2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes - Page 2- Mtbr.com
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 400 of 2226
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by tschram72 View Post
    Hey all, I just called my LBS and asked them if they knew when my 7 was showing up. They came back with Nov 2nd! Anyone else have some better intel on this? This will be my first fatbike and I am super stoked to ride the crap out of this thing!
    Nah, I have a 7 coming too and have no idea when it will actually arrive, especially since a few 7's have already trickled in. The upside (or downside) is that it's going on layaway till March, so it really don't matter when it get's there.
    Driving me nuts.

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Well, thanks to the info on this board and some good info on this thread I pulled the trigger and ordered my first fatbike today

    Plopped down a big stack of $100 bills on a 2016 Trek Farley 9.6 and was told October 18th..... dam

    Anyway... its not snowing yet and I dont really have a need for it till does. So hopefully winter waits for another month


    Side note....

    Anyone with a Farley 7 interested in some 27.5 wheels in exchange for aome 26s? (Preferably in CA or Reno/tahoe)

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I say pfftt! to the carbon frame. 7 is dialed.

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Schafer View Post
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk

    Second set of hoops will cure all your ill's.

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Rob...

    I went through the exact same thing

    I went 9.6 and figured I can trade the wheels if I need to be fatter

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    Just got the call I have been waiting for, the 9.8 is at the shop being assembled. Guess I will be making a trip in the morning. Getting excited.

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Well shoot, I hate you also.

    But, I ordered a bluto. It's a race too see what gets here first. It, or the Farley.

    And, I have a dropper post waiting to go on also. I'll post up the weight of the bike in three forms. Stock out of the box. Stock, minus reflectors and set up tubeless, and then with bluto and reverb.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    [QUOTE=DukeNeverwinter;12188832]Well shoot, I hate you also.


    I felt the same way after all these guys were getting theirs. Really interested to see what you find with the weights.

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Schafer View Post
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk
    This is exactly my quandary right now. Doing my research, I came to the conclusion than the 27.5x4 is going to be better than the 26x4 and that most of my riding is going to be groomed or hard packed snow and very little of fresh snow so the 26x5 is going to be marginally better. I'd rather have the lighter bike and the tires that are easier to spin up. Too, the extra set of wheels is the downside risk if I'm wrong and that would be fun to have anyhow.

    The only issue for me is that there is not a studded 27.5x4 tire out so I'll have to stud the tires that come on the bike. Not a huge deal, but still not optimal.

    Since I'm going to be riding this predominantly in the winter and on either a beach or snow trails, I don't need or want a suspension fork. The 9.6 is the bike that best fits my needs, I think plus it's nice to be able to go back to the 26x5 wheels/tires if need be. All in all, a pretty versatile set up.

    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Second set of hoops will cure all your ill's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Rob...

    I went through the exact same thing

    I went 9.6 and figured I can trade the wheels if I need to be fatter
    Exactly right. An extra set of wheels solves the problem if you get it wrong. Then you still have a lighter bike and better components.

    J.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Schafer View Post
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk
    Go with the 26x5. I'm in MI with a Farley8. The 4" tires is fine for groomed but you will want to venture off into areas that aren't. Plenty of frozen water to explore and you will want some studded tires.
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    Go with the 26x5. I'm in MI with a Farley8. The 4" tires is fine for groomed but you will want to venture off into areas that aren't. Plenty of frozen water to explore and you will want some studded tires.
    a 27.5x4 will have a larger contact area than a 26x4 and should be better in looser stuff.

    Anyone know how much larger the contact patch is?

    J.

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    a 27.5x4 will have a larger contact area than a 26x4 and should be better in looser stuff.

    Anyone know how much larger the contact patch is?

    J.
    4" is 4" no matter how you measure it. If anything the 26 could equal more with the added squish. I ride mine all year so I'm happy with the 4" tire but I do wish I could run a 5" in the winter
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    When I picked my Farley up this morning I could believe the clearance it had in the rear with the 27.5x4. Not that I would buy another set of tires but how wide of a tire could be ran on the new Farleys.

    Today was full of ups and downs. Pick the bike up this morning and rode it around the parking lot, then on the way home it was raining so hard I had to pull over so new bike got a good bath. By the time I got home, besides being super wet, had enough time to get dressed and head to work. Maybe tomorrow I will get to go for a spin.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    4" is 4" no matter how you measure it. If anything the 26 could equal more with the added squish. I ride mine all year so I'm happy with the 4" tire but I do wish I could run a 5" in the winter
    The smaller side walls of the 27.5" tires are where they are also going to be limited in grip. What they gain with a slightly longer contact patch they will lose by not being able to run at low psi's as the rim will be more vulnerable to strikes. I ran as low as 3psi last winter when the snow was loose or deep on my 4.8" tires. Even if you could safely run that low of psi on the 27.5" tires they aren't going to have enough casing to spread very wide. I don't think that more contact patch is necessarily equal to more float as the longer 27.5" contact patch only adds to the front and back of the contact patch, but not the sides.

    I really wish Trek would have given a 26" option on the carbon bikes. Would have given a bunch more tire options including studded, and made better use of the wider 197mm rear axle. I also wish they would have had a few color choices on the 9.6 as the current choice is a pretty girly scheme.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    The smaller side walls of the 27.5" tires are where they are also going to be limited in grip. What they gain with a slightly longer contact patch they will lose by not being able to run at low psi's as the rim will be more vulnerable to strikes. I ran as low as 3psi last winter when the snow was loose or deep on my 4.8" tires. Even if you could safely run that low of psi on the 27.5" tires they aren't going to have enough casing to spread very wide. I don't think that more contact patch is necessarily equal to more float as the longer 27.5" contact patch only adds to the front and back of the contact patch, but not the sides.

    I really wish Trek would have given a 26" option on the carbon bikes. Would have given a bunch more tire options including studded, and made better use of the wider 197mm rear axle. I also wish they would have had a few color choices on the 9.6 as the current choice is a pretty girly scheme.

    A girly scheme?!?!?!?!?!

    Ya, I agree and wasn't thrilled about it, but it seemed like the best fit for my needs.

    As for the larger patch thing. If the 27.5 was actually taller than the 26 then I could see them saying a "larger contact patch".... like they have on standard 27.5 vs 26 inch wheels. But since they are a very similar OD it is all hype and propaganda

    I feel that they slacked out the head tube and made a new wheel size that will excel on dirt. I feel the new Farley is more of a XC bike that has some Fat bike qualities. This bike will dominate a standard fatty for the guys that are riding on dirt

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    a 27.5x4 will have a larger contact area than a 26x4 and should be better in looser stuff.

    Anyone know how much larger the contact patch is?

    J.
    Dude - whatever the tiny difference is - you would never know it.
    The difference in feel will not be because of contact patch, but more likely sidewall height as someone else has pointed out.

    4" is 4" no matter how you measure it.
    A larger diameter wheel will have a slightly larger contact patch.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    4" is 4" no matter how you measure it. If anything the 26 could equal more with the added squish. I ride mine all year so I'm happy with the 4" tire but I do wish I could run a 5" in the winter
    I have a 26x4 tire that measures closer to 3.5" on 65mm rims.

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    A girly scheme?!?!?!?!?!

    Ya, I agree and wasn't thrilled about it, but it seemed like the best fit for my needs.

    As for the larger patch thing. If the 27.5 was actually taller than the 26 then I could see them saying a "larger contact patch".... like they have on standard 27.5 vs 26 inch wheels. But since they are a very similar OD it is all hype and propaganda

    I feel that they slacked out the head tube and made a new wheel size that will excel on dirt. I feel the new Farley is more of a XC bike that has some Fat bike qualities. This bike will dominate a standard fatty for the guys that are riding on dirt
    The 9.6 looks to have a great frame and good components, but seriously the 27.5" wheels and pastel blue and green really turn me off. My daughter saw a pic of it on my tablet and said " Daddy you should get that bike it is sooo pretty". Umm no thanks.

    Throw a Bluto on it though and it should be a nice trail bike. I think if I'm going to buy a "summer fatbike" though I'll get a full squish bucksaw.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    The blue and green is just wrong.
    Blue is fine, but it clashes with that green. Light blue and orange red looks particularly nice - like the Gulf Porsche color scheme.

    There's a Superfly with those colors. Stick with what works. This is Design 101 stuff.

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Schafer View Post
    I'm torn. I've got $200 down on a Farley 7. The more I think I'd like the 9.6 carbon and weight savings. However I'd prefer the 26x5 tire/wheel combination the 7 offers for Michigan. Idk
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Second set of hoops will cure all your ill's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Rob...

    I went through the exact same thing

    I went 9.6 and figured I can trade the wheels if I need to be fatter
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Dude - whatever the tiny difference is - you would never know it.
    The difference in feel will not be because of contact patch, but more likely sidewall height as someone else has pointed out.



    A larger diameter wheel will have a slightly larger contact patch.
    I would imagine that there is a benefit to the lower rotating weight. Would that not be true?

    J.

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    So, for the guys that have 27.5 bikes already....

    Does it look like we can fit a 4.5 or 5.0 tire on the 27.5" wheel once they become available?

