish. Trek also emailed me back that the 130 slackens by .5 degree.

  137. #137
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by massi.rav View Post
    I am very interested in your report after riding your new ex 9.9.p compared to the Evil.
    After being very close to get a used Evil the Following from my LBS, I finally chose to buy a Fuel EX 9.9 just based on the specs and...feeling. So the 9.9 is now my ride since 15 days.
    I did not have the chance to try and ride the Following but just sit on at the shop. It would have been interesting to have a ride comparison of the two. Just inspiring bikes, both of them.
    The 9.9 is an amazing ride and the 24lb of the medium size a real advantage for sure together with the overall stiffness of the frame and carbon wheels. Never been so fast on full suspended even if my experience is just based on all-mountain rides with 150mm travel.

    Ciao from Italy
    I have the 9.9 and the Following. I'm taking the Trek to Arizona for vacation because I'll be mostly riding trail i.e. I don't have the balls to ride the knarly stuff repeatedly and the Trek's efficiency and less slacked out geo suits me better. The Following is a fine bike and I'm sure the Trail is too. I'm am a Pivot fanboy but the Trail wasn't available so I took a chance with the Fuel.

    BTW, when I returned to the states from Italy I got about 7 photo speeding tickets in the mail. I was lost and kept circling the airport. Will I be arrested if I return?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Posted my review of the EX 9.9 vs Following.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=12473784

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    179
    Was going with the 429 trail frame to build up until i did some cost analysis and just building new i9's up w/ 142 spacing i wasn't willing to go with a boost bike. I owned a remedy and for the price you pay for the new treks i just dont believe you get your $ worth when it comes to the suspension design. The DW link design can not be beat. Will take rowdy sections all day but give you a solid pedaling platform. I went with the v1 Ibis ripley frame for a good deal since the LS was released. I have been nothing but happy with it. I have decided to get a middle of the road between the ls and v1 due to my longer legs and shorter arms use my v1 w/ the shorter top tube and go to a -1 degree headset to slacken the bike out some for better down pointing fun.

    If your choices limited you between those to bikes without giving ibis a chance. (Ibis customer support will make you a life time owner after one experience) I would say go with the pivot 429 trial for sure.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Makarmtb View Post
    Was going with the 429 trail frame to build up until i did some cost analysis and just building new i9's up w/ 142 spacing i wasn't willing to go with a boost bike. I owned a remedy and for the price you pay for the new treks i just dont believe you get your $ worth when it comes to the suspension design. The DW link design can not be beat. Will take rowdy sections all day but give you a solid pedaling platform. I went with the v1 Ibis ripley frame for a good deal since the LS was released. I have been nothing but happy with it. I have decided to get a middle of the road between the ls and v1 due to my longer legs and shorter arms use my v1 w/ the shorter top tube and go to a -1 degree headset to slacken the bike out some for better down pointing fun.

    If your choices limited you between those to bikes without giving ibis a chance. (Ibis customer support will make you a life time owner after one experience) I would say go with the pivot 429 trial for sure.
    Don't agree with much of what you said, but my brother has a v2 Ripley and likes it.

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: massi.rav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    I have the 9.9 and the Following. I'm taking the Trek to Arizona for vacation because I'll be mostly riding trail i.e. I don't have the balls to ride the knarly stuff repeatedly and the Trek's efficiency and less slacked out geo suits me better. The Following is a fine bike and I'm sure the Trail is too. I'm am a Pivot fanboy but the Trail wasn't available so I took a chance with the Fuel.

    BTW, when I returned to the states from Italy I got about 7 photo speeding tickets in the mail. I was lost and kept circling the airport. Will I be arrested if I return?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Thanks for your report.
    You guys who own both the Following the Fuel Ex9.9 are you thinking to keep the two at same time? They're different but not so far as terrain-type riding and travel range.
    I have a Pivot Mach 5.7C with a 36" fork and trying to sell it because it's too much close to the descending machine Enduro 29 bought last year. They are overlapping a bit, so my EX9.9 and Enduro 29 would be the nice combo because they can be dedicated to different ride terrains.

    @DrDon,
    I wouldn't come back to Italy for a while after 7 photo speeding tickets!
    2016 Trek Fuel Ex 9.9
    2015 Specialized Enduro Expert 29
    2014 Pivot Mach 5.7 Carbon

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by massi.rav View Post
    Thanks for your report.
    You guys who own both the Following the Fuel Ex9.9 are you thinking to keep the two at same time? They're different but not so far as terrain-type riding and travel range.
    I have a Pivot Mach 5.7C with a 36" fork and trying to sell it because it's too much close to the descending machine Enduro 29 bought last year. They are overlapping a bit, so my EX9.9 and Enduro 29 would be the nice combo because they can be dedicated to different ride terrains.

    @DrDon,
    I wouldn't come back to Italy for a while after 7 photo speeding tickets!
    In my case, I will keep the 9.9. The Following is great, but I don't see it getting much attention.

    I am extending the fork to 130mm which will nix the need for the Following.

