2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 2225
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29

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



    The 2016 Trek Fat Bikes are officially up on their website now, bringing a whopping 5 new models to the mix.

    Here's the models, pricing, and links:


    Farley 5 w/ MSRP of $1,729.99
    Farley 5 - New! - Trek Bicycle

    Farley 7 w/ MSRP of $2,399.99
    Farley 7 - New! - Trek Bicycle

    Farley 9 w/ MSRP of $3,199.99
    Farley 9 - New! - Trek Bicycle

    Farley 9.6 w/ MSRP of $2,999.99
    Farley 9.6 - New! - Trek Bicycle

    Farley 9.8 w/ MSRP of $4,799.99
    Farley 9.8 - New! - Trek Bicycle

    ​Discuss!

    *8/21 Updated Pricing Map
    Last edited by moshock; 08-21-2015 at 01:42 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    We've been discussing, but someone decided the discussion should be consolidated into the 2015 Farley thread - not sure why.

    Anyhoo. the 7 seems to be the sweet spot, and that's the one I have on order.
    Getting the 5 for my wife. I may end up building up a second wheelset for it @ 27.5 just for grins.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    428
    Looks like they are going to keep the 6-8 models.
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Gambit21 congrats on your Farley 7 pre-order! I think I would have sprung for the 7 if it were a different color.

    bcriverjunky my dealer said once the 6's and 8's are gone, they're gone, and they have no more coming in.

    My Farley 5 is expected to arrive mid-late August. Woohoo! Can't wait!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I go back and forth on the purple. It's growing on me I think. (I wish it was orange) I hate the odd blue and green scheme of the 9.

  6. #6
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,140
    Are most of these new models for fitting tires bigger than 4.0 ?
    [2015 farley 6 it is clear you cannot go bigger than 4.0....]

    IMHO, for me....4.0 or 3.8 is plenty for a fatbike incl snow, but for even more snow ability you haveta go bigger.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    Yes, that, and slight changes to geometry, and their own expanded rim and tire sizes.

    Like you, I own a Farley 6, and have not found myself in need of bigger tires. Would be nice, but with all the fat bikes I test rode, and how perfect this one fits me, I am cool with that.

    Also, I read from multiple people that Dillinger 5s fit in the rear.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    143
    I just got the Fatboy SE but the good axles, factory hydro brakes, the 1x11... I would have bought that.

    Colors seem odd except on base model.

  9. #9
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,140
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    Yes, that, and slight changes to geometry, and their own expanded rim and tire sizes.

    Like you, I own a Farley 6, and have not found myself in need of bigger tires. Would be nice, but with all the fat bikes I test rode, and how perfect this one fits me, I am cool with that.

    Also, I read from multiple people that Dillinger 5s fit in the rear.
    in rear ? will need to research that....
    wow here it is

    2015 Trek Farley 6 and 8 fat Bikes - Page 23- Mtbr.com



    anywho...9 years on an original super-tank pugsley (yes with SS cog on front and large marge heavies) and swapped to Farley 6 tubeless...like night and day!!!!!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by bwheelies View Post
    Colors seem odd except on base model.
    This! They aren't bad, just odd indeed.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    88
    I really like that purple color of the 7. I would have picked one up but I got to impatient and went with something else haha.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    This! They aren't bad, just odd indeed.
    With regard to the new models - Grey is fine, so is the purple. The blue/green scheme is ugly and just poor design imho (I happen to be a designer) The upper 9 models after that aren't ugly, just unremarkable.

    I may end up with a grey and orange 7 (dealer is willing to swap parts) but haven't decided yet. The purple is kinda nice too...

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    428
    You are not going to fit a D5 on the rear of a 6 or a 8
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by bcriverjunky View Post
    You are not going to fit a D5 on the rear of a 6 or a 8
    I've seen a few that fit them when the tire was new, however given time to stretch it usually results in rub.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  15. #15
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,140
    took another long look at farley 6 17.5 with hodag and that thing barely clears

    I agree a 5 ain't gonna fit unless it's really skinny 5

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    990
    I love the color on the 9, the rest are so-so, don't hate any of them, don't love any of them. Wouldn't keep me from buying one. Can't wait to see one in person. I have a friend with a 9.8 on order. Can't freaking wait to see and ride it.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bcriverjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    428
    Bucksaw, Farley, and a Sturgis....

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Thanks for sharing! Cool video!

  19. #19
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    the frame size inflation is aggravating; what they call a 21.5" frame, actually has a 20.5" seat tube, which effectively rules that out as a possibility. That's a shame, my team is having a bike buying night next month (we're sponsored by Trek & Bontrager) and we'd get the bikes at dealer cost. <sigh> looks like i'll be getting a Boone CX or a Fuel, instead and a Ventana this fall.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    571
    damn these new farleys look sweet...actually thinking of dumping my Surly for one
    SWING YOUR LEG OVER IT AND PEDAL:cool:

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sparky697's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    the frame size inflation is aggravating; what they call a 21.5" frame, actually has a 20.5" seat tube, which effectively rules that out as a possibility. That's a shame, my team is having a bike buying night next month (we're sponsored by Trek & Bontrager) and we'd get the bikes at dealer cost. <sigh> looks like i'll be getting a Boone CX or a Fuel, instead and a Ventana this fall.
    Even though it's 20.5 shouldn't it still fit like a 21.5?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,383
    Ya everything I know with trek is they run shorter seat tube for better stand over but the frame fit is the "inflated size". One of those "dont worry about the numbers so dang much, test it out" things. I actually like that trek (provided its being done right) is puttin stand over more into the equation by building the frame to fit at "listed size" then cutting the seat tube lower to give the boys a little more room. We all aren't all legs you know.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Another new Farley video: https://youtu.be/w91OGtInmAw

    That blue Farley 9 looks pretty cool!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,555
    Have the 9 on order,my LBS gave me a could not refuse price for one
    ,plus the 27.5 was a major incentive!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    I was looking at the build sheets between the Farley 7 and the 9.6 and they seem like they are pretty much the same builds except for the tire wheel combo. So my question is what will be the weight different between the aluminum frame of the 7 and the carbon frame of the 9.6?