    I would assume yes, but Trek says "will fit either 26x5 or 27.5x4"

    You think that there would be room for a 5" tire on either wheel since they have the same overall diameter

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    A 27.5 x 5" tire, if true to size, will be huge, if such a thing ever comes to exist -which I wouldn't count on any time soon.

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    A 27.5 x 5" tire, if true to size, will be huge, if such a thing ever comes to exist -which I wouldn't count on any time soon.
    Why would it be any bugger than a 26x5?

    They have the same OD, not seeing why the overall width would be any different

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I think you're a bit confused as to the rim size, tire size and OD relationships. (or I'm misunderstanding you)
    Both the 27.5x4 and the 26x5 have almost identical outer diameters because the 4.7" tire on the smaller 26" wheel makes up the difference. Put a tire with that same profile in a 27.5 rim and I'm not sure it would fit.

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    So the 3.8 (27.5) and the 4.8 (26) have a very similar width?

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    No, similar (within 1-2mm) outer diameter.

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Ok... so we're on the same page there

    I'm interested in getting a wider tire on the bike (once they become available)

    Can someone with a 27 5 bike please post a photo showing how much room there is side to side, so we can see how much wider of a tire will fit. I'm guessing the 27 5x3.8 will be very narrow.

    Also, how wide is te 27.5 tire on the OE wheels?

  29. #229
    Master of the Obvious
    Reputation: Angus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    498
    went ahead and pulled the trigger on The 7, this will be my first foray in the fat bike world. It will be primarily used for snowy single-track. Unfortunately I missed the first batch but should have it around Thanksgiving.
    Check out my Blog!
    Yes ! I am posting on my Blog again! come visit!

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Ok... so we're on the same page there

    I'm interested in getting a wider tire on the bike (once they become available)

    Can someone with a 27 5 bike please post a photo showing how much room there is side to side, so we can see how much wider of a tire will fit. I'm guessing the 27 5x3.8 will be very narrow.

    Also, how wide is te 27.5 tire on the OE wheels?
    After looking at a 9.8 today, I don't think the width will be the issue, but rather the height. To make the tire wider it will also have to get taller. The frame should fit a 5" (26") tire fine, but as Gambit21 is saying trying to make a 5" wide 27.5" tire will likely have too great of a sidewall height and therefore overall diameter to fit in the frame.


    Here is a pic of a 29er, 29+ and 26" fatbike tires. Notice how much taller the 29+ is versus the 29er, despite both having the same rim diameter. Also not that the 29+ and 26" fatbike are very similar despite the fatbike having a smaller diameter rim, due to it's wider and larger diameter tire. 2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-tyre-29er-plus-fat-bike-size.jpg

    Here is a 4" fatbike tire compared to a 5+" fat tire, notice how much taller it gets for the added width:
    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-image.jpg

    Your hypothetical 27.5X5" fat tire would be bigger in diameter than the one pictured, hence I doubt it would fit in your frame.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    After looking at a 9.8 today, I don't think the width will be the issue, but rather the height. To make the tire wider it will also have to get taller. The frame should fit a 5" (26") tire fine, but as Gambit21 is saying trying to make a 5" wide 27.5" tire will likely have too great of a sidewall height and therefore overall diameter to fit in the frame.


    Here is a pic of a 29er, 29+ and 26" fatbike tires. Notice how much taller the 29+ is versus the 29er, despite both having the same rim diameter. Also not that the 29+ and 26" fatbike are very similar despite the fatbike having a smaller diameter rim, due to it's wider and larger diameter tire. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tyre-29er-plus-fat-bike-size.jpg 
Views:	2616 
Size:	111.6 KB 
ID:	1014842

    Here is a 4" fatbike tire compared to a 5+" fat tire, notice how much taller it gets for the added width:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	7473 
Size:	263.6 KB 
ID:	1014843

    Your hypothetical 27.5X5" fat tire would be bigger in diameter than the one pictured, hence I doubt it would fit in your frame.
    Great explanation, thank you

    I didn't realize that the 26x5 was taller and wider tan the 26x4, I thought it was just wider..... So I was thinking it would be a low pro 27.5x5 as well



    On another note.... while I was at work today, I saw the Trek Demo rig pull in for our local Gran Fondo race tomorrow.... and they have a Farley 9.8 on board in my size

    So... Demo ride tomorrow

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Ok... so we're on the same page there

    I'm interested in getting a wider tire on the bike (once they become available)

    Can someone with a 27 5 bike please post a photo showing how much room there is side to side, so we can see how much wider of a tire will fit. I'm guessing the 27 5x3.8 will be very narrow.

    Also, how wide is te 27.5 tire on the OE wheels?
    Here are some quick pics I took tonight. As you can see, the 29+ is just a little taller so I am sure the Farley can go bigger, just not sure how much. The other pics show the clearance with the 27.5x3.8 stock tires.

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Teton29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    429
    I'm also thinking about Farley with a second wheelset. Anyone know of any reason a clownshoe with lou wouldn't work with the Farley 7?
    Last edited by Teton29er; 09-13-2015 at 06:05 PM.

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38

    Farley 9.8 Demo Ride

    Well, I have my 9.6 on order but have still yet to throw a leg over a Fat Bike and give it a spin.

    Luckly, yesterday I got that chance. Trek Was in town and had a Farley 9.8 Demo with them and said I could take it out for a s long as I wanted. While I had work at 3PM, it still gave me plenty time to kick my own ass on this amazing bike



    I live in Mammoth Lakes, CA and we have an amazing set of local trails as well as lots of lift assisted runs ranging from XC all the way to some of the craziest DH trails you could imagine. My plan was to put this bike through its paces and ride a good mix of runs.

    I started off in town and made my way up a 1000 foot climb that was about 6 miles of twists and turns. The surface was small crushed rock, pumice, and some loose sand. The stock 27.5x3.8 tires worked great and gave me plenty of traction without being so heavy that pedaling was hard. I was thoroughly impressed by how efficient this bike was for such a huge tire



    The only time I really noticed I was on something with a heavier wheel/tire combo was when I would take those first few pedal strokes and had to spin them up. While the Farley 9.8 had carbon wheels, it was still a bit more than the 27.5x2.4 I run on my enduro bike.

    Once I reached Main Lodge, I continued up a trail called Beach Cruiser and continued to climb a few hundred feet more. This trail had a lot more twists and turns in it and took me to the backside of the Mountain near one of our almost empty lakes



    After a quick photo op, I continued the climb and reached the top of the Beach Cruiser Trail. As I began to descend this smooth flowing single track trail I was rally impressed how smooth this rigid bike was. I began to hit some of the small features like root drops, small jumps, and rock gardens a little faster and couldn't believe how well the bike worked.



    Then I got cocky... "Well, if its this good here... might as well take it to the top of the mountain and ride something a bit more challenging"

    I headed up to Off the Top, an intermediate run that is full of lots of rock, roots, small drops, and all sorts of other fun things.

    The first half I was having a blast and charging on the Farley 9.8, but then I got tired. I didn't want to stand and all these jolting braking bumps and rocks really kicked my ass. I got tired, and I got there fast. By the end of the run I was dead tired and regretting my decision.

    While I wanted to pack it in, there was one more climb I had to make to reach the trail home. So, up I went.

    This trail was very loose, had some big rocks, and some other things that usually give me trouble on my 27.5 Enduro bike. But with this beast I just kicked it into low and powered up and over everything without issue.



    All in all, I was super impressed with this bike and am excited to receive my 9.6 next month.

    The 27.5 wheels worked great as a dirt tire but I feel they will be lacking once the snow falls and I need a larger contact patch. More than likely these wheels will be going on the shelf when the snow falls and some 26's will help drain my wallet

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    477
    That' one hell of a demo!!!

    Curious now... Anyne try and fit a 27.5 x 3.8 setup on a Farley 6 or 8?

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    After a lot of research, comparing, trying, tossing and turning pulled the trigger on Farley 9. Picking it up today. Hope I made the right choice.

    Has anyone tried any of the nines with a 26 x 5 tire setup? Thinking of getting 5" for the winter months.

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Well, I just ordered a set of the DT swiss BR 26" wheels for my 9.6 that I don't have.

    Im waiting to order tires until i see what others are able to fit in the new frame.

    Also, im just trying to read a lot to figure out what tires work best for snow as this will be my dedicated snow tire setup

    Anyone have a link to a snow tire shootout or something similar?

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Well, I just ordered a set of the DT swiss BR 26" wheels for my 9.6 that I don't have.

    Im waiting to order tires until i see what others are able to fit in the new frame.

    Also, im just trying to read a lot to figure out what tires work best for snow as this will be my dedicated snow tire setup

    Anyone have a link to a snow tire shootout or something similar?
    Here is one I did one the Dillinger 5, Bud/Lou, and a bit on the Ground Controls: http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/bud...-a-938358.html

    I bought a set of studded Snowshoe XL's so I'll be testing those out this winter as well.