  143. #143
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,955
    I have a 130mm fork on my Fuel. The geo is set to low. My Following wanders more with a 130mm fork and the geo set to high. I'm keeping the Following. It is a fun bike and I do like the rear suspension especially with the new Fox shock. I tend to break stuff so going without a bike for 2 to 3 weeks sucks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: massi.rav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    40
    Thanks for the answers.
    I agree with the strategy of (possibly) having a second ride. I tend to break stuff too and the second bike is a good solution to keep riding while waiting the repair.
    2016 Trek Fuel Ex 9.9
    2015 Specialized Enduro Expert 29
    2014 Pivot Mach 5.7 Carbon

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard View Post
    Can somebody comment on the Fuel EX head angle?

    If the Trek geo chart (low setting at 68.8) is correct, a 10mm longer fork should result at about 68.4 far from 67.5 in any case.
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    Some have measured and came up slacker, but for science I'd rather use specs and hard numbers. Any geometry calculator would come up with 68.3ish. Trek also emailed me back that the 130 slackens by .5 degree.
    I'll recheck the 8 and the 9 sitting at the shop when I stop by again tomorrow
    Too Many .

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    I'll recheck the 8 and the 9 sitting at the shop when I stop by again tomorrow
    Awesome!

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    64
    The Pivot kills the Trek IMO. Ok maybe a bit of an exaggeration but the trek doesn't really do anything better. The Reaktiv shock is plusher over trail chatter and it has better cable routing but that's it. More XC geo and it kinda suffers on steep or technical descents. Doesn't feel as composed and I find it harder to change lines. Suspension doesn't feel as active when pushed and if you have to brake hard it seems to lose a lot of composure. Given the geo I was hoping for a more playful bike but it's not as flickable as the Pivot.

    I am shopping $4-5k bikes so I compared bikes with the fox34 fork. EX9, 429T 2x, and Ripley LS 2x special blend. Ripley was the winner for me. Most playful and stiffest bike. The 429T is a very close second with the cheaper wheelset bringing it down a little. Both climb great in or out of the seat and better than the EX9. Descending both were awesome and felt composed whereas the ex9 was a bit sketchy.

    Depending on pricing I might choose the pivot over the ibis as they are really similar. Trek was pretty distant 3rd. I know it seems like I'm trashing the Fuel but it's not a bad bike. I rode it 1st and was impressed but then rode the others. So I rode it again and still left with the same conclusion. It's a great bike but these other two are excellent.

  148. #148
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by devnull View Post
    The Pivot kills the Trek IMO. Ok maybe a bit of an exaggeration but the trek doesn't really do anything better. The Reaktiv shock is plusher over trail chatter and it has better cable routing but that's it. More XC geo and it kinda suffers on steep or technical descents. Doesn't feel as composed and I find it harder to change lines. Suspension doesn't feel as active when pushed and if you have to brake hard it seems to lose a lot of composure. Given the geo I was hoping for a more playful bike but it's not as flickable as the Pivot.

    I am shopping $4-5k bikes so I compared bikes with the fox34 fork. EX9, 429T 2x, and Ripley LS 2x special blend. Ripley was the winner for me. Most playful and stiffest bike. The 429T is a very close second with the cheaper wheelset bringing it down a little. Both climb great in or out of the seat and better than the EX9. Descending both were awesome and felt composed whereas the ex9 was a bit sketchy.

    Depending on pricing I might choose the pivot over the ibis as they are really similar. Trek was pretty distant 3rd. I know it seems like I'm trashing the Fuel but it's not a bad bike. I rode it 1st and was impressed but then rode the others. So I rode it again and still left with the same conclusion. It's a great bike but these other two are excellent.
    Good to hear.

    As a frame only the cost of the Pivot is a lot better than the Ex.

    What size Pivot did you ride and what's your inseam and height?

    Thanks.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Good to hear.

    As a frame only the cost of the Pivot is a lot better than the Ex.

    What size Pivot did you ride and what's your inseam and height?

    Thanks.
    Height is around 6' and riding inseam is 33 and some change. Rode the medium since that's what they recommended. I think I might prefer the large though with a shorter stem.

    Ripley LS large was a great fit.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    These reviews are so funny.... And quite worthless.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Good to hear.

    As a frame only the cost of the Pivot is a lot better than the Ex.

    What size Pivot did you ride and what's your inseam and height?

    Thanks.
    Curious, what size Fuel did you ride?

  152. #152
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    These reviews are so funny.... And quite worthless.
    Maybe, but then if so, what the heck are you doing on mountain bike _review_ . com !?!

  153. #153
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    Curious, what size Fuel did you ride?
    Sorry if I mislead, but I've ridden neither.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Sorry, I accidentally quoted you. I meant to ask devnull

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Maybe, but then if so, what the heck are you doing on mountain bike _review_ . com !?!
    I guess I laugh and lose interest when someone says one bike kills another. If bikes are of the same ilk, quality, similar builds, one bike will not kill another. The geo is too close for that. One may fit someone better, work with a riding style better, fit a terrain better, but not kill another unless something is out of whack. It an emotional review rather than a substantive review. I have had many bikes including some of the most talked about and none of them killed another. I had preferences and when review, try to explain why or why not, give a description of what and how I ride plus recognize my abilities. By reading these reviews, most appear to be experts in riding and reviewing. We know it isn't the case and reviews lack credibility when presented this way. If one bike killed another, one company would be struggling for sure.