  26. #26
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    the 9.6 seems like oneheckofa value!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    990
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    the 9.6 seems like oneheckofa value!
    AND....it has thru axles

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    AND....it has thru axles
    yes, i noticed

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by techfersure View Post
    Have the 9 on order,my LBS gave me a could not refuse price for one
    ,plus the 27.5 was a major incentive!
    On that note - if anyone walks into a Trek dealer and they quote you the MSRP on the Trek site and won't budge - walk away and go to another dealer. Be looking for $200 off that MSRP at least. I did a little better because I bought 2 bikes.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    the 9.6 seems like oneheckofa value!
    Yep, but the 7 is the best bang for the buck in the lot IMO.

  31. #31
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    is there a difference between map and msrp?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    is there a difference between map and msrp?
    That I'm not sure of - I just know that a high volume Trek dealer has some room on these.
    I think even a lower volume dealer has a bit of room since that MSRP is inflated a bit to allow for this.

  33. #33
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    been a loooong time since i sold trek, so i can't even remember how their pricing works or what the margins are depending on volume brought in.

    i know i hardly ever ordered from Q when i sold trek cuz bontrager offered a pretty complete selection of parts/accessories and i automatically saved 5-10% on those orders by being a trek dealer. make money in the buying, not the selling

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    the 9.6 seems like oneheckofa value!
    Yeah- I'd put money down on one as a snow bike if I could get it with 26" wheels. The 27.5"s might work for those on groomed trails, but I'm usually the trailer groomer....
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  35. #35
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky697 View Post
    Even though it's 20.5 shouldn't it still fit like a 21.5?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    not if you have a 35" inseam...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chad_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    505
    Does the 5 or 7 have thru axles on both front and rear. It looks as though the front is still QR?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    It looks like the 5 is QR and the 7 is thru axle.

  38. #38
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    ava likes the 5 and doesn't mind qr's at all. and daddy don't care so long as wifey leaves the house unlocked and ava calls me dada. 42 with an 8 month old......livin the dream yo!


    the 5 has the best color. love the orange lettering

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    What's QR vs Thru Axle? Benefits or downsides?

  40. #40
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    What's QR vs Thru Axle? Benefits or downsides?
    Smoke n mirrors.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    What's QR vs Thru Axle? Benefits or downsides?
    TA, while probably the solution you'd arrive at if designing a bike for the first time right now, offers little if any true, quantifiable advantage in the rear or with a rigid fork. It offers much needed stabity and stiffness with a suspension fork.
    Stories of rear hub flex (therefore thru-axle) are BS in my opinion. With a tightened QR and laced wheel there's no place for the hub flanges to go.

  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Haha a suspension fork already has too much unnecessary flex and movement to begin with, what's the problem with having more? Might as well have a bit of side to side to go with all that up n down and all that extra weight leading you thru hill and dale. Lol!

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    What, don't you love it when your lateral energy is absorbed and turned into vertical energy and you lose momentum?

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,555
    [QUOTE=newmarketrog;12041758]been a loooong time since i sold trek, so i can't even remember how their pricing works or what the margins are depending on volume brought in.

    i know i hardly ever ordered from Q when i sold trek cuz bontrager offered a pretty complete selection of parts/accessories and i automatically saved 5-10% on those orders by being a trek dealer. make money in

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    On that note - if anyone walks into a Trek dealer and they quote you the MSRP on the Trek site and won't budge - walk away and go to another dealer. Be looking for $200 off that MSRP at least. I did a little better because I bought 2 bikes.
    2550.00 for Farley 9 , LBS loyalty pays off ! can't wait until it comes in !

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    990
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    What's QR vs Thru Axle? Benefits or downsides?
    All you need to know is you want them. If you buy a new fatbike now without them, all you need to know is your local shop is glad you walked thru the door and took it off their hands.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    All you need to know is you want them. If you buy a new fatbike now without them, all you need to know is your local shop is glad you walked thru the door and took it off their hands.
    I pre-ordered a Farley 5. Is it QR or Thru Axle? Still don't know what the physical difference is.

  48. #48
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    All you need to know is you want them. If you buy a new fatbike now without them, all you need to know is your local shop is glad you walked thru the door and took it off their hands.
    spiked koolaid. you 3 sheets to the wind yet?

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    I pre-ordered a Farley 5. Is it QR or Thru Axle? Still don't know what the physical difference is.
    If you don't know if your bike has either, or what the difference is, you won't be able to detect the very subtle differences between the two when riding. I wouldn't let this affect a bike purchase decision.

    Honestly I think the biggest benefit of going TA is so you don't have to listen to people preaching the benefits of them lol.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  50. #50
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    If you don't know if your bike has either, or what the difference is, you won't be able to detect the very subtle differences between the two when riding. I wouldn't let this affect a bike purchase decision.

    Honestly I think the biggest benefit of going TA is so you don't have to listen to people preaching the benefits of them lol.
    You mite bee meye fave poster twodae

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    I pre-ordered a Farley 5. Is it QR or Thru Axle? Still don't know what the physical difference is.
    TA rear, QR front.

    Cute kid Rog.

  52. #52
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    TA rear, QR front.

    Cute kid Rog.
    thanx!

  53. #53
    zeb
    zeb is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    368
    Is it possible to use same RF crankset that works on 2015 model with new 2016 frame?

    This was found on bikerumour site:
    The 26×5 are what Trek considers the size for exploration. Still ideal for loose or soft terrain, the bigger tires were made possible thanks to the wider rear end, but the pressfit 121 bottom bracket keeps the same q factor as the 177 bikes previously.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Anyone know when the 16's will start hitting dealer floors? I'm getting anxious!

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    Anyone know when the 16's will start hitting dealer floors? I'm getting anxious!
    Sept/Oct and this may only be if your dealer and/or customer preordered them.
    http://Theclydeblog.org Big guy cycling product tester

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    272
    Hmm, that 7 though.
    Now I am even more upset that the FatCaad is pretty tame/ugly compared to the purple 7, or even what looks to be the orange Fatboy comp. Just wish fatboy was 150TA front in case I felt crazy enough to get a bluto for summer fun.