    I looked at a Farley 9.8 the other day and it should fit the 4.8" Bud/Lou and Snowshoe XL's without issue. Not sure on the Snowshoe 2XL though as that is a big mutha!
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Took my new Farley 9 out for the first ride yesterday. I have to say that I really enjoyed the bike. The ride was a twenty mile spin on mixed terrain from tarmac to gravel to forest paths. The 27.5 Hodag tires worked out well on all the surfaces. I have to say that the tires were quite nice to ride even on tarmac. The tire pressure had been set up at the LBS and the tires were a bit on the hard side. The Bluto smoothed the front end nice, but rear tire was bouncing around quite a lot. I’ll start testing out different pressures today, but wondering what pressures are other Trek owners using on their Hodags?

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFarleys View Post
    Took my new Farley 9 out for the first ride yesterday. I have to say that I really enjoyed the bike. The ride was a twenty mile spin on mixed terrain from tarmac to gravel to forest paths. The 27.5 Hodag tires worked out well on all the surfaces. I have to say that the tires were quite nice to ride even on tarmac. The tire pressure had been set up at the LBS and the tires were a bit on the hard side. The Bluto smoothed the front end nice, but rear tire was bouncing around quite a lot. I’ll start testing out different pressures today, but wondering what pressures are other Trek owners using on their Hodags?
    I weigh 240 and rode a rigid

    I ended up playing with pressure a lot on my demo and ended up 8F and 9R

    I went as low as 6 front and liked it in loose dirt but took a couple rim shots. It was also really bound up on asphalt.

    Hope that gets you in the balpark

    PS... post some pics

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    28
    TheFarleys...I'm curious about the weight of the 9. Any chance you have access to a scale? I'd also love to see a few more ride reviews as you work to find the sweet spot on your new 9.

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    9.8 will be here tomorrow...woot!!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4
    Had to come out of the woodwork for this one. Just got word from my LBS that my Farley 5 will be here on Thursday. Already lining up some weekend rides. Can't wait!

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Here's a quick iPhone snap from todays ride. Weather, trail and the bike were all really nice.

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-21452586171_68c3f6153b_z.jpg

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    For those interested, a Farley 9.6 17.5 Stock, weighed 28 on our park scale. With reflectors. Converting to tubeless with about three scoops of sealant per tire. It weighed 26lbs and 12oz.
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  46. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    82
    i got my farley 5 below 30 LBS with tubeless, carbon fork and 30T 1/10, stoked... the bike is a blast

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    deleted
    Last edited by Natedeezy; 09-15-2015 at 02:47 PM. Reason: Wrong pic

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by aquamogal View Post
    i got my farley 5 below 30 LBS with tubeless, carbon fork and 30T 1/10, stoked... the bike is a blast
    Should have just bought a 7.

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Ok wrong pic...here is a complete Farley 7 17.5




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    So, the 9.6 is only about 1 pound lighter than a 7? They have the same build except for the 9.6 has carbon frame and larger (should be a lighter combo) wheels

    Seems a bit odd?

    Especially when the 9.8 is around 22 pounds

  51. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    The wheels on the 9.6 are still 80mm, and larger, so that's going to mitigate the weight difference somewhat. They'll still be lighter, just not as much as they could be had Trek gone with 65mm wheels - which they should have IMHO. One of the reasons I went with the 7.

  52. #252
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    The numbers still don't add up. Yes the wheels larger than a 26 so theres more wheel / spoke material. But the rubber saved between the tire and sidewall will save a decent amount

    Plus going to a carbon frame should be at least 1 pound minimum .

    Also odd that nobody has a 9.6 except this guy... yet he hasn't posted a picture except for the scale

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Well, technically it isn't mine. But a coworkers. I assure you that it was a 9.6. Only thing not installed was dork disc and rear reflector.

    If the build between the 7 and 9.6 and there is a 1 pound difference in the frame. I call that pretty good weight loss. The price difference may suck, but I can't control that.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Shoot, and by that picture of the 7. It is a lost 2 lbs. 1lb 14oz is only 2oz from 2 lbs.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    I guess we'll see as more people get them. I for one will be disappointed if my 9.8 isn't under the 25lb mark. Especially when 907 is showing a sub 19lb build.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  56. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    It should be about 22-23. Sans pedals!! The ONLY thing that is not weightweenie on the 9.8 are the brakes. Everything else is within grams of the lightest stuff on the market.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  57. #257
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    912
    the 9.8 comes in at 23 pounds 11oz out of the box tubeless, size large
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    I guess we'll see as more people get them. I for one will be disappointed if my 9.8 isn't under the 25lb mark. Especially when 907 is showing a sub 19lb build.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sub 19 for the same price? Got a link to that bike?

  59. #259
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    Sub 19 for the same price? Got a link to that bike?
    Doesn't sound quite right does it? I didn't think you could build one of these that light regardless of price, but I am always willing to be wrong.

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    I know exactly zero specifics but I believe it's a belt drive SS.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  61. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    996
    I would want to know more about that bike before I bought that hook line and sinker. Impressive for sure though, but I am not completely buying it. Any sealant in the tires? Any pedals or cages on it? Is it a stem you could actually use in Moab? Did they weigh 18 tires and use the 2 lightest ones? Are they using 17ga spokes? Any gears on it?

    Impressive though, no doubt about that. Damn impressive.

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    996
    And I will need to ride it before I sign off on it!!

  63. #263
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    I know exactly zero specifics but I believe it's a belt drive SS.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    it can't be SS, there's 2 cables on the right side of the bars and a cable feeding into the right seatstay, it doesn't have a dropper post, what would the extra cable run if not a rear derailer?
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    I'm sure it's lighter than us mortals will be able to achieve. I'd like to think a fat bike that light would be pretty sketchy to ride hard be I could be wrong. I'd be most interested in frame/fork weight.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Doesn't sound quite right does it? I didn't think you could build one of these that light regardless of price, but I am always willing to be wrong.
    No, sub 19 is easy now. I was more curious about the price because that's the biggest decider for weight.

    It's easy to say such and such bike is 6 lbs lighter but if it's 2x the price then that claim is misleading. I think a $10k Farley would be easily sub 19lbs as well.

    At $4800 I would think the Farley is on the better $/gram end of things but I don't know about the price of the others...

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    I'm sure it's lighter than us mortals will be able to achieve. I'd like to think a fat bike that light would be pretty sketchy to ride hard be I could be wrong. I'd be most interested in frame/fork weight.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The Whiteout is claimed at 1980g frame and fork, not sure the size and if that includes hardware.

    The Farley 9.8 frame/fork/hardware is claimed 1900g for a 17.5"

    The Wampa wheels are 2500g so there is a lot of potential for savings in the wheel department..

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    No, sub 19 is easy now...
    Pfff! If you throw enough money at it!

  68. #268
    lvd
    lvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Ok wrong pic...here is a complete Farley 7 17.5




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Lets see more pics of the 7! Precious few non-rendering pics on the internet

  69. #269
    lvd
    lvd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    3
    dp.
    Last edited by lvd; 09-18-2015 at 03:32 AM.

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    the 9.8 comes in at 23 pounds 11oz out of the box tubeless, size large
    Really? With the tubes removed? I heard the M size would be 10.4kg out the box, that's like 9.5 tubeless without pedals.. Dang, I was hoping for a sub 10kg build with pedals. Might be hard. Shipping in October to Europe, yawn.

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    22
    Ride report for my new Farley 5. In a word: awesome! The framework really is well crafted, which doesn't jump out in photos and the dark grey/ orange color combo is fantastic. After a couple of minor position & cockpit setup tweaks and a degrease & dry lube of the chain last night, I had an hour or so around a singletrack sandpit near home today. The sand was taken with aplomb, it cornered basically as fast as I could pitch it at the sandy berms built up by local dirtbikers. No sinking or self-steer. The few short, rutted & rocky taken climbs were a revelation after years on a SS: traction aplenty, to the point where I was intentionally stopping just to see if I could move off again. I was expecting the front wheel to get a bit light but the stranglehold dropout at the rear was set to its rearmost position. Returning to discs was always going to be an upgrade but the clutched rear derailleur really helps in keeping chainslap to a minimum as well as the absence of dropped chains. The webbed chainstay bridge looks like it will become a bit of a mud trap but otherwise, I couldn't fault the frame or components. Nil issues with heel vs chainstay or seatstay.
    The only thing I'll change in the short-term is to convert to tubeless, prob by the split moto tube & Stans method after drilling the rims for a schraeder valve.

  72. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Dan View Post
    Ride report for my new Farley 5. In a word: awesome! The framework really is well crafted, which doesn't jump out in photos and the dark grey/ orange color combo is fantastic. After a couple of minor position & cockpit setup tweaks and a degrease & dry lube of the chain last night, I had an hour or so around a singletrack sandpit near home today. The sand was taken with aplomb, it cornered basically as fast as I could pitch it at the sandy berms built up by local dirtbikers. No sinking or self-steer. The few short, rutted & rocky taken climbs were a revelation after years on a SS: traction aplenty, to the point where I was intentionally stopping just to see if I could move off again. I was expecting the front wheel to get a bit light but the stranglehold dropout at the rear was set to its rearmost position. Returning to discs was always going to be an upgrade but the clutched rear derailleur really helps in keeping chainslap to a minimum as well as the absence of dropped chains. The webbed chainstay bridge looks like it will become a bit of a mud trap but otherwise, I couldn't fault the frame or components. Nil issues with heel vs chainstay or seatstay.
    The only thing I'll change in the short-term is to convert to tubeless, prob by the split moto tube & Stans method after drilling the rims for a schraeder valve.
    I'm picking up my 5 today and this post could haven't gotten me more excited if it tried. That is awesome, so stoked to try mine out! Thanks for sharing!