    Ok go ahead and get mad at me.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    Sorry, I accidentally quoted you. I meant to ask devnull
    19.5".

    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    I guess I laugh and lose interest when someone says one bike kills another. If bikes are of the same ilk, quality, similar builds, one bike will not kill another. The geo is too close for that. One may fit someone better, work with a riding style better, fit a terrain better, but not kill another unless something is out of whack. It an emotional review rather than a substantive review. I have had many bikes including some of the most talked about and none of them killed another. I had preferences and when review, try to explain why or why not, give a description of what and how I ride plus recognize my abilities. By reading these reviews, most appear to be experts in riding and reviewing. We know it isn't the case and reviews lack credibility when presented this way. If one bike killed another, one company would be struggling for sure.

    Ok go ahead and get mad at me.
    Geo isn't that close and subtle differences can have profound effects IMO. Suspension designs alone can have dramatic effect even if geo on paper is similar.

    You are entirely correct that "One may fit someone better, work with a riding style better, fit a terrain better" and that results in tangible differences. Sure it's highly biased to one person's experience and thus you need to ride them all to see if any of it translates over to you.

    I'm a bit of a data geek so I recorded the rides and have output to back up my statements. Same loops though ambient conditions did differ slightly. Trek was slower on the climb buy an average of 1 min 45 secs on rough 28 mins of climbing. Heart rate was also higher particularly towards the end averaging 15bpms greater.
    On the descent is was noticeably slower. Roughly 20% longer and 4.6mph slower.

    There's plenty of factors that can contribute to those figures. Perhaps the xr3 aren't great tires. Perhaps I favor the DW link design and like the AS and pedal feedback or kickback. Some may prefer Trek's Full floater and find the kickback from DW to be terrible and severely hinder their riding.

    Maybe better riders can accommodate more to the bike so 1.5 slacker HTA or particular suspension design characteristics have no bearing on the their performance. Me, I seem to flow better with certain characteristics that do result in fairly pronounced differences be them objective or subjective. Though I'm sure it can be argued that they are entirely all the latter.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by devnull View Post
    19.5".



    Geo isn't that close and subtle differences can have profound effects IMO. Suspension designs alone can have dramatic effect even if geo on paper is similar.

    You are entirely correct that "One may fit someone better, work with a riding style better, fit a terrain better" and that results in tangible differences. Sure it's highly biased to one person's experience and thus you need to ride them all to see if any of it translates over to you.

    I'm a bit of a data geek so I recorded the rides and have output to back up my statements. Same loops though ambient conditions did differ slightly. Trek was slower on the climb buy an average of 1 min 45 secs on rough 28 mins of climbing. Heart rate was also higher particularly towards the end averaging 15bpms greater.
    On the descent is was noticeably slower. Roughly 20% longer and 4.6mph slower.

    There's plenty of factors that can contribute to those figures. Perhaps the xr3 aren't great tires. Perhaps I favor the DW link design and like the AS and pedal feedback or kickback. Some may prefer Trek's Full floater and find the kickback from DW to be terrible and severely hinder their riding.

    Maybe better riders can accommodate more to the bike so 1.5 slacker HTA or particular suspension design characteristics have no bearing on the their performance. Me, I seem to flow better with certain characteristics that do result in fairly pronounced differences be them objective or subjective. Though I'm sure it can be argued that they are entirely all the latter.
    Ok great. Thanks for the reasonable response.

  158. #158
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    I guess I laugh and lose interest when someone says one bike kills another. If bikes are of the same ilk, quality, similar builds, one bike will not kill another. The geo is too close for that. One may fit someone better, work with a riding style better, fit a terrain better, but not kill another unless something is out of whack. It an emotional review rather than a substantive review. I have had many bikes including some of the most talked about and none of them killed another. I had preferences and when review, try to explain why or why not, give a description of what and how I ride plus recognize my abilities. By reading these reviews, most appear to be experts in riding and reviewing. We know it isn't the case and reviews lack credibility when presented this way. If one bike killed another, one company would be struggling for sure.

    Ok go ahead and get mad at me.
    Its cool man. I'm always down for some good natured banter.

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Yeah, there are gonna be bikes that fit some better than, and certain terrain better than others. That's the great thing about having options, an educated consumer can get exactly what is best for them.

    For me, a big factor in my purchase was the trails I ride and the Fuel EX 9 hits a sweet spot in geometry, but I can also see how a slightly steeper (it's .8 steeper than the Pivot not 1.5) head tube can make things a bit less confidence inspiring when things get fast and rowdy. My trails have no sustained climbs or descends, mostly tight corners, punchy, somewhat techy climbs and drops, and some flowy pedaly but fairly flat single track. The EX 9 has been perfect.

    But I'll admit, at 3400 otd there really wasn't anything that would have competed, unless I stepped it up by at least $1000. But even then I'm not sure there would have been a better match.

    I really like Vital MTB's approach in their Test Sessions. They do a great job of breaking down a bike's merits and weaknesses in detail, and while they test many bikes it's not really a shootout. Even though they may be testing in totally different terrain than many readers ride, it allows the reader to sift through the info and see how a bikes attributes would translate to their kind of riding.