  57. #57
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    that new fatboi comp looks super tasty. nice to see the rf turbine cinch and 1x on it. i'd ride that bike fer sure, and i just might. or get a frame/fork and put some dt swiss wheels on it.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    that new fatboi comp looks super tasty. nice to see the rf turbine cinch and 1x on it. i'd ride that bike fer sure, and i just might. or get a frame/fork and put some dt swiss wheels on it.
    That does make me more interested in the fatboy for sure. 1x and ROaRANGE is the fastest color, or so I hear. Wonder if the rims set up tubeless easy. And if I am honest, it will be a bit before I jump to bluto since this is a winter purchase in central PA. I can always build new wheels if I go full-fat.

    Every time I work at the shop I check to see if they have new releases on the dealer site. I did see they have some new merino wool jerseys, which should come in cheaper than any rapha stuff (and hopefully nice enough).

  59. #59
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    ya i tried front suspension forks over 20 years ago and have owned them here and there since. suspension forks would be the ticket if they didn't move at all and were pounds lighter

    i've never been sold on front squish no matter how rough and tough the riding/racing gets. fat tires at low pressure makes squish of any kind even more senseless. imo

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    I'm with rog. I raged my Farley 6 last night in one gear, and was on the tail of a better rider (skills not engine) on a carbon Bucksaw last night. He usually stays ahead of me on rides, because my coordination is low, and tendency to fly off the trail is high. What I would lose on more technical sections, I'd make up for in climbs and straight shots.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    272
    The concept that all suspension is useless is silly, and could just more dependent upon your location. I can't really imagine enjoying rigid on all of these #eastcoastrocks. Hell, even Rich Dillen opted for a squish fork for a stage or two of the Transylvania Epic race.

    But I can probably live rigid for the fatbike, as it won't be the real gnar bike of choice for me.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    It's not a location thing

  63. #63
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    It's not a location thing
    nope^^^^^^^^ come ride where i ride and you might want a full on dh rig

    maine is pretty chunky to say the least.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I might or might not - it's not a location thing, it's a preference thing.

  65. #65
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    I might or might not - it's not a location thing, it's a preference thing.
    i was speaking to lwkwafi.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Never mind, I thought I was still speaking to him as well. Damn phone and tiny screen

  67. #67
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Never mind, I thought I was still speaking to him as well. Damn phone and tiny screen
    HA! looking forward to your purple beauty? or did you get it already?

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    HA! looking forward to your purple beauty? or did you get it already?
    Getting the 7 and a 5 for the wife, finances dictate that they will go on layaway for a while after they arrive.

  69. #69
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Getting the 7 and a 5 for the wife, finances dictate that they will go on layaway for a while after they arrive.
    hey gotta do whatcha gotta do

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3
    I just went in to pre-order a new Farley 5 and the sales guy recommended I go with a 19.5 based on my 5'10" height and 32" inseam. I assumed I would best fit on a 17.5 but he explained that for around here (Minneapolis, MN) I'd primarily be riding in not very deep snow and occasionally deeper stuff.

    My intended use for the bike will most likely be a daily commuter (in winter), single track (4 season) and I'd like to also be able do some exploring on unplowed/ungroomed stuff as well. So a little of everything. He recommended that if the 19.5 felt to big on deeper stuff I could get a dropper post to help.

    I know the best route is to just try them out, but they didn't have any of last years models to try unfortunately. He said if I didn't like how the 19.5 feels/rides after they get it in I could switch to a 17.5.

    I'm just curious if people here think this all checks out. It'll also be my first foray into mountain biking and I don't want to end up on something to big to comfortably maneuver. I trust what the guy is saying, just want to get some second opinions.


    Thanks.

  71. #71
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by billbiwer View Post
    I just went in to pre-order a new Farley 5 and the sales guy recommended I go with a 19.5 based on my 5'10" height and 32" inseam. I assumed I would best fit on a 17.5 but he explained that for around here (Minneapolis, MN) I'd primarily be riding in not very deep snow and occasionally deeper stuff.

    My intended use for the bike will most likely be a daily commuter (in winter), single track (4 season) and I'd like to also be able do some exploring on unplowed/ungroomed stuff as well. So a little of everything. He recommended that if the 19.5 felt to big on deeper stuff I could get a dropper post to help.

    I know the best route is to just try them out, but they didn't have any of last years models to try unfortunately. He said if I didn't like how the 19.5 feels/rides after they get it in I could switch to a 17.5.

    I'm just curious if people here think this all checks out. It'll also be my first foray into mountain biking and I don't want to end up on something to big to comfortably maneuver. I trust what the guy is saying, just want to get some second opinions.


    Thanks.
    honestly, that "salesguy" should find something else to do. if yer 5'10 yer gonna be a lot closer to a 17.5 than a 19.5. recommending putting a dropper on to help is stoopid.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Yeah - saves me a post. I was going to respond earlier but too long to type with the phone.
    Rog, I got a call from the shop. I'm heading down tomorrow -I think they want to try and talk me into a Stache 29+. Probably just because they have them in stock now, and they're so enamored with this model themselves from what it sounds like.

    I've never been on a 29+ - thoughts?

    Seems to me the Farley is close to the Stache, just a little more evolved even. There's less than an inch difference in chainstay length (in case the "wow, look at that short chainstay" argument comes up. So then I'm left with capability, and from where I sit the Stache is limited to 3" tires, where on the Farley I can run 27.5+ (3" and upwards) if I feel like it, all the way up to 4.8" on the 26" wheels. So not sure what their thinking, but I have to run down there and change the wife's bike order to a Helga anyway, so I'll hear them out.

    I'm counting on 27.5x65mm wheels being released, couple that with 4" tires and the Farley and I don't think I'll be thinking about the Stache.

  73. #73
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambit21 View Post
    Yeah - saves me a post. I was going to respond earlier but too long to type with the phone.
    Rog, I got a call from the shop. I'm heading down tomorrow -I think they want to try and talk me into a Stache 29+. Probably just because they have them in stock now, and they're so enamored with this model themselves from what it sounds like.

    I've never been on a 29+ - thoughts?