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    Really? With the tubes removed? I heard the M size would be 10.4kg out the box, that's like 9.5 tubeless without pedals.. Dang, I was hoping for a sub 10kg build with pedals. Might be hard. Shipping in October to Europe, yawn.
    My LBS got one in and that's what they are saying - <24lbs tubeless. The guys there thought they could get it down another pound or so without a lot of work.

    You know, that's pretty darn good. That's what a top end racing road bike used to go for back in the day.

    J.

  74. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4
    Picked it up today. Can't wait to take it out for a proper rip. Just hit it around the parking lot. First impressions are this thing is amazing. I only wish I had gotten a fat sooner...

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-2015-09-17-12.14.58.jpg

  75. #275
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    912
    This thread needs more pictures of the 9 from the few who got the first small batch while I wait for mine to arrive
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  76. #276
    PUG U!!!
    Reputation: joboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    192
    Just got back from lbs..... checked out a customers 19.5 " 9.8..... 23# even...... without pedals.
    Damn nice ride..... didn't think of a picture..... because it wasn't mine..... but it has carbon everything impressive!
    Not sure about the carbon rims and my heavy butt, and the 27.5 wheel size... but seeing that rig in person has me thinking.
    Peace, Joe

  77. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Not able to finish it but here is a large 9.8 out of the box, tubes, reflectors etc.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I am picking up a 9.6 this evening, and I will have them weigh it and post some pictures. I am having them switch it to tubeless when they put it together.

  79. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Some build pics



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    Just picked up my 9.6. The shop weighed it without pedals and set it up tubless and it was 27 lbs

  81. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Awesome!

    get some pics up and a ride report ASAP!

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    If there are specific things people want to see let me know. I will take it out either tomorrow afternoon or this weekend on some rocky, rooted and wet trails and see how it feels.

    Colors look better in person than in the picture.


  83. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by joboo View Post
    Just got back from lbs..... checked out a customers 19.5 " 9.8..... 23# even...... without pedals.
    Damn nice ride..... didn't think of a picture..... because it wasn't mine..... but it has carbon everything impressive!
    Not sure about the carbon rims and my heavy butt, and the 27.5 wheel size... but seeing that rig in person has me thinking.
    Peace, Joe
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Not able to finish it but here is a large 9.8 out of the box, tubes, reflectors etc.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So one guy says 23lbs, one guy says 23lbs 15oz with a photo. Hmmmm

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I went for a ride this afternoon. The brakes seems a bit harsh, like the pads were rough and needed to seat in. I will give them a bit and see how it goes. I ended up carrying the bike for a bit on a steep trail, and it was nice having a smooth top tube with no cable runs under it. My other bikes are not this comfortable. As for the 1x11, I have not ridden with this before, on some of the fast downhills I would like liked another gear, but I definitely needed the lowest gear so overall it was fine and I am not going to change anything. Not sure what I think about the 27.5 wheels. I did not get to the snow, but got pretty close to it!


  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,052
    Thanks for the ride report. I have a favor to ask. Could you get a measurement inside and outside the chain stays at the widest point. My wife has a 2014 Farley but it is too small and I would like to replace it. Trek states that they kept the same Q factor so I am curious what the 2016 Alloy frames measure.

    Thanks!


    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Dan View Post
    Ride report for my new Farley 5. In a word: awesome! The framework really is well crafted, which doesn't jump out in photos and the dark grey/ orange color combo is fantastic. After a couple of minor position & cockpit setup tweaks and a degrease & dry lube of the chain last night, I had an hour or so around a singletrack sandpit near home today. The sand was taken with aplomb, it cornered basically as fast as I could pitch it at the sandy berms built up by local dirtbikers. No sinking or self-steer. The few short, rutted & rocky taken climbs were a revelation after years on a SS: traction aplenty, to the point where I was intentionally stopping just to see if I could move off again. I was expecting the front wheel to get a bit light but the stranglehold dropout at the rear was set to its rearmost position. Returning to discs was always going to be an upgrade but the clutched rear derailleur really helps in keeping chainslap to a minimum as well as the absence of dropped chains. The webbed chainstay bridge looks like it will become a bit of a mud trap but otherwise, I couldn't fault the frame or components. Nil issues with heel vs chainstay or seatstay.
    The only thing I'll change in the short-term is to convert to tubeless, prob by the split moto tube & Stans method after drilling the rims for a schraeder valve.
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  86. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    This thread needs more pictures of the 9 from the few who got the first small batch while I wait for mine to arrive
    Here's a couple from todays ride. I have to say the bike is starting to grow on me. Still looking for the optimal tire pressure, but really enjoy this bike. Coming from road and cyclocross bikes this is just plain fun and takes you anywhere.

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-21354939118_9b0fe2ae45_z.jpg2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-21355874199_e049ea1d1b_z.jpg

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Finally complete can't wait to get some miles in.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    38
    Tubeless? With pedals?
    Details please. We don't know what that weight means without them

  89. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Tubeless and no pedals


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Damn, seems my 22.04lbs with pedals will be hard to reach..!

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    Damn, seems my 22.04lbs with pedals will be hard to reach..!
    All it takes is money......
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    Damn, seems my 22.04lbs with pedals will be hard to reach..!
    Nothing to it but to do it!

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    What do you reckon would be the easiest way(s) then to drop roughly 2lbs? I'm thinking of DMR vault super light mg/ti pedals, 290 grams. But yeah? Losing 1kg or so seems difficult...

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    What do you reckon would be the easiest way(s) then to drop roughly 2lbs? I'm thinking of DMR vault super light mg/ti pedals, 290 grams. But yeah? Losing 1kg or so seems difficult...
    It will be difficult as the 9.8 already has a lot of lightweight parts. Every gram will count. You best bet would be to do a spreadsheet of all the weights of the factory parts and their lighter alternatives. At that point you would likely be better just buying the frame set and building it up. I saw that the factory wheels appear to be pretty heavy for a carbon set (2500gr)- swapping to 26" carbon hoops and Jumbo Jim tires would help lose some significant mass.

    For pedals: Xpedo Spry are 260gr so lighter yet.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    It will be difficult as the 9.8 already has a lot of lightweight parts. Every gram will count. You best bet would be to do a spreadsheet of all the weights of the factory parts and their lighter alternatives. At that point you would likely be better just buying the frame set and building it up. I saw that the factory wheels appear to be pretty heavy for a carbon set (2500gr)- swapping to 26" carbon hoops and Jumbo Jim tires would help lose some significant mass.

    For pedals: Xpedo Spry are 260gr so lighter yet.
    Thing is I work in the business so I get a sick price on the bike, and I really don't wanna make a build of my own for that reason. 10kg was just a dream, but I suppose it'll be hard, and it's mostly for show off anyway and I doubt a 11kg farley won't feel much different than a 10kg one. I mean, it's probably possible to build a 10kg bike, but I enjoy having stock stuff too in case of screwup and in the case of resale and swapping bike each year.

    Thanks for the pedal tip, a lot cheaper too than the ones I picked out, I wonder if there's a notable difference in quality though.

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    It will be difficult as the 9.8 already has a lot of lightweight parts. Every gram will count. You best bet would be to do a spreadsheet of all the weights of the factory parts and their lighter alternatives. At that point you would likely be better just buying the frame set and building it up. I saw that the factory wheels appear to be pretty heavy for a carbon set (2500gr)- swapping to 26" carbon hoops and Jumbo Jim tires would help lose some significant mass.

    For pedals: Xpedo Spry are 260gr so lighter yet.

    I have a 9.6 and am thinking about getting a second set of rims (26", carbon) with 5" tires for winter riding. Any suggestions on what rims are light strong and cheap (I know the three don't go together).

  97. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    I thought I posted this the other day, but I don't see it. Apologies if it is a duplicate. I did a ride up the hill and got close to the snow but not in it.



    The bike worked well, There is a section of the trail where I have to carry it, and it was comfortable. Other bikes run cables under the top tube and make it painful to put on my shoulder, but not this bike. My one complaint is the brakes seem pretty noisy and grab a lot, kind if like the pad is really coarse. Is this normal, and will they quiet down when they bed in?

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    I have a 9.6 and am thinking about getting a second set of rims (26", carbon) with 5" tires for winter riding. Any suggestions on what rims are light strong and cheap (I know the three don't go together).
    Answered your own question I think
    Go Chinese Ebay and roll the dice.