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard View Post
    Can somebody comment on the Fuel EX head angle?

    If the Trek geo chart (low setting at 68.8) is correct, a 10mm longer fork should result at about 68.4 far from 67.5 in any case.
    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    Some have measured and came up slacker, but for science I'd rather use specs and hard numbers. Any geometry calculator would come up with 68.3ish. Trek also emailed me back that the 130 slackens by .5 degree.
    While the travel increases 10mm the fork is actually 17mm longer. The crown is thicker on the 34. Looking at fork specs on the fox site it shows a fork height of 537mm for the 34/130 and 520mm for the 32/120. So the HTA with the 34/130 is around 68.



    Quote Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    But I'll admit, at 3400 otd there really wasn't anything that would have competed, unless I stepped it up by at least $1000. But even then I'm not sure there would have been a better match.
    FWIW I've seen the 429T 2x build for $3500 OTD cash on demo days.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    In stopping by my shop tomorrow to play on the session 88 that's in. And in gonna check on the HA for the 8 vs 9

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BmoreKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    771
    Good thread. I have the same dilemma. I'm a long-time hardtail rider, looking for my first dually for riding looong rides (50+ miles off road) and rocky/gnarly stuff. Definitely need a good climber, and good handling in tight/twisty east coast singletrack.

    For some reason I am leaning towards the Fuel EX, but the 429 Trail is so similar that it deserves a good solid look.

    I could go with the aluminum Fuel EX to save some dough. It's a lot of money to spend for crabon!

    Any new thoughts?

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sml-2727's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by BmoreKen View Post
    Good thread. I have the same dilemma. I'm a long-time hardtail rider, looking for my first dually for riding looong rides (50+ miles off road) and rocky/gnarly stuff. Definitely need a good climber, and good handling in tight/twisty east coast singletrack.

    For some reason I am leaning towards the Fuel EX, but the 429 Trail is so similar that it deserves a good solid look.

    I could go with the aluminum Fuel EX to save some dough. It's a lot of money to spend for crabon!

    Any new thoughts?
    I would also add Ibis Ripley LS to that list.
    2017 Surly Ogre

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by BmoreKen View Post
    Good thread. I have the same dilemma. I'm a long-time hardtail rider, looking for my first dually for riding looong rides (50+ miles off road) and rocky/gnarly stuff. Definitely need a good climber, and good handling in tight/twisty east coast singletrack.

    For some reason I am leaning towards the Fuel EX, but the 429 Trail is so similar that it deserves a good solid look.

    I could go with the aluminum Fuel EX to save some dough. It's a lot of money to spend for crabon!

    Any new thoughts?
    I have had 1-429c, 2-429sl and 429 trail the trail was the only one that didn't break at frame drive side BB. For me the seattube angle on the Pivot is too slacked and the front end seemed to want to wash out around turns.

    When I had a chance to do a week long demo on the 2016 Trek 9.8, 18.5 size and I'm 5.10 with short legs 31 inseam. The bike did everything I wanted it to. It was light, the front end felt nimble and planted. Great traction while climbing technical rocky/rooty East Coast terrain. I love the back end of the bike also really smooth but very efficient. The bike was very stiff with it's huge carbon tubes that extend all the way down around the BB. I also like the simplicity of the frame design and a great Warranty.

    I also broke down the wheels that came on the pivot 429 trail after I sold the frame. DT Swiss alloy 28 hole Spline 2, rims are super heavy at 498 each. I'm using the DT Swiss straight pull hubs that came with wheels and building a race wheel build with Light Bicycles 27mm external carbon rims at 358g each, Sapim CX Ray spokes. Wheels will be under 1440g. Building another pair of carbon rims for everyday use, I think I will do the LB asymmetrical 34mm rims with Project 321 hubs on this one.

    I ordered the 9.9 frame only and have some very special parts waiting to find a new home on the Trek. My first Trek I almost bought the Ibis Ripley LS boost but never had a chance to demo it and it still is kind of narrow for rear tire clearance.

    Try to demo the bike to want to buy on the trail, not the parking lot !!

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BmoreKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    I have had 1-429c, 2-429sl and 429 trail the trail was the only one that didn't break at frame drive side BB. For me the seattube angle on the Pivot is too slacked and the front end seemed to want to wash out around turns.
    Do you think this had to do with the 130mm fork vs. 120 on the Fuel? Geometry is very similar between the two if you note that the 429T geometry is with the 130 fork and Fuel with 120, so if you ran the 429T with 120 fork I'd bet they'd be so close you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

    Um, that is..... Does the 429T use a 51mm offset fork? Yes, just confirmed that it does, from the 429T FAQ page.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    No 10mm on the fork was not a factor, I will be running 130mm on the 9.9 and yes it is 51mm offset Fox 34 fork at 1738g. The Fuel I think is a bike that can be raced xc one day and next just a killer trail bike. I would say the Fuel is more balanced overhaul and it also held a better line through rocks.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by BmoreKen View Post
    Do you think this had to do with the 130mm fork vs. 120 on the Fuel? Geometry is very similar between the two if you note that the 429T geometry is with the 130 fork and Fuel with 120, so if you ran the 429T with 120 fork I'd bet they'd be so close you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

    Um, that is..... Does the 429T use a 51mm offset fork? Yes, just confirmed that it does, from the 429T FAQ page.
    The Pivot has a 51mm offset fork.