    Seems to me the Farley is close to the Stache, just a little more evolved even. There's less than an inch difference in chainstay length (in case the "wow, look at that short chainstay" argument comes up. So then I'm left with capability, and from where I sit the Stache is limited to 3" tires, where on the Farley I can run 27.5+ (3" and upwards) if I feel like it, all the way up to 4.8" on the 26" wheels. So not sure what their thinking, but I have to run down there and change the wife's bike order to a Helga anyway, so I'll hear them out.

    I'm counting on 27.5x65mm wheels being released, couple that with 4" tires and the Farley and I don't think I'll be thinking about the Stache.
    so i had a customer of mine (i mainly do repair work on bikes that he buys elsewhere due to brands he prefers) pull in with a sexy @ss brandy new stache 5, the one that has kinda that bianchi celeste thang going. SICK LOOKING BIKE. light and sexy for the money. if i were gonna stache it up i'd definitely go with that one.

    problem for me is, the fvcking wheels are HUDGE. i've been a 29er devotee since 03' but having tried 29+, imo, the wheels feel way to big. i like flicky and i ride where it's twisty turny techy wicked frequent steep up/down.

    27.5+ seems like the ticket to me and i guess you can run them on that bike if you want.

    only problem is you can't run fat tires on it, but why would you? go farley if you want that.

    why would you go + on a fatbike or regular skinny wheels on a plus bike? THAT i just don't get.

    again tho, the bike looks SICK!

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Yeah that green is the one I'd pull the trigger on too - swapped with the 7 build kit tho.
    I ride a trail with a few turns that are 6' radius - so I'd be worried a bit about those huge wheels as well.

  75. #75
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    the plastic fork is legit too. seamless with the frame. this customer sold his sweet blue alu beargrease and is gonna run the stache all winter in the snow cuz honeybadger don't give a $hit

    i'll prolly hook up with him as he wants to check out the killer dozens of miles of snowmo trails that are near my house. i'll get to see how his wagon wheel 3's do compared to my 4's

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,736
    As a owner of a 6 i would be getting a 7. Adding some blue to it and riding the hell out of it! 150 front? Could ad a bluto and would have a cheaper nicer 9 with 5" tires and a less expensive drive to destroy in the winter.
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    As a owner of a 6 i would be getting a 7. Adding some blue to it and riding the hell out of it! 150 front? Could ad a bluto and would have a cheaper nicer 9 with 5" tires and a less expensive drive to destroy in the winter.
    Yep - with my DTswiss rims and hubs, XT brakes and Enve bar I figure l'll have a Farley 10

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by billbiwer View Post
    I just went in to pre-order a new Farley 5 and the sales guy recommended I go with a 19.5 based on my 5'10" height and 32" inseam. I assumed I would best fit on a 17.5 but he explained that for around here (Minneapolis, MN) I'd primarily be riding in not very deep snow and occasionally deeper stuff.

    My intended use for the bike will most likely be a daily commuter (in winter), single track (4 season) and I'd like to also be able do some exploring on unplowed/ungroomed stuff as well. So a little of everything. He recommended that if the 19.5 felt to big on deeper stuff I could get a dropper post to help.

    I know the best route is to just try them out, but they didn't have any of last years models to try unfortunately. He said if I didn't like how the 19.5 feels/rides after they get it in I could switch to a 17.5.

    I'm just curious if people here think this all checks out. It'll also be my first foray into mountain biking and I don't want to end up on something to big to comfortably maneuver. I trust what the guy is saying, just want to get some second opinions.


    Thanks.
    I'm 5'11" with a 32" inseam. I also thought 17.5" would be correct for me, but my dealer (two guys that both own fatbikes themselves) highly recommended the 19.5" as well. I did test ride a 15.5" Farley which felt small, did a lot of reading online, and ultimately decided the 19.5" (18.5" actual frame size mind you) seemed legit. I pre-ordered it.

  79. #79
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    I'm 5'11" with a 32" inseam. I also thought 17.5" would be correct for me, but my dealer (two guys that both own fatbikes themselves) highly recommended the 19.5" as well. I did test ride a 15.5" Farley which felt small, did a lot of reading online, and ultimately decided the 19.5" (18.5" actual frame size mind you) seemed legit. I pre-ordered it.
    yer 5'11", not 5'10". i'm 5'11.5 and wear 32 pant and i'm 19.5 fer sure. but if i were 5'10" with similar leg length, my reach might not be ideal for the 19.5 and closer to 17.5.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    I generally ride "medium" sized bikes (17ish-18ish) and went with the 17.5 Farley 6. It supposedly fits like a size 16.5. I did ride the 19.5 (fits like an 18.5), and am about 5'10.5", no idea what my inseam was. They both felt pretty similar, with the 17.5 feeling a hair more comfortable.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  81. #81
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,796
    17.5 fits like a typical medium, 19.5 fits like a typical large.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by newmarketrog View Post
    yer 5'11", not 5'10".
    Thanks for reminding me, LOL.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    627
    Is the Trek 9.6 / 9.8 carbon frame available in a frame only option? Would love to swap over what I have onto one of those.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Yes, the 9.8 will be. At least according to the dealer site. No eta though. May just be listed for future warranty claims?

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

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    10
    I wish bike companies would start to make their bikes longer I'm 5"10 with 32" inseam and would want the 21.5" frame for the correct reach but I wouldn't have space to run a dropper seatpost as the seat tube is too long.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Uhh...if you need an XL frame for proper reach at 5'10" your inseam isn't the story here.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    10
    What can I say, wide bars short stem improve handling no end, but only when the frame is long enough.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Still not making sense from a fit standpoint, the bikes have short stems.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    10
    The XL has a 444mm reach, the same as my large enduro 650b which is spot on for me with a 50mm stem.
    I guess it comes down to how/where you ride. With the exception of a DH track I ride my fatbike in all the same places I ride my 160mm enduro, so for me at least a similar fit would be the goal

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    So came in to a built Farley 5 19.5


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    If you can, throw/hold (I know the hub is different) a set of Stache 29+ wheels in there and see how much clearance there is. I'm curious.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    22
    That's awesome! Does this mean that the Farley's are starting to roll in? I pre-ordered a 7 and can't wait to get my hands on it!