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    The DT Swiss BR 2250 is another option- it is as light as many carbon sets, strong, and cheaper, especially from the euro sites.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  100. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by egrims View Post
    Picked it up today. Can't wait to take it out for a proper rip. Just hit it around the parking lot. First impressions are this thing is amazing. I only wish I had gotten a fat sooner...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2015-09-17 12.14.58.jpg 
Views:	4570 
Size:	216.7 KB 
ID:	1016147
    Nice pic, thanks for sharing! I have the Farley 5 as well. Impresses me every time I look at it. The paint job is just sexy, ain't it?!

  101. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    What do you reckon would be the easiest way(s) then to drop roughly 2lbs? I'm thinking of DMR vault super light mg/ti pedals, 290 grams. But yeah? Losing 1kg or so seems difficult...
    I sense much weenie in you young one.

    23lbs is pretty F'ing light.

  102. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Does anyone know when the Bontrager Haru Pro carbon fork will be sold separately? Any idea on the price?

  103. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFarleys View Post
    Does anyone know when the Bontrager Haru Pro carbon fork will be sold separately? Any idea on the price?
    It may never be sold separately.

  104. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I sense much weenie in you young one.

    23lbs is pretty F'ing light.
    Course it is! But being in the business does that to you

  105. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    It may never be sold separately.
    Say it ain't so!

  106. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    Nice pic, thanks for sharing! I have the Farley 5 as well. Impresses me every time I look at it. The paint job is just sexy, ain't it?!
    Very! I'm very impressed with the look. The ride is amazing too. Got a chance to hit some trail this weekend. Was after 20 miles on the road so need to get on it with some fresh legs to get a proper run through. But man is it fun.

  107. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFarleys View Post
    Say it ain't so!
    This UK site is showing some info

    Bontrager Haru 26" Carbon Fat Bike Fork | Triton Cycles

  108. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by FatSpooky View Post
    This UK site is showing some info
    That's good news

  109. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    That's good news
    The price seems decent too. Hope that information is correct.

  110. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    Course it is! But being in the business does that to you
    Aye - been there.
    Although back then while at the shop, same as now I usually shook it off before pulling the trigger and tried to stay sensible. Making $8.00 an hour as a bike mechanic helped keep my spending in line too.

  111. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    22
    Sure, here you go:
    CS width at widest point (ie. near your heels) is 164 mm
    CS outer width at rear hub (excluding axle QR) is 233 mm
    Q factor (centre of frame to outermost crank face at pedals) is 114mm (ie 228mm total bilaterally).
    The chainstays themselves are remarkably thin (surely solid?), but "high" when viewed side-on, for most of their length and run parallel for most of their length from the widest point at the rear tyre to about where the rear sprocket cluster starts, if that makes sense.

    The frame is very well manufactured, with a lot of subtle shaping due to hydroformed construction, which isn't evident in even the enlarged images on Trek's website. I'd recommend you check it out closely in person if you can. It's very impressive next to my old school TIG welded steel HT (which is still pretty cool).

    Quote Originally Posted by shoo View Post
    Thanks for the ride report. I have a favor to ask. Could you get a measurement inside and outside the chain stays at the widest point. My wife has a 2014 Farley but it is too small and I would like to replace it. Trek states that they kept the same Q factor so I am curious what the 2016 Alloy frames measure.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by Fat Dan; 09-24-2015 at 05:31 PM. Reason: spellcheck

  112. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,052
    Hey thanks a bunch Fat Dan. I apreciate you taking the time to get those measurements.

    Cheers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Dan View Post
    Sure, here you go:
    CS width at widest point (ie. near your heels) is 164 mm
    CS outer witdh at rear hub (excluding axle QR) is 233 mm
    Q factor (centre of frame to outermost crank face at pedals) is 114mm (ie 228mm total bilaterally).
    The chainstays themselves are remarkably thin (surely solid?), but "high" when viewed side-on, for most of their length and run parallel for most of their length from the widest point at the rear tyre to about where the rear sprocket cluster starts, if that makes sense.

    The frame is very well manufactured, with a lot of subtle shaping due to hydroformed construction, which isn't evident in even the enlarged images on Trek's website. I'd recommend you check it out closely in person if you can. It's very impressive next to my old school TIG welded steel HT (which is still pretty cool).
    Lucky neighbor of Maryland's Patapsco Valley State Park, 39.23,-76.76 Flickr

  113. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFarleys View Post
    Here's a couple from todays ride. I have to say the bike is starting to grow on me. Still looking for the optimal tire pressure, but really enjoy this bike. Coming from road and cyclocross bikes this is just plain fun and takes you anywhere.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	21354939118_9b0fe2ae45_z.jpg 
Views:	1864 
Size:	195.2 KB 
ID:	1016547Click image for larger version. 

Name:	21355874199_e049ea1d1b_z.jpg 
Views:	4263 
Size:	225.1 KB 
ID:	1016548

    Would you know what your 9 weighs?

  114. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by NDTransplant View Post
    Would you know what your 9 weighs?
    Sorry but I don't have a scale. Would be interesting to know though. Is there anyone else out there who would have both a 9 and a scale?

  115. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,742
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    4" is 4" no matter how you measure it. If anything the 26 could equal more with the added squish. I ride mine all year so I'm happy with the 4" tire but I do wish I could run a 5" in the winter
    The larger diameter will make the tire contact patch longer. Yea the same width but larger area for sure.
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  116. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    The DT Swiss BR 2250 is another option- it is as light as many carbon sets, strong, and cheaper, especially from the euro sites.
    Thanks for pointing me to those rims.

    When I look at them, it says tubeless setup is 'in development' Does anyone know what that means? It seems like it would be silly to get light rims like this and then add tubes. If not, please explain.

    Can someone explain what rim width and setup I would need to run 5" fat tires on a Farley 9.6" I see things talking about everywhere from 100mm to 65mm. It seems like the same time would not fit well on that great of a range. Any help and explanation is appreciated.

  117. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    Thanks for pointing me to those rims.

    When I look at them, it says tubeless setup is 'in development' Does anyone know what that means? It seems like it would be silly to get light rims like this and then add tubes. If not, please explain.

    Can someone explain what rim width and setup I would need to run 5" fat tires on a Farley 9.6" I see things talking about everywhere from 100mm to 65mm. It seems like the same time would not fit well on that great of a range. Any help and explanation is appreciated.
    From what I've read, DT Swiss isn't going to release the tubeless kit. As silly as it sounds, shrink wrap tubeless is a cheap, reliable, lightweight solution. My neighbor and I have been running it all summer without issue on the very similar Fatboy rims.

    As for wheel size, I'd go with a 80-100mm rim to get a wide contact patch with the larger tires. Wider is usually better, however be mindful of weight increases. Going from a DT Swiss BR rim (81mm) to a Clownshoe (100mm) is an increase of 250gr per wheel.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  118. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    The larger diameter will make the tire contact patch longer. Yea the same width but larger area for sure.
    Well I rode a 9.8 this weekend. Really liked the bike. I took it on a sand beach and it motored right around on the sand including going up inclines. It had rained over the night before, the sand was dry with a very slight crust on it and loose underneath. It sure wasn't compacted at all (this is a public beach with a lot of traffic).

    So I'm pretty convinced that the 27.5x4 will work just fine for me in most cases. Tire inflation was on the high side (~10psi) but no issues. Had I reduced tire pressure a bit, I'm sure that would have made it even better. This will be my first fat bike but I'm still impressed with the flotation of the 27.5x4 on this sand. I'll be riding mine mostly on snowing trails and I'll probably put GripStuds in the tires since there isn't a pre-studded option for the 27.5's yet.



    J.

  119. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Well it looks like there is plenty of clearance, decided to put my Bud and Lou on Clowns on.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  120. #320
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Well it looks like there is plenty of clearance, decided to put my Bud and Lou on Clowns on.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    See that is how it should have come from the factory! A kick ass snow bike!
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  121. #321
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cardnation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    172
    So has anyone been able to measure and weigh the Bontrager Barbegazi 26x4.7" tires yet?
    I bike with tires.

  122. #322
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Well it looks like there is plenty of clearance, decided to put my Bud and Lou on Clowns on.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Whats the weight and price of these rims? Are they significantly heavier than the wampas?

  123. #323
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    I would wager that the clownshoe wheelset has about 500g-800g on top of the Wampas if not more

    Some quick estimates
    1000g per rim
    650g for hubs
    380g for spokes
    150g rim strips

  124. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    I would wager that the clownshoe wheelset has about 500g-800g on top of the Wampas if not more

    Some quick estimates
    1000g per rim
    650g for hubs
    380g for spokes
    150g rim strips
    Ah cool. Nothing for me then! I'm just going for as light as possible. Did you tubeless the wampas+hodags? Do you need anything else apart from sealant?

  125. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    He clowns are much heavier than the stock wheels even built with I9s and light spokes. Defiantly will be winter only wheels. I think this was the back wheel after it was built.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  126. #326
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    912
    Farley 9's are pushed back to late november now, but some shop in california over ordered on the first wave sending one in my size back into stock

    It's on it's way to WI should be riding it by next weekend, I'm pumped
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  127. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Apansson View Post
    Ah cool. Nothing for me then! I'm just going for as light as possible. Did you tubeless the wampas+hodags? Do you need anything else apart from sealant?
    DT Swiss Big Ride would be a good lightweight somewhat affordable option. They are ~300gr lighter than the Wampas
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  128. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    DT Swiss Big Ride would be a good lightweight somewhat affordable option. They are ~300gr lighter than the Wampas
    That means the Wampas are in the same neighborhood as the Mulefuts...confirming my suspicions that an 80mm 27.5 rim is less than ideal.