    The geo is not the same between the bikes even when a 130mm is on the Trek. A EXF 9 has a 130mm form. The geo chart for this is not accurate... With the 130mm fork, the HT angle is 68.4. Otherwise, the chainstay length on the Trek is 7mm shorter, wheelbase longer, reach longer, seat tube angle steeper, top tube length longer. Added together, the bikes will be quite different.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BmoreKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeydog View Post
    The Pivot has a 51mm offset fork.

    The geo is not the same between the bikes even when a 130mm is on the Trek. A EXF 9 has a 130mm form. The geo chart for this is not accurate... With the 130mm fork, the HT angle is 68.4. Otherwise, the chainstay length on the Trek is 7mm shorter, wheelbase longer, reach longer, seat tube angle steeper, top tube length longer. Added together, the bikes will be quite different.
    I double-checked the geometries and you are right, they are not quite as similar as I thought. I'd agree the HTA will slacken by 0.4-0.6 degrees with change from 120 to 130 fork. Salsa HT slackens by 0.6 degs as listed on their geometry charts. But it doesn't make up for the 1.3 degree difference. So the 429T is slacker for sure.

    The 7mm difference in chainstay length would be noticeable, but shorter does not necessarily mean better and both 436 and 443 are pretty short in either case. The 1cm difference in wheelbase is in the noise.

    I'm really unsure how to reconcile the difference in STA since really your saddle position should be dictated by bottom bracket/pedal axle position (i.e. KOPS, or similar). But the STA will effect the change to fore/aft position with change to saddle height, e.g. with a dropper. Unless I'm missing something.

    The difference in reach troubles me a bit, as it suggest that I'd want to size-up with the Pivot. 19.5" Fuel fits me well.

    I demo'd a Fuel at my local trails - gave it a good thrashing - and really liked the fit.

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by BmoreKen View Post
    I double-checked the geometries and you are right, they are not quite as similar as I thought. I'd agree the HTA will slacken by 0.4-0.6 degrees with change from 120 to 130 fork. Salsa HT slackens by 0.6 degs as listed on their geometry charts. But it doesn't make up for the 1.3 degree difference. So the 429T is slacker for sure.

    The 7mm difference in chainstay length would be noticeable, but shorter does not necessarily mean better and both 436 and 443 are pretty short in either case. The 1cm difference in wheelbase is in the noise.

    I'm really unsure how to reconcile the difference in STA since really your saddle position should be dictated by bottom bracket/pedal axle position (i.e. KOPS, or similar). But the STA will effect the change to fore/aft position with change to saddle height, e.g. with a dropper. Unless I'm missing something.

    The difference in reach troubles me a bit, as it suggest that I'd want to size-up with the Pivot. 19.5" Fuel fits me well.

    I demo'd a Fuel at my local trails - gave it a good thrashing - and really liked the fit.
    Seat tube angle can make a difference to some especially the higher the seat is for long legged riders. If the angle is slack, a long seat post pushes the seat further away from the bottom bracket and can cause issues.

    I am not sure which frame and components you have access to, but ride equivalent back to back. It should be clear fairly quickly. Unfortunately similar builds may be hard to find and the noise could get in the way.

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    165
    LBS measured the ex9 and HTA is 68.2 degrees in the low position. As mentioned it also has a wider crown in addition to 10mm extra travel length.

    I got to demo the 429T but they stuck me with the medium. If you're 5'10 or more definitely go with the large. I had the seatpost extended all the way on the M. Slack STA puts you further back and with the slacker HTA it made climbing a chore. Rocky trails with some square edge ledges and the rearward weight bias made climbing difficult. On descents though it was more composed than the Fuel.

    That rearward bias does give it a playful nature as it's easier to get the front wheel up and you can easily manual the bike. Nice on smoother and flowly trails.

    Both bikes are great and I went with Trek solely because of the price/deal I got. Otherwise a 429T in large would have been my preference. It would help with weight distribution and balance. Overall I feel the Fuel is more well rounded but I'd rather give up a little handling or climbing for more composure on descents. Both are great though and you should be happy with either.

    I also plan on demoing the Ripley LS soon. Only thing I don't like is that the rear stays are narrow so you can't fit a plus tire. Might not even be able to fit a 2.5 29er.

  171. #171
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,955
    Well, I'm going to be selling my Following and getting a 429T. I have a long inseam so I'm hoping the 429T will wander less. I'm hoping it will be stiffer. Plus, I'm sort of a Pivot fanboy. We will see how it compares to my 9.9. I had to make a decision between a Mustang GT vs GTI. My 9.9 is analogous to my GTI. I bought the 9.9 on a whim after breaking up with my old GF. I am still blown away how competent the bike is. If I was 25 years younger it would be Following all day long.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,451
    Quote Originally Posted by KidConejo View Post
    I also plan on demoing the Ripley LS soon. Only thing I don't like is that the rear stays are narrow so you can't fit a plus tire. Might not even be able to fit a 2.5 29er.
    Ibis is offering this with a Boost 148 rear swing arm now, so you should have more room.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,965
    Hans has stated before that the clearance isn't much, if any more, than the 142 triangle.