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    FYI: Looks like Trek dropped the MSRP across the board on the Farleys's

    9.8: $4799
    9.6: $2999
    9:$3199
    7:$2399
    5:$1729

    Farley - Trek Bicycle

    9.8 is really tempting. Would look really nice with the correct sized DT Swiss BR2250 wheels I just ordered. I wonder what I could sell the carbon 27.5" wheels and tires for?
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Sorry no 29+ stuff around here. They came in completely unexpected. Not sure how soon the others will ship. I have a 9.8 on order...can't wait!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Thanks for sharing the Farley 5 pic Natedeezy, can't wait to pick mine up soon!

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    Put my deposit down on a Farley today. Only one they have in the local shop now is a 5 but I am wanting either a 7 or 9.6 so it sounds like I will have first chance at whichever shows up first in my size. Can't really decide which until I can actually see them in person. I can see pros and cons to both. Do I really need a 4.7 in tire, but is the new 27.5 rim really necessary? On top of that, The owner of the store keeps trying to sell me the 9.8. I think that is way too much bike for my needs. At this point, it doesn't sound like I really have to make my decision until October, that is when they are scheduled to arrive. What would be youur model choice?

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzwardo View Post
    What would be youur model choice?
    Haven't we been answering that?

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    I'm busy researching the 27.5x4 wheels now but the bike I think I want is the 9.6. It's going to be ridden primarily in the winter and on tracks made by snowmobiles or on the sand near the water (packed). Since we get some freeze/thaw here, I'll probably add studs to the tires. I don't need or want suspension at this point. The 27.5's are probably a good improvement over the 26x4's in terms of patch size.

    If the 27.5's don't work, then I'll get a set of 26x5 wheels and have the best of both worlds. So that would be the downside.

    J.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    I'm busy researching the 27.5x4 wheels now but the bike I think I want is the 9.6. It's going to be ridden primarily in the winter and on tracks made by snowmobiles . Since we get some freeze/thaw here, I'll probably add studs to the tires. I don't need or want suspension at this point. The 27.5's are probably a good improvement over the 26x4's in terms of patch size.

    If the 27.5's don't work, then I'll get a set of 26x5 wheels and have the best of both worlds. So that would be the downside.

    J.
    This is pretty much where I stand right now. The only downside would be dropping a large amount of money on a 2nd wheel set.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    7, second summer wheel set maybe.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    I'm busy researching the 27.5x4 wheels now but the bike I think I want is the 9.6. It's going to be ridden primarily in the winter and on tracks made by snowmobiles or on the sand near the water (packed). Since we get some freeze/thaw here, I'll probably add studs to the tires. I don't need or want suspension at this point. The 27.5's are probably a good improvement over the 26x4's in terms of patch size.

    If the 27.5's don't work, then I'll get a set of 26x5 wheels and have the best of both worlds. So that would be the downside.

    J.
    The knob height/design of the 27.5 tires will determine if you can add studs. You'll need suitable knob width and and at least 5mm depth for grip studs.

    I'm still skeptical on the 27.5x3.8" tires performance in the snow. They would have a slightly longer contact patch, but their low profile sidewalks will really limit how low of a psi you can run due to the risk of dinging a rim. 3-4psi would get expensive really quick.

    Don't really have any options if they don't grip well either, aside from buying 26" wheels, as the only other available 27.5" tires at this point are skinnier. No studded options in 27.5 either at this point.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Paochow View Post
    Don't really have any options if they don't grip well either, aside from buying 26" wheels, as the only other available 27.5" tires at this point are skinnier.
    For anyone in the UK, for a while you won't even have the option to put a new 27.5" Hodag on if you wreck one beyond repair. According to Trek they're not going to be available till mid-November, somewhat after the bikes are due in (my 9 is due late September). And like you said, I've not seen tires in the same size from any other manufacturers yet, so there will be a few weeks of trying to avoid anything that might cut the tire up bad!

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzwardo View Post
    This is pretty much where I stand right now. The only downside would be dropping a large amount of money on a 2nd wheel set.
    Exactly.

    I'm trying to figure out what the contact patch size would be on the 27.5x4 compared to both the 26x4's and the 26x5's. I talked to Trek and they seemed to be of the opinion that if the terrain was mostly packed snow or even snowmobile tracks and the snow had set up at all (i.e. day old or so), the 27.5 would do well. It would also be fine on sand if it was less loose (i.e. near the water) and that it would be better in all cases than the 26x4's and slightly less floaty than the 26x5's. The tradeoff would be that it would be quicker in handling etc...

    If so, that would work for me and should be a pretty safe bet. If not, then the downside is the extra set of rims and I'd be set up for summer and winter well. I had sort of planned on that eventually anyhow thinking that the 5" tires are the ticket for the winter, but I wanted to avoid the expense all at once. My LBS is trying to figure it out as well and may just let me take first crack at either a 7 or the 9.6 so I can figure it out. I'd much prefer it if the 9.6 would work just because of the serious upgrade on frame and components. If the 27.5" wheel is what they say it is, then it's a no-brainer.

    J.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,555
    I have the 9 on order and mostly plan to use it on dirt,my feeling is it should be fantastic on dirt. Several of my friends have 2015 Farley's and all own several other bikes as well, it has become there go to bike now and seeing how much fun and how well fat tired bikes track and handle sold me on one. I would definitely build a set of 26 wheels for winter riding and just because!

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,195
    I am looking at building up a nice steel monstercross bike (Soma Wolverine), but this thread popping up has me getting firm in the pants over the Farley 7 again. Crap.
    it's a challenge some of us are ultimately worthy of.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by techfersure View Post
    I have the 9 on order and mostly plan to use it on dirt,my feeling is it should be fantastic on dirt.
    Me too!