    I keep bouncing back and forth between those DT Swiss rims and switching to 4" tires in summer, or 29+ (which I will use plenty Hank)
    29+ makes the most sense since I can still run 4" tires on the Mulefuts. Those damn DT Swiss rims just won't leave me alone though.

    I think a set of Next SL cranks are a better bang for the buck weight loss option though. Still...

  129. #329
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    DT Swiss Big Ride would be a good lightweight somewhat affordable option. They are ~300gr lighter than the Wampas
    I don't have the numbers here but considering overall diameter the wampa wheelset is realistically lighter than the other equivalent options that keep the same wheel O.D. as the 27.5x4 tire will be lighter than the other tires available which are all 5" to achieve the same O.D.

    If maintaining the geometry doesn't matter to you or you're just being a weight weenie the thing then carry on, the farley BB height is only like 5mm lower than say a 907 carbon so if you're enjoying the current diameter, it likely does not matter anyways
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  130. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    I don't have the numbers here but considering overall diameter the wampa wheelset is realistically lighter than the other equivalent options that keep the same wheel O.D. as the 27.5x4 tire will be lighter than the other tires available which are all 5" to achieve the same O.D.

    If maintaining the geometry doesn't matter to you or you're just being a weight weenie the thing then carry on, the farley BB height is only like 5mm lower than say a 907 carbon so if you're enjoying the current diameter, it likely does not matter anyways
    It will really depend on the weight of the 27.5" tires. If you save 150gr a wheel over the Wampas, and run JJ 4.8 LS, the Wampas would need to be less than 1050 gr to net any weight savings.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  131. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Without riding and or touching the Wampas, I can imagine they are going to be way more durable than the DT fat rims. For snow riding the dt may be better? But, for dirt, the wampas should be a better choice.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  132. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeNeverwinter View Post
    Without riding and or touching the Wampas, I can imagine they are going to be way more durable than the DT fat rims. For snow riding the dt may be better? But, for dirt, the wampas should be a better choice.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    Objection your honor, the defense is speculating...


    Granted this is all speculation until the Wampas get some dirt miles, but I'd have a hard time believing your statement about durability. The DT rim is a similar design to the Fatboy SL rim, which despite the wheels having hub issues, the rims themselves have proven strong and reliable. Carbon is very strong and stiff, but doesn't tend to do as well with sharp impacts. Do a google image search for "carbon rim failure" and take a look at the carnage. Combine that with the shorter sidewalls of the 27.5" tires and you are inviting rim strikes when you run low psi.

    If you don't believe me, when you get your 9.8 we can both set our tires to 6 psi and ride through rocks gardens and see who's wheels break first
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  133. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Lol, 6psi won't hold up under my 240lbs fat ass, regardless of rims.

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  134. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by dukeneverwinter View Post
    lol, 6psi won't hold up under my 240lbs fat ass, regardless of rims.

    Sent from my 831c using tapatalk
    lol
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  135. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeNeverwinter View Post
    Without riding and or touching the Wampas, I can imagine they are going to be way more durable than the DT fat rims. For snow riding the dt may be better? But, for dirt, the wampas should be a better choice.
    ...not so much.

  136. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    9
    got the call a little while ago, my Farley 5 has arrived and is built, gonna pick it up tomorrow, so stoked!

  137. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by egrims View Post
    Picked it up today. Can't wait to take it out for a proper rip. Just hit it around the parking lot. First impressions are this thing is amazing. I only wish I had gotten a fat sooner...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2015-09-17 12.14.58.jpg 
Views:	4570 
Size:	216.7 KB 
ID:	1016147
    14 hours until I pick mine up, not sure I'm gonna sleep tonight!

  138. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    What would the recommended PSI be for my Farley 5 tires?

    I'm running tubeless and weigh 220lbs.

    Not finding much in the line of calculators or graphs online, and I'm sure it's pretty tire-specific based on height, width, weight of rider, and maybe tubes or tubeless...

  139. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    There's no bike specific pressures first of all. Secondly you'll have to experiment to see what works for you in various conditions. Start at 9 or 10 psi and go from there.

  140. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    834
    Any other follow TrekU Ninjas on here?

    I'm still desperately waiting for my 7 to come in!! All my fellow employees are getting their 5's and 9.8's in stock. I just want my 7! Anyone else get theirs yet?

    My plans for my build are: tubless, 70mm Pro stem, carbon bar, carbon post, carbon saddle.

    I'd be stoked if I can get it to end up at 27lbs.

  141. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenkiS14 View Post
    Any other follow TrekU Ninjas on here?

    I'm still desperately waiting for my 7 to come in!! All my fellow employees are getting their 5's and 9.8's in stock. I just want my 7! Anyone else get theirs yet?

    My plans for my build are: tubless, 70mm Pro stem, carbon bar, carbon post, carbon saddle.

    I'd be stoked if I can get it to end up at 27lbs.
    Best wishes on that. The 9.6's are coming in at 27.5-28 with pedals and tubeless. I've put jackelope wheels w/hodags tubeless, Easton EA 70 carbon bars, 1 X 10, Kent EriksonTitanium seat post, lighter Fabric seat and a Salsa Makwa carbon fork on my Farley 6 and it's just at 27.9.

  142. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21
    I just want my 7! Will add bluto and probably a reverb. Will go tubeless as well. Really looking fwd to it

  143. #343
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivar Elverum View Post
    I just want my 7! Will add bluto and probably a reverb. Will go tubeless as well. Really looking fwd to it
    Curios as to why you just didn't go for the 9?

  144. #344
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21
    Considered the 9, however, I want 26*4.7 tires, and even if i add bluto and reverb, still haven't reached the 9-price..
    Had to stop somewhere..

    I do hope that the barbegazi tires are good for snow..

  145. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1

    Sizing ( Farleys run small ?)

    Guys whats the story with the sizing for these farleys.......A few chaps have mentioned they run small ?

    Im 5' 7" ? Obviously its going to be either a 15.5 or a 17.5.

    Has anyone made that choice already ?

  146. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenkiS14 View Post
    Any other follow TrekU Ninjas on here?

    I'm still desperately waiting for my 7 to come in!! All my fellow employees are getting their 5's and 9.8's in stock. I just want my 7! Anyone else get theirs yet?

    My plans for my build are: tubless, 70mm Pro stem, carbon bar, carbon post, carbon saddle.

    I'd be stoked if I can get it to end up at 27lbs.
    Wasting money until you get rid off the low hanging fruit/weight in the cranks. A set of Next SL cranks will save you .9lbs

  147. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivar Elverum View Post
    Considered the 9, however, I want 26*4.7 tires, and even if i add bluto and reverb, still haven't reached the 9-price..
    Had to stop somewhere..

    I do hope that the barbegazi tires are good for snow..
    They were decent in sand when I road a 9.8 (that I am in the process of buying) with them the other day on a beach. I followed that up with a Pivot Les Fat with 26x4's on it and the 27.5x4's were much better than the 26x4's. More float for sure. I'm going to mount GripStuds in them for the winter. I think they will be better than the 26x4's, more than half way to the float of the 26x4.7's and will roll better in general on everything other than loose deep new snow. Groomers - no doubt.

    J.

  148. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Wasting money until you get rid off the low hanging fruit/weight in the cranks. A set of Next SL cranks will save you .9lbs
    That's a good point, I'd probably go X01 over Next though. I'm a SRAM guy at heart. Or I may not play with it at all past the cockpit, get it feeling like I want in the cockpit, and just leave it. It wont be my main bike at all. I'll be doing bars/stem for preference, and carbon post for comfort.

  149. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by David Cooney View Post
    Guys whats the story with the sizing for these farleys.......A few chaps have mentioned they run small ?

    Im 5' 7" ? Obviously its going to be either a 15.5 or a 17.5.

    Has anyone made that choice already ?

    I am 5'6" and went to a demo this weekend. The 15.5 was too small for me. I was over max on seatpost and it was cramped. It may work for you if you have short legs and arms or short legs and want to be very upright. The 17.5 felt very comfortable to me.

  150. #350
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cr3anmachin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    327
    Any new Farley 5 owners here in UK? If so did you get from Evans and how were the delivery times? Looking at it for my first Fatty. I would normally never have looked at Trek bikes but thought these 2016 models were pretty forward thinking and decent price for spec. Interested in owners views. thanks

  151. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Curios as to why you just didn't go for the 9?
    I couldn't live with the ugly green on blue - it's just wrong.

  152. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    They were decent in sand when I road a 9.8 (that I am in the process of buying) with them the other day on a beach. I followed that up with a Pivot Les Fat with 26x4's on it and the 27.5x4's were much better than the 26x4's. More float for sure. I'm going to mount GripStuds in them for the winter. I think they will be better than the 26x4's, more than half way to the float of the 26x4.7's and will roll better in general on everything other than loose deep new snow. Groomers - no doubt.