    Sent from my D6708 using Tapatalk

  174. #174
    is RAD
    Reputation: Van Cuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by KidConejo View Post
    LBS measured the ex9 and HTA is 68.2 degrees in the low position. As mentioned it also has a wider crown in addition to 10mm extra travel length.

    I got to demo the 429T but they stuck me with the medium. If you're 5'10 or more definitely go with the large. I had the seatpost extended all the way on the M. Slack STA puts you further back and with the slacker HTA it made climbing a chore. Rocky trails with some square edge ledges and the rearward weight bias made climbing difficult. On descents though it was more composed than the Fuel.

    That rearward bias does give it a playful nature as it's easier to get the front wheel up and you can easily manual the bike. Nice on smoother and flowly trails.

    Both bikes are great and I went with Trek solely because of the price/deal I got. Otherwise a 429T in large would have been my preference. It would help with weight distribution and balance. Overall I feel the Fuel is more well rounded but I'd rather give up a little handling or climbing for more composure on descents. Both are great though and you should be happy with either.

    I also plan on demoing the Ripley LS soon. Only thing I don't like is that the rear stays are narrow so you can't fit a plus tire. Might not even be able to fit a 2.5 29er.
    I measured my ex9 to be 1 degree slacker than the number your shop gave you.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Cuz View Post
    I measured my ex9 to be 1 degree slacker than the number your shop gave you.
    I remember in one of the threads that someone said that their LBS contacted Trek and they confirmed it to be either 68.3 with a 130 fork.

    Edit: This thread:
    Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    Some have measured and came up slacker, but for science I'd rather use specs and hard numbers. Any geometry calculator would come up with 68.3ish. Trek also emailed me back that the 130 slackens by .5 degree.

  176. #176
    is RAD
    Reputation: Van Cuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    196

    Analysis paralysis: 2016 Trek Fuel EX9 or Pivot 429 Trail X1???

    Quote Originally Posted by fontarin View Post
    I remember in one of the threads that someone said that their LBS contacted Trek and they confirmed it to be either 68.3 with a 130 fork.

    Edit: This thread:
    Originally Posted by GT5050 View Post
    Some have measured and came up slacker, but for science I'd rather use specs and hard numbers. Any geometry calculator would come up with 68.3ish. Trek also emailed me back that the 130 slackens by .5 degree.


    So I am supposed to accept treks published head angle as gospel, despite everyone who has measured their top tubes has realised that the geometry listing on the Trek website is not accurate. This is why some people are sizing up.

    Taking a wrong number, and putting it into a geometry calculator will just give you another wrong number

    In my experience, published frame geometries are rarely accurate, except for seat tube length which they all seem to be able to get right. Maybe the same people who create the geometry charts are also the same people who determine tyre widths.

    I'll take measured values any day.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Cuz View Post
    So I am supposed to accept treks published head angle as gospel, despite everyone who has measured their top tubes has realised that the geometry listing on the Trek website is not accurate. This is why some people are sizing up.

    Taking a wrong number, and putting it into a geometry calculator will just give you another wrong number

    In my experience, published frame geometries are rarely accurate, except for seat tube length which they all seem to be able to get right. Maybe the same people who create the geometry charts are also the same people who determine tyre widths.

    I'll take measured values any day.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You make some good points, but generally the manufacturer numbers are cad based not just arbitrary. After all they do design the bikes.

    But more importantly, if you are taking measured numbers as gospel from one bike then you have to compare it to measured numbers from another bike. It's either manufacturer spec from the Trek to compare to the Pivot or measured number to measured number, but not a mix and match.

    Which was my original point. To compare relative from one bike or another, the same methodology should be applied.

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Does it seriously make that big of a difference? Can you just ride/demo the bike and see how it goes without looking too much into the specs?

  179. #179
    is RAD
    Reputation: Van Cuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    Does it seriously make that big of a difference? Can you just ride/demo the bike and see how it goes without looking too much into the specs?
    You are right. A test ride should be the ultimate deciding factor.

    Numbers never tell the full story.

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Cuz View Post
    You are right. A test ride should be the ultimate deciding factor.

    Numbers never tell the full story.
    Yes!

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Cuz View Post
    So I am supposed to accept treks published head angle as gospel, despite everyone who has measured their top tubes has realised that the geometry listing on the Trek website is not accurate. This is why some people are sizing up.

    Taking a wrong number, and putting it into a geometry calculator will just give you another wrong number

    In my experience, published frame geometries are rarely accurate, except for seat tube length which they all seem to be able to get right. Maybe the same people who create the geometry charts are also the same people who determine tyre widths.

    I'll take measured values any day.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well, considering I've seen 5 different measurements from different people, not sure I'd trust measurements here more than Trek's.

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    Does it seriously make that big of a difference? Can you just ride/demo the bike and see how it goes without looking too much into the specs?
    Unfortunately, a test ride (or demo - parking lot ride might have been in the cards, couldn't tell) wasn't an option according to the OP (who I'm sure has long since decided).

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,122
    It is really difficult to buy a bad bike these days if you are looking at reputable, established manufacturers and at certain levels of their lineups. Is a Trek better a Pivot? It might be for some folks; I am one of them. But I am certain I could find many who like the Pivot more.