    We don't get much snow round here so I'll probably take it somewhere that's had a good snowfall just to see how it goes, but it will be mostly on dirt in normal use unless we get a lot more snow than usual this winter (wouldn't mind if we do, actually!). Hoping the 27.5s will be really good for dirt use, but we'll see.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I'm thinking of ordering a set of Mulefut 27.5's for my 7 as an option for summer.
    I should be able to run those Hodags just fine, along with the normal + options.
    Yeah I think that's the sweet spot setup right there.
    Not interested in those wide 27.5 rims.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    LBS had a Farley 5 (15.5) in stock. Appears to have a ton of rear wheel clearance with the 4.7" tire, might even fit the 2XL snowshoe. The front clearance will likely be limited by the fork brace.

    Wasn't a fan of the sliding axle assembly, it's similar to those used on older motocross bikes- threaded rods on each side. On the motorcycle side they were a pain to align especially once they got dirty, although on a fatbike you probably won't have to adjust them often. On the plus side you can fine tune for your tire clearance, but I would think you'd either want it all the way forward or back and a two position flipper mount would be simpler, lighter, with less to go wrong.

    Barbegazi tires looked promising, and were reasonably wide. Looks to have more grip than a Jumbo Jim, but roll better than a GC or Bud/Lou.

    It was pouring rain and the bike was two sizes too small so I didn't ask to ride it. My LBS said they were expecting Farley 7's next week.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I had the same thoughts about the Barbegazi tires just from the pictures I've seen/promising.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    82
    Looking for Farley 5 carbon fork ? Thoughts ? Think Trek will sell one aftermarket ?

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    My thought is get the 7 - problem solved. You'll end up spending the same - more or less. Maybe a few hundred more than getting a carbon fork later.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Why not just go for the Farley 7 with the carbon fork and a few other upgrades.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,736
    This is like the 15" wide or 16" wide snowmobile mountain track debate
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    This is like the 15" wide or 16" wide snowmobile mountain track debate
    It is?

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    14
    Went to a local shop to order a 5 and they said "How would you like it tomorrow?" I'm a new member so thanks for all the info in this thread and the forum in general. It is an extremely helpful resource. Here are some pictures. I rode a sand dune area, crossed four beaches, gravel, pavement and some dirt single track for about 22 miles so far. I really like this bike. I had the tires at 8.5psi and everything felt pretty good.2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-dsc_0365.jpg2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-dsc_0366.jpg2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-dsc_0369.jpg2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-dsc_0370.jpg2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-dsc_0373.jpg
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-dsc_0402.jpg  


  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3
    Stopped by my local LBS on Saturday. He has a demo 2016 Farley 5 demo. I'm going to pick it up this week and take out to the local single track for an evening.

    Also put money down on a Farley 7.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Congrats Metal8. My Farley 5 should arrive sometime this week. Can't wait!

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    Congrats Metal8. My Farley 5 should arrive sometime this week. Can't wait!
    Make sure your weekend is clear. This bike will cause major distraction.

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Metal8 View Post
    Went to a local shop to order a 5 and they said "How would you like it tomorrow?"
    Looks good!

    Still got a month to wait for my 9, so pictures of Farleys are all I have to look at right now! Usefully, yours just reminded me to find my big water bottle - it won't fit in the frame on my FS trail bike so I've been using a smaller bottle, but the big one should be no problem on the Farley. That's good, now I have a totally rational justification for having ordered the bike.


  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Robg68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    498
    METAL8---your new Farley looks nice!! I love the flat black and orange.

  121. #121
    PUG U!!!
    Reputation: joboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    192
    Alright Trek heads
    Farley 5 or Surly Wednesday??
    College age son wants to get Fat!!

    Peace, Joe

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Hard to wrong really. I'm guessing the Farley is a fair bit lighter.
    Love the color of the Surly though...

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by joboo View Post
    Alright Trek heads
    Farley 5 or Surly Wednesday??
    College age son wants to get Fat!!

    Peace, Joe
    Would love to hear others thoughts on this also! I put a deposit on a Farley 7, but am really loving the Wednesday!

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I have money on a 7 - no contest except for color.

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Both will be good just have to choose steel or aluminum.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3
    I put money down last weekend on a 7. My LBS has a new 5 in that's a demo. Going to take it for a ride soon.

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sparky697's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    85
    Farley will be more trail orientated. The Wednesday seems to be right in between a Pugs and an ICT.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky697 View Post
    Farley will be more trail orientated. The Wednesday seems to be right in between a Pugs and an ICT.
    I've been looking over the geometery quite a bit, they seem to be closely matched don't they? Or am I just ignorant to think that a 1/4" difference makes that huge of difference in the bb drop and chainstay and 3/4" in wheelbase? And the ht angles are the same. Trust me, I am no expert when it comes to this stuff, I am just looking at the numbers!

    I was kind of thinking it was just a decision between steel vs aluminum? Yes, the Surly will be heavier, but only by a couple pounds maybe?

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Got my Farley 5 last night, can't wait to take er for a spin today! Aesthetically, this bike looks incredible.

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    22
    Can't wait to hear your thoughts!

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Getting ready to build a Farley 7.....pics incoming


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Ugh... as if my wait wasn't going to be hard enough!

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,555
    I have the 9 on order but might have the option for the 9.6 and actually is a better deal even though some of the components are a step down,but not significant for overall performance,the cost of the 9.6 and pick up a Bluto for not much more then the cost of the 9 and have a carbon frame and the carbon fork for winter use.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    And here we go, love the purple pics don't do it justice.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    And here we go, love the purple pics don't do it justice.
    The purple looks pretty good to me even in the pics! Hard to say without seeing both in person, but I'd probably prefer the purple to the waterloo blue my 9 will be when it turns up. Not that I'm going to worry about how my bike looks, just how it rides.

    Speaking of which, looking forward to hearing how yours rides.

    And more pics if you get a chance.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    I don't mind the blue, but I don't think green was a wise choice for the graphics.

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    22
    Holy crap! That thing looks bad a**! Is that the weight with reflectors and pedals? Pretty impressive either way!

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Yes the blue and green does seem a bit of an odd combination. Might have to wear upside down foggles when I ride, or rose-tinted Oakleys...

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    That is without pedals, but it complete otherwise. 17.5" frame


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Can't wait for my 9.8 to come in....you know there will be pics....


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Natedeezy View Post
    Can't wait for my 9.8 to come in....you know there will be pics....
    Ditto with my 9 when it gets here. Do you have a delivery date yet for the 9.8?