    J.
    It's the groomer look and effect I want.
    In the end it was a question about how much, and the stomach feeling. I did land on the 7 and we can go back and forth a million times if I should've decided on the other one...
    In the future my fs may have 27,5+ (probably) and my fatbike will have 26*6?

  153. #353
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I couldn't live with the ugly green on blue - it's just wrong.
    I think it's one of their better color combo's!!

  154. #354
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivar Elverum View Post
    It's the groomer look and effect I want.
    In the end it was a question about how much, and the stomach feeling. I did land on the 7 and we can go back and forth a million times if I should've decided on the other one...
    In the future my fs may have 27,5+ (probably) and my fatbike will have 26*6?
    Either way, with the trek 2016 fat bikes, the downside risk is another set of rims and tires. With other bikes that are not set up the same way, it's worse because the downside risk is to have to get a different bike. Also, I'm going to have to stud the tires myself since there are not any 27.5x4 studded tires yet. Not a big deal, but one more thing to do.

    In my case, and for where I'm going to ride, I was pretty sure that the 27.5x4 would work after talking to the factory and looking into it with my LBS but I wasn't sure. When I got to ride it, and then compare it to a 26x4, then it was clear. But, I think, it's an individual decision and I think preferences are all over the map on it. What i can say was that I was really impressed with the bike and it's handling.

    J.

  155. #355
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    21
    About size, I'm 181cm and i ordered 19,5"

    edit: yeah, keep my 7 next year just upgrade with a new wheel set

  156. #356
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    I think it's one of their better color combo's!!
    Blech!!

  157. #357
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    What would the recommended PSI be for my Farley 5 tires?

    I'm running tubeless and weigh 220lbs.

    Not finding much in the line of calculators or graphs online, and I'm sure it's pretty tire-specific based on height, width, weight of rider, and maybe tubes or tubeless...
    235 lbs here. Last winter I ran my tubeless Dillinger 5s at 4-5 PSI on soft , deep snow increasing to 8-10 PSI on hard pack.

  158. #358
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrawn View Post
    That' one hell of a demo!!!

    Curious now... Anyne try and fit a 27.5 x 3.8 setup on a Farley 6 or 8?
    I have a set of 27.5 Scrappers with Panaracers 3.5 and there is plenty of room and are they are a blast to ride.

    Btw both my bikes are 14 Farley


    Marty-mj
    www.garagescene.net www.syborgtwinturbo.com www.2ndcamaro.com
    MJ
    14 Farley,Bluto,i9-27.5FatBNimbles
    16 Farley5,CarbonFork,27.5x4.5Barbegazi
    16 Farley9.6,Bluto,Onyx-26JumboJims

  159. #359
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Way2ManyBikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    621

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes

    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    I guess we'll see as more people get them. I for one will be disappointed if my 9.8 isn't under the 25lb mark. Especially when 907 is showing a sub 19lb build.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





    It's possible to get the bike sub 23 with a carbon fork if you buy all the right parts but it's expensive. I'm considering a carbon frame however I'm pretty hard on my bikes.





    Marty-mj
    www.garagescene.net www.syborgtwinturbo.com www.2ndcamaro.com
    MJ
    14 Farley,Bluto,i9-27.5FatBNimbles
    16 Farley5,CarbonFork,27.5x4.5Barbegazi
    16 Farley9.6,Bluto,Onyx-26JumboJims

  160. #360
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Mine came in at 24lb 2oz sans pedals. Shire would have been nice to see 23 but I honk I'll survive lol....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  161. #361
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Mine came in at 24lb 2oz sans pedals. Shire would have been nice to see 23 but I honk I'll survive lol....
    Honking in the Shire - sounds like good times!

  162. #362
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2
    Picked up a Farley 9.8 last week. Absolutely love it. It's my first Fat Bike althought I've demoed a few.

    I did manage to generate a slow leak in the front tire after the first ride. Due to there being ZERO replacement tubes in stock anywhere, it is now set up tubeless front and back.

    Still waiting on my xpedo spry pedals (tomorrow). Currently it weighs in at 24lb10oz for a 17.5 frame.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...23263021_o.jpg

  163. #363
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    24lb10oz is tubeless?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  164. #364
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2
    That was the weight after the tubeless conversion.

    The more I ride this bike the more I love it. It's just so much fun.

  165. #365
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cr3anmachin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    327
    Anyone got a weight for the 2016 Farley 5 out of the box stock with pedals pls?

  166. #366
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    20
    Just picked my my Farley 9.6, size XL. Weighs 28.6 lbs with tubes, without pedals.

    Planning to convert to tubeless and will weigh the wheels while I have them off the bicycle.

  167. #367
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by cr3anmachin3 View Post
    Anyone got a weight for the 2016 Farley 5 out of the box stock with pedals pls?
    Not with pedals but complete otherwise reflectors and all. 19.5 frame.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  168. #368
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cr3anmachin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Not with pedals but complete otherwise reflectors and all. 19.5 frame.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ah great thanks for the info. 15kg then...was hoping for something a bit lighter but I suppose it is the entry level model. Do you run a bike shop or dealership? I was looking to get one in the UK but only a few places stocking them and one of those is Click & Collect and too far away from me.

  169. #369
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Wasting money until you get rid off the low hanging fruit/weight in the cranks. A set of Next SL cranks will save you .9lbs
    Can someone help me out with more details here? I am considering this option, but want to make sure I get it right. I have a 9.6, and here is what I am looking at going to:

    Amazon.com : Race Face Next SL 10-11 Speed 175 Crank Arms with 170 Rears : Bike Cranksets And Accessories : Sports & Outdoors

    Is this all that I need? Should I get the 170mm or the 175mm? I think my current one is a 175mm but I am not sure. Is this all that I need, and is it just a 'plug and play' to change the crank arm out, with the same bearings, sprocket, etc? Sorry for the dumb questions, but I don't want to order a $400 part and have it be wrong.

    Thanks,

  170. #370
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    You'll need the appropriate bottom bracket to accommodate the 30mm spindle as the Aefect crank uses a 20mm spindle.

    Having said that, it's a lot of money even for that amount of weight - think on it. I'm still toying with it but I think I've decided I'd rather keep my money or spend it on some 29+ wheels, XT brakes, and maybe a suspension fork down the road.

  171. #371
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    912
    New bike day, farley 9



    No time for pictures, i built it and went riding

    Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  172. #372
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    912
    Just kidding, here's the important stuff

    21.5" frame



    Stock out of box weight


    Thomson post, haven carbon bars, ESI grips, issi triple pedals, tubeless


    His and hers, yep non drive side, in a hurry to go ride



    Ride was awesome, going backwards from lous on shoes on my blackborow to this for a summer purpose bike, this wheel size makes sense to me

    So long to my 29ers
    Last edited by TitanofChaos; 10-01-2015 at 05:16 AM.
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  173. #373
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    How much lighter to the carbon bars feel in your hand compared to the stock ones? Just curious. I ask because I pulled the stock seat and seatpost out of one and it weighed next to nothing.

  174. #374
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    How much lighter to the carbon bars feel in your hand compared to the stock ones? Just curious. I ask because I pulled the stock seat and seatpost out of one and it weighed next to nothing.
    The bars with the grips and garmin mount felt close to the weight of the stock bar alone, the haven bar is slightly narrower, its more for comfort than weight

    Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  175. #375
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Got it, thanks.
    Waiting on my 7...

  176. #376
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    834
    Weighed a bone stock with pedals and reflectors 19.5" Farley 7 tonight. 30.38lbs, still waiting on my bike though...

  177. #377
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by jrogersAK View Post
    Can someone help me out with more details here? I am considering this option, but want to make sure I get it right. I have a 9.6, and here is what I am looking at going to:

    Amazon.com : Race Face Next SL 10-11 Speed 175 Crank Arms with 170 Rears : Bike Cranksets And Accessories : Sports & Outdoors

    Is this all that I need? Should I get the 170mm or the 175mm? I think my current one is a 175mm but I am not sure. Is this all that I need, and is it just a 'plug and play' to change the crank arm out, with the same bearings, sprocket, etc? Sorry for the dumb questions, but I don't want to order a $400 part and have it be wrong.

    Thanks,
    If you order that set you will need a chainring as well...

    Msg me if you would like to buy a complete setup, including chainring 170mm arm length bottom bracket as well

  178. #378
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cr3anmachin3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    327
    So...was about to buy a Farley 5 (against all my girlfriends protestation!) and looked at Evans and LeisureLakes Bikes and they are all Click & Collect and too far away for me to get the bike. Seems I am doomed to defeat but then found a local Trek dealer really close to me who thinks he can order in for me at cost price. WIN ! I am sure though once built those guys will not be able to resist having a go on it. Will update here if/when I get it. EXCITING !

  179. #379
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    310
    So my wife took me bike shopping yesterday, and this it what i left with!!!