    For me, it came down to the best frame geometry for my physical requirements; the best type of bike for the kind of riding I do the most; the best platform for the money.

    Trek, as a multibillion dollar corporation can design components, spec materials, and built frames with the best of them. Not all bicycle companies can afford the R&D that the big 3 can. Not all of bike companies offer good warranties. Trek has one of the best warranties in the business.

    I have owned one other Trek (and many other bikes-Specialized, Litespeed, Gary Fisher, Balance, Scott, Haro, Univega, etc) . That bike (a 2011 Superfly 100) had several warranty claims: a delamination at the top of the seat tube and two sets of chain stays cracked. Each claim was honored quickly.

    My new Trek is a 2016 Fuel EX 29 Carbon custom build (about 3 1/2 weeks on it today). It started as frameset and has all the stuff I wanted. It still priced out way less than the 9.9 or the Project One. And was almost $1000 less than a comparably equipped Pivot 429T.

    But let's get real here too. If you ride hard and fast, you are going to need that warranty and not because you crashed it. I am riding a carbon bike (like many, many others do) in advanced or expert terrain. Things can break in these conditions; carbon, aluminum, steel, or titanium can break as well.

    Don't over analyze it. Get the best bike you can afford, made by a company you want to do business with, sold by someone who has your back, and ride it, a lot! Now go have fun!

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by fontarin View Post
    Unfortunately, a test ride (or demo - parking lot ride might have been in the cards, couldn't tell) wasn't an option according to the OP (who I'm sure has long since decided).
    If the bike has 1deg difference of head angle either way, is it going to be a horrible bike that won't suit any of your riding???

    I'd understand if the difference was say 5deg or more.

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    If the bike has 1deg difference of head angle either way, is it going to be a horrible bike that won't suit any of your riding???

    I'd understand if the difference was say 5deg or more.
    Eh, if they want the slacker bike for more steep/techy stuff, maybe, or want a bike with a similar HTA to a bike they've ridden, it might make a small difference. Doesn't matter to me personally as long as the fit is good. To each their own, though. I'm trying to provide an objective view of the geometry, and it's odd that so many have measured it and come up with different measurements.

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,118
    To complicate matters, when you sit on the bike, it changes.

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BmoreKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    If the bike has 1deg difference of head angle either way, is it going to be a horrible bike that won't suit any of your riding???

    I'd understand if the difference was say 5deg or more.
    1 deg is actually a lot.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    In the whole scheme of things, 1deg difference in just the head angle is not much.

    There are plenty of other measurements out there that change the characteristics of a bike.

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,696
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    In the whole scheme of things, 1deg difference in just the head angle is not much.

    There are plenty of other measurements out there that change the characteristics of a bike.
    If a degree wasn't much, there wouldn't be a market for the Angleset.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    If a degree wasn't much, there wouldn't be a market for the Angleset.
    Anyone that really loves Pivot bikes, I here something new is coming very soon!! That's all I know!!

  191. #191
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw7000 View Post
    Anyone that really loves Pivot bikes, I here something new is coming very soon!! That's all I know!!
    Hmmm. 29er with 140mm travel? 27.5 Mach 5?

  192. #192
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,794
    Quote Originally Posted by beastmaster View Post
    Trek, as a multibillion dollar corporation can design components, spec materials, and built frames with the best of them. Not all bicycle companies can afford the R&D that the big 3 can. Not all of bike companies offer good warranties. Trek has one of the best warranties in the business.
    While that's somewhat true, what I find is more common with the big manufacturers, Spec, Kona, Trek, Giant, etc., is that they design bikes to last about a season or so, and then they often fall apart, either due to the bolt-sizes speced in the linkages, or the bearings speced, or how much wear the moving parts cause, etc. Pivot and other companies are usually pricier, but you usually get something that stands up year after year and is much more well-thought-out, from many more aspects than just frame geometry. The big manufacturers tend to respond to whatever the big trend is at the moment, such as 1x, BB30, tapered headtubes, and so on. This can be good or bad, they can afford to "screw up" to some extent, because they have enough sales and assets to absorb some low-performers. They are also under more pressure to constantly come out with "better" stuff, which means many design changes and often no real improvement, just stuff to satisfy the magazines that can then publish that the company has an "all new bike" out.
    "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.

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    While that's somewhat true, what I find is more common with the big manufacturers, Spec, Kona, Trek, Giant, etc., is that they design bikes to last about a season or so, and then they often fall apart, either due to the bolt-sizes speced in the linkages, or the bearings speced, or how much wear the moving parts cause, etc. Pivot and other companies are usually pricier, but you usually get something that stands up year after year and is much more well-thought-out, from many more aspects than just frame geometry. The big manufacturers tend to respond to whatever the big trend is at the moment, such as 1x, BB30, tapered headtubes, and so on. This can be good or bad, they can afford to "screw up" to some extent, because they have enough sales and assets to absorb some low-performers. They are also under more pressure to constantly come out with "better" stuff, which means many design changes and often no real improvement, just stuff to satisfy the magazines that can then publish that the company has an "all new bike" out.
    Many of your assertions with Giant and Specialized (and possibly Trek) might be true to a certain extent, but I would challenge you on the point of longevity. They are guilty of being trendy and shaping trends. Sometimes they might have (mistakenly) utilized an oversimplified engineering solution, like bushings in a place where bearings would be better (take note, Rocky Mountain still does this). However, in most cases they aren't interested in producing bikes which require replacement in one season (which would be within their warranty periods). It is in their interest to get you back on one of their products again and sooner than later (that is how it all works, even outside the bike industry). That said, they would be acting in a very self-limiting fashion if their products lasted only a season or two. It is probably more like 4 or five! (haha!) In Treks case, they warranty the front triangle for a lifetime to the original owner, but the rear stays for only 5 years. At that point the purchaser has probably forgotten how stupid they felt giving over almost $10,000USD for a bicycle and are willing to do it all over again because "look at the shinny new bobble" syndrome. (We are monkeys afterall!)