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    117
    Not sure, I've heard late September.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Same here (UK), I've been told September 21st but that's an estimated date so I don't know whether they really have an exact day planned or it's just an educated guess. Presumably they should know by now what the shipping arrangements are to get the bikes into the UK, so I can only hope there's some sort of plan swinging into action!

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    I want my 9.8 so bad...time to order some R1 racing brakes to go with it!

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

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Yes, I've already got a few things waiting to be fitted as soon as it gets here. And I expect the pile will grow over the next week or two! Sad isn't it?

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Too be fair, it's not like the 9.8 really needs anything else. From current reviews and experience the Sram Guide brakes it comes with are supposed to be pretty solid. And the Race X lite stems are on par weight wise with the XXX lite carbon ones, just no where near as stiff and strong.

    I am just a Formula brand whore. I love the powr and weight. And I am a tinkerer by nature, so the temperamental nature of their brakes is ok by me.

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

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    The things I've got waiting aren't to replace anything, just additions like pedals and mudguards (so far...). I'm going to run with all the standard equipment at least to start with and see how things go before deciding whether to upgrade anything. I suspect it will mostly be fine for anything I want to do with the bike.

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    16
    Anyone ridden both a 2106 Fatboy and 2016 Farley? I'm a total noob to fatbikes, but rode a Farley 5 in a parking lot and was annoyed at my left heel hitting either the chainstay or crank. Seemed like the crank width was huge. I'm having a hard time finding apples to apples data, but I think the Farley has 121mm bottom bracket width vs 100mm for the Fatboy. Am I reading these specs right? Ultimately, I'm wondering if the pedal-to-pedal width is narrower on the Fatboy?

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    I missed the early boat, my 9.8 is coming in November..

    This will be the first bike in a long time that I don't think I will want to change anything on. The brakes are great, the drivetrain is great, the rest of the spec is excellent. Just have to remove the tubes and install my pedals. I might change the grips too...

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    @Grouch

    The bb width doesn't tell the Q factor story. It's all about the crankset. Comparing apples to apples (ie. Race face Next cranks on both bikes) they will have the same Q factor. I used the 170mm spindle on my 2015 Fatboy and the Farley is setup for the same 170mm spindle. You could swap to the 190 spindle if you wanted more width.

    I did find my calf would rub from time to time on the Fatboy seat stay. Will see what happens when I get my Farley.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    16
    It looks to me like the Farley 5 is already running a "190 spindle", based on the Race Face website showing 190mm for the Ride crankset with a max tire width of 5". Q factor = 222mm.

    http://www.raceface.com/comp/pdf/FAT...CLEARANCES.pdf
    Top line of the blue shaded area.

    Does the Fatboy get away with narrower spindle and q factor from being 1x, whereas the Farley 5 is 2X? I can't find any data on the Stout XC Pro crankset.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Holy *%@& batman - just had an email to say that my Farley 9 has arrived at the store and they'll be contacting me about arranging collection in the next day or two! Quite a surprise given that the expected delivery date wasn't till 21st September. Not that I'm complaining, you understand.

    I heard they were supposed to be released at the start of September but I was assuming there would be shipping time to get to the UK after that, so I'm only hoping it isn't some sort of error where they've sent the email by mistake and the bike's not actually here yet. How frustrating would that be?


    I'll know for sure soon enough. Anyway, must go as there were a few things I was going to order up so I'd have them before the bike arrived, but I wasn't rushing as I thought I had plenty of time...

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Apparently the email was correct, just had the phone call and the bike's ready to collect so I'm out the door right now to go get it!

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    I am jealous. I haven't heard anything about mine yet. I guess I will just have to going riding to help stem the anxiety.

  155. #155
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    907
    Looking for some answers from the folks that have picked up the new bikes

    Trek lists chainstay length and that it has 15mm of adjustability, but doesn't state what position was measured for the geometry chart, anyone care to fill me in?

    Which position was the bike set in for wheelbase length?

    Also since they are talking about running reg 29er wheels with the adjustable dropout, does the 4.7 tire fit in the frame if the dropout is adjusted all the way forward or is it simply for some other smaller diameter tires?
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  156. #156
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    75

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

    The geo charts are based around having the sliders all the way forward (440mm cs) 4.7" tires fit just fine with the sliders in their shortest position. Most of the bikes I've seen have been shipping with the sliders in their longest setting, just remove the plastic spacer and adjust the stays to the length you desire. The plastic spacer is only there for CPSC and other regulatory reasons, it has no structural purpose.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  157. #157
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by [TA] View Post
    The geo charts are based around having the sliders all the way forward (440mm cs) 4.7" tires fit just fine with the sliders in their shortest position. Most of the bikes I've seen have been shipping with the sliders in their longest setting, just remove the plastic spacer and adjust the stays to the length you desire. The plastic spacer is only there for CPSC and other regulatory reasons, it has no structural purpose.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thanks for saving me some time

    can I pick you brain for one more thing?

    I assume all trek geometry does not take into account suspension sag, that would explain the geometry differences between the farley 7 and 9?
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    Anyone tried slapping a set of 29+ wheels in their new Farley?

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tadraper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by corsair77 View Post
    Apparently the email was correct, just had the phone call and the bike's ready to collect so I'm out the door right now to go get it!
    Waiting to see some photos of the new bike!!!

  160. #160
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    Thanks for saving me some time

    can I pick you brain for one more thing?

    I assume all trek geometry does not take into account suspension sag, that would explain the geometry differences between the farley 7 and 9?
    Full disclosure, our geo charts are in serious need of an update. For the most part the charts take into account SAG. The geometry differences between the 7 and 9 are due to the difference in axle to crown of the rigid fork vs the Bluto. Our rigid fork has a 490mm axle to crown, the 100mm Bluto has a 521mm axle to crown. At 10% SAG the Bluto will be about 500mm AtC, which will make for small differences in geometry.
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  161. #161
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Matterhorn View Post
    Anyone tried slapping a set of 29+ wheels in their new Farley?
    29+ will fit the 2016 Farley just fine.
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tadraper View Post
    Waiting to see some photos of the new bike!!!
    This will have to do for a start. By the time I got back it was getting dark so it's a flash photo and looks a bit washed out and the green bits came out looking an odd colour. Having seen it in person though, the blue has a really nice matt finish and I'm starting to like it! Just hope it still looks like that when it's been muddied and cleaned a few times...