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-img_0087.jpg

    WHAT A FUN BIKE OUT ON THE TRAILS first ride was the POTO in SE Michigan last night can't wait for a day ride!!!! just amazed at this thing.

  180. #380
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    22
    I don't think they run small. The short seat tube height is to compensate for the increased standover height of the 4.9" tyres, so the frames appear short. Once set up though, my 17.5 feels like, well...a 17.5, despite my perceptions about the frame looking like a trials bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Cooney View Post
    Guys whats the story with the sizing for these farleys.......A few chaps have mentioned they run small ?

    Im 5' 7" ? Obviously its going to be either a 15.5 or a 17.5.

    Has anyone made that choice already ?

  181. #381
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by tadraper View Post
    So my wife took me bike shopping yesterday, and this it what i left with!!!
    I don't know if I am more jealous of your bike or wife

  182. #382
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,197
    The Trek archives show parts but not geometry for 2015 Farley 8. Do any of you know if 2015 Farley 8 geometry is same as 2016 models?

    I've been wading through a lot of pages here and am trying to find out of a 19.5 2015 model will be quite like my 2016 Remedy in 19 size. Our Trek commuter is 20 and I think Treks must run small. I'm 5'10", and considering a used bike I might not be able to try before buy.

    Thank you.

  183. #383
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by bitflogger View Post
    The Trek archives show parts but not geometry for 2015 Farley 8. Do any of you know if 2015 Farley 8 geometry is same as 2016 models?

    I've been wading through a lot of pages here and am trying to find out of a 19.5 2015 model will be quite like my 2016 Remedy in 19 size. Our Trek commuter is 20 and I think Treks must run small. I'm 5'10", and considering a used bike I might not be able to try before buy.

    Thank you.
    I believe the geometries are roughly the same, with maybe minor differences to handle the fatter tires.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  184. #384
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by bitflogger View Post
    The Trek archives show parts but not geometry for 2015 Farley 8. Do any of you know if 2015 Farley 8 geometry is same as 2016 models?

    I've been wading through a lot of pages here and am trying to find out of a 19.5 2015 model will be quite like my 2016 Remedy in 19 size. Our Trek commuter is 20 and I think Treks must run small. I'm 5'10", and considering a used bike I might not be able to try before buy.

    Thank you.
    I'm 5'10", and I ride a 18.5" Remedy 29, a 20" 7.4FX, and I chose a 17.5" Farley 7, the 19 just felt too long and big in general. I could probably get away with a 19.5" if I were to run a 50mm stem, but thats not ideal for this geometry.

  185. #385
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by dEOS View Post
    I don't know if I am more jealous of your bike or wife
    my thoughts exactly!

  186. #386
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    20
    More Farley 9.6 size XL weight info:

    Bicycle, tubeless with Xpedo Spry pedals: 27.4 lbs

    27.5 Hodag tire: 1230 gr (only weighed one)

    27.5 tube: 440 gr (both weighed the same)

    27.5 wheels:
    Front: 1300 gr
    Rear: 1640 gr (seems too heavy but I've mounted the tire and can't recheck)

  187. #387
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenkiS14 View Post
    I'm 5'10", and I ride a 18.5" Remedy 29, a 20" 7.4FX, and I chose a 17.5" Farley 7, the 19 just felt too long and big in general. I could probably get away with a 19.5" if I were to run a 50mm stem, but thats not ideal for this geometry.
    I got a 17.5 for my Farley 5, when I saw it I thought it looked small but when I rode it I found it to be perfect size, on the other hand the 19.5 Farley 6 seemed to be the right fit for me. I haven't compared geometry but they must be different...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  188. #388
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    27.5 Jackalope rims should be about 930ish+ grams each.
    26 ones are supposed to be about 870 grams.
    Counting 32 dt competition spokes at about 6 grams each is 192 grams.
    brass nipples at 1 gram per nipples so 32grams.
    that leaves about 486 grams for the hub. hope pro 2 fat is 370ish.

    So, not horrible. but certianly not great. If they were cut out rims it would be less for sure. And the hub is heavy, but for a price point wheel, it is in line with most.

    sure you could make lighter ones. but they would cost you near 1k.
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  189. #389
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,197
    Can anyone help me find geometry for the pre-2016 bikes? The Trek archives don't have that. Some articles mention 70 degree head angle and 17.3 chain stays. I wasn't to know effective top tube, reach, and stack. To help decide if the used 19.5 in my area is too big for me.

    Thank you.
    ƃuoɹʍ llɐ ʇno əɯɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ

  190. #390
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,984
    Quote Originally Posted by tadraper View Post
    So my wife took me bike shopping yesterday, and this it what i left with!!!
    Nice!

    Back in 2011, for my birthday, my wife opened a profile here to see what I was in to and ask around some questions as to the types of bikes I'd be interested in. She called around to various shops to see who had what in my size. In my birthday card she outlined what was going down and where we could go to test ride. I made the decision and she called around to negotiate final pricing and pick up date. (Giant Anthem X 29er)

    In late 2012 she was off of work doing some online shopping and called me to update. Jokingly, on a whim I told her, "while you're at it I'd like a 2013 Salsa Mukluk 2 frameset black/grape ape size small". An hour later she forwarded me the confirmation email for the purchase. When I got home she mentioned the guy on the phone at Bikeman proposed to her.

  191. #391
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    22
    So I decided to stop by my LBS yesterday hoping that my 7 came in and they've been trying to get ahold of me and had my cell number messed up. And low and behold, one lonely 7, size medium, was setting on the showroom floor! I'm like "hey, that's my bike!" and they were like, "what?". I told them that I put a deposit on a 7 about 2 months ago and have been waiting for a phone call. They said that this was one of the bikes that they preordered proir to me putting a deposit down, so that's why my name did not pop up in the system when it came in. Ugh! Luckly, it's only been sitting there since Tuesday and no one came in a swept it up in front of me!

    Heading out for a quick ride in about 30 minutes!

  192. #392
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    996
    I normally just get kinky sex for my birthday, which I was perfectly happy with, until I caught up with this thread this AM. Now I feel a little short changed. Seriously, a fatbike for a birthday? Dude.

  193. #393
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    310
    setup my 9.8 tubeless today since it is raining,, what an easy task. remove air pop one side of the tire off to get tube out add sealant use floor pump to reseat tire!!

    my tubes weighed 1.45 lbs on the kitchen scale hope to weigh the bike soon.

    did a mixer last night rail trail, gravel and trail what an all around great bike..

  194. #394
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by tschram72 View Post
    So I decided to stop by my LBS yesterday hoping that my 7 came in and they've been trying to get ahold of me and had my cell number messed up. And low and behold, one lonely 7, size medium, was setting on the showroom floor! I'm like "hey, that's my bike!" and they were like, "what?". I told them that I put a deposit on a 7 about 2 months ago and have been waiting for a phone call. They said that this was one of the bikes that they preordered proir to me putting a deposit down, so that's why my name did not pop up in the system when it came in. Ugh! Luckly, it's only been sitting there since Tuesday and no one came in a swept it up in front of me!

    Heading out for a quick ride in about 30 minutes!
    Lies
    Pics or it didn't happen!

  195. #395
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ForNow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by tadraper View Post
    So my wife took me bike shopping yesterday, and this it what i left with!!!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0087.JPG 
Views:	1294 
Size:	323.2 KB 
ID:	1019265

    WHAT A FUN BIKE OUT ON THE TRAILS first ride was the POTO in SE Michigan last night can't wait for a day ride!!!! just amazed at this thing.
    Fan of the bike and your truck.
    I rode a Farley 9.8 today. Really liked it. Holding it for couple days to decide.
    If I get the bike, I'll post a similar photo with my 2015 GMC HD.
    ______________________________
    Farley 9.8.5

  196. #396
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1
    Hi everyone!

    I just bought myself farley 5 2016. I was planning to put bluto on the front.
    Im having trouble finding proper conversion caps for the hub. If anyone know what fits, ill be glad.

    I found drawings at the forum, so its possibility to mill them, but the drawing is from farley 6 and not sure that the hubs are same?

    Thanks.

  197. #397
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    30
    A question for any 9.8 owners... do you know what the Q-factor is on these Farleys? Is the Next SL the 170mm or 190mm wide version?

    Thanks in advance!

  198. #398
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    310
    Not sure what the q-factor is but the next sl's on my 9.8 are for the 199mm The rear hub is 197 so the 170 version would be to narrow.

  199. #399
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    I hope it's a 169mm spindle and not 189mm. Trek has made a point of saying 5" clearance with 4" qfactor.

  200. #400
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    310
    I will go out and take a look and let you know.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2015 Trek Farley 6 and 8 fat Bikes
    By Robg68 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1899
    Last Post: 05-18-2020, 08:27 PM
  2. When should the 2016 models roll out?
    By Tizom in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 580
    Last Post: 12-05-2015, 12:58 PM
  3. Remedy 29 availability in EU, 2016 models ?
    By 20.100 FR in forum Trek
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-17-2015, 06:29 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 11:31 PM
  5. Trek Farley 6/8
    By BigVaz in forum Trek
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-23-2014, 08:29 AM

Members who have read this thread: 61

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.