    BTW, Pivot makes fantastic bikes! I visited their R&D/assembly center in Phoenix last fall. Believe me when I say this, if they could trade places with one of the big 3, they would. They want to be a major player. In 10 years they just might be one of them. Then they will set the trends just as quickly as the current crop of BIG bike manufacturers.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    While that's somewhat true, what I find is more common with the big manufacturers, Spec, Kona, Trek, Giant, etc., is that they design bikes to last about a season or so, and then they often fall apart, either due to the bolt-sizes speced in the linkages, or the bearings speced, or how much wear the moving parts cause, etc.
    Ive got 3 mates on 2012-2013 26er Remedys that they have ridden and still ride hard to this day.
    One of my mates isn't that keen on spending money on his bike due to his mrs, so it barely sees any more than he can do at home such as a clean, lube, bleed, and a little tuning of the drivetrain.
    Even the 140mm fox 32 is holding up.

    Its only now after visiting abit of a bike park and hitting a huge jump that it will see its first money spent on it after making a taco out of the front wheel.



    .......Will agree on trendy things.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    If a degree wasn't much, there wouldn't be a market for the Angleset.
    I sort of meant on paper.


    If you just ride the bike and FEEL how it rides.


    If someone said the bike has X headangle, with an X stem length and X travel suspension, could you honestly say its a horrible bike without riding it?
    Well.. actually you could, but if its within a deg or two, 10-30mm or so.. then maybe not.

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    945
    I agree with the just ride the bike group. Its easy to attribute handling traits to one design criteria when its the sum of the parts that matter. With that I think I can tell if the fork rake is 1 deg. steeper. I have ridden bikes with 65-66-67- 69 head angles, currently own 2 bikes with 67 deg.

  197. #197
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,955
    Although I felt in the early to mid 2000s under engineered bikes were common I think it's less of an issue today. FS design has come a long way. Negative postings in the Internet carries more weight than marking hype. I do see a trend towards lighter CF FS frames which is concerning, but I've broke alloy frames too. I wonder if an extra 1/2-1 lb of frame weight would provide a more robust product for some manufacturers.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    92
    This was a great thread... just read through the entire thing after obsessing over the same dilemma between which of these two bikes, the Mach 429T or the Fuel EX 9, and after this comprehensive discussion, I'm pretty sure I am going to be going with the Fuel EX tomorrow.

    I was originally holding out for the new trail bike from YT but wanted to look at what other bikes were in my price range before deciding and a local Trek shop put me on the Remedy which is their closest bike to that... after discussing the local trails that I ride, the shop owner switched me over to the Fuel EX and said it would be a much better fit for my riding style.

    I ended up continuing to wait and stumbled across the 429T which a friend suggested I take a look at. I'm really new to the sport as I just started riding last year on a used 2012 Superlight with 26" wheels that I bought and both of these bikes are probably way too much bike for me but I really want to get a new bike with how obsessed I've become with the sport.

    I have no experience with carbon but definitely feel like aluminum is more trust worthy for some reason, that, and I think the better warranty have sealed the deal for me on the Fuel EX 9. I can also get it out the door for $3850 whereas the 429T will cost me $4000 + $360 if I want to add a dropper post (though I may have found a cheaper shop that carries it).

    From everything I've read on here, the Fuel EX 9 sounds like it would be a better bike for someone whose relatively new but actively riding and learning.. or am I mistaken? I tried out one of those "enduro bikes" the Capra, and almost killed myself on it. 160 MM in the front and a really slack geometry, no idea what I did wrong but I definitely went flying off the bike near the end of my run. Surprisingly, that bike climbed much better than I thought it would though it did feel a little twitchy (thought it would be the opposite of that with how slack it is, I'm sure it was more rider error than anything else though).

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    452
    New Treks are out in a couple of months!

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,451
    The new Fuel Ex 27.5+/29s are out now.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Analysis Paralysis - Size Question
    By vin1978 in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 05:42 AM
  2. Analysis Paralysis - Full Suspension
    By vin1978 in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-06-2015, 03:50 PM
  3. Analysis Paralysis, Help!
    By Ominous in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-28-2013, 01:57 PM
  4. Hub Analysis Paralysis
    By tuvok in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-26-2013, 04:46 PM
  5. Paralysis by Analysis, but pulled the trigger
    By MrEconomics in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-13-2012, 01:03 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.