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-p1000385a.jpg

    I'll try to get some pictures in daylight when I get the chance.

    I spent this evening fitting pedals etc, setting everything up and going tubeless (saved 727g total). I'll be trying to sneak away from work for a quick ride after lunch tomorrow, to see how she goes. Did do a quick circuit or three round the garden just to make sure everything works, and so far so good!


    BTW, re the rear axle sliders, mine also came with the axle all the way back and the plastic spacers fitted.

    And as discussed on another thread, in the time it took me to wheel the bike 10 yards from the sales desk out the front door of the bike shop, 4 different people asked me about it or said something along the lines of "nice bike". This was not happening to any of the other people wheeling bikes in and out of the store!

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    22
    The suspense is killing me on some ride reports! Oh, and a phone call to tell me mine has come in!

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tschram72 View Post
    The suspense is killing me on some ride reports! Oh, and a phone call to tell me mine has come in!
    Some people are so impatient!

    I managed to get away from work for a couple of hours, and did 12 miles with about half of it off road on local byways. There's still a few things to sort out, like a set of riser bars as I prefer to be a bit more upright, but it's now running tubeless and had the basic setup done for fork pressure etc.

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-20150901_163909a.jpg

    This is my first fat bike, and also my first 1x11 (I'm used to 2x10) so I can't compare it with other fat bikes. At first it felt bouncy at the rear end when pedalling quickly, which is no doubt something I can alter with tyre pressures. In any case I soon found that it only happened when I was at the point where I'd be thinking about changing up a gear, so spinning quite quickly, and if I actually did change up it settled down right away to running much more smoothly. Once I started changing up a bit earlier and running a higher gear, I didn't notice it as a problem any more.

    That actually turned out to be quite useful as one of my concerns was that the lowest gear is somewhat higher than on my 29er and I wasn't sure whether I'd be able to manage climbs ok, especially as I'm just getting going again after quite a long enforced break, but I was surprised to find that even now while I'm not at all fit I could take some of the hills in second where I'd normally be in first! Not quite sure how that works, but in general it actually seemed easier to pedal than my 29er, which I wasn't expecting. Either that or I've gotten much fitter while not exercising and putting on weight (which of course means I'm having to pull more up the hills than I was) - that seems unlikely...

    To be fair, I've started off with tyre pressures that are too high (20psi) and I'm going to work my way down trying different pressures till I see what works for me (with kit I'm over 110kg so I don't think I'll be running at low psi for a while or the rims will get a bashing). Half of every ride will always be on the road to join the trails together, so it's going to be a compromise. I did drop the pressures to 17psi half way round and that definitely felt better on the trail sections with no real difference I could tell on the road, so I'll try going a bit further next time out.

    Handling felt very good, though there wasn't anything really testing on the trails I had time to do. Did do one steep downhill on the road and got up to nearly 40mph, and it was completely stable which is good to know!

    I set the fork pressure as per the RockShox guidelines, but it felt very stiff even with the compression damping on minimum. Is that a common thing with the Bluto? I'll check the sag properly when I get time as I'm sure it's not using anywhere near the full stroke at the moment so the pressure may need to come down a ways.

    Would have helped if I'd thought to slide the rubber o-ring down the stanchion before I rode, so I'd know how much travel it actually was using (hey, I was working on it till after midnight, give me a break!).


    Overall, even with the few things that still need sorting out it was great fun to ride and despite the quite high tyre pressures it felt like it had more grip than my 29er and just rolled over everything in a very reassuring way. Remains to be seen what happens when it gets really muddy or I hit more challenging trails, but so far so good!

    Even the stock saddle's reasonably comfortable - I was going to fit one of my WTB saddles, but I'll leave the stock one on now till I do a longer ride and see how it goes as it may actually be better than the WTB.

    So all things considered, especially finding that it's much easier to pedal than I thought it might be after hearing some stories, I'm very happy!


    BTW: Sorry, I can't help with the phone call about yours arriving.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    Way too much air pressure. You should be in the 8-12 range. IF that

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

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Quote Originally Posted by DukeNeverwinter View Post
    Way too much air pressure. You should be in the 8-12 range. IF that

    Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
    I'm not sure I'd go as low as 8psi on a 27.5", especially in the rocks. These tires have close to an inch less sidewall than a 26" fat tire so less room for error.
    ‘19 Fargo Ti
    '17 Cutthroat
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    Has anyone got their hands on a Farley 9.8 yet? I know it has all the bells and whistles but is it $2000 better than the 9.6. My LBS has a 9.8 coming in early next week and I need to make a decision quick to put my name on it if I want it.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    I almost went 9.6 but for the parts upgrade is a good value. I felt a no brainer to go 9.8. Way better brakes, the best cranks, more carbon parts, full carbon fork,drivetrain upgrade and of course carbon wheels.

    I suppose if you are going to change all the parts the 9.6 is the way to go.

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3
    Depends on your riding style. Main reason I ordered a 9.8 is the carbon rims, although I like other upgrades as well. If you like to hit corners hard, removing weight from the rims will lesson the gyroscopic effect and the bike will be easier to lean over at speed. It will also be easier to accelerate, this being most noticeable in taller gears. At lower speeds you will not notice the benefits nearly as much.
    Last edited by kota12; 09-05-2015 at 10:37 PM.

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    Never had carbon wheels or the carbon steerer. How will they hold up to a bigger guy? This would be my most expensive bike ever so I am a little nervous about pulling the trigger.

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by crohnsy View Post
    I almost went 9.6 but for the parts upgrade is a good value. I felt a no brainer to go 9.8. Way better brakes, the best cranks, more carbon parts, full carbon fork,drivetrain upgrade and of course carbon wheels.

    I suppose if you are going to change all the parts the 9.6 is the way to go.
    Yes. The carbon wheels alone are worth $1500+. You also get better cranks, drive train and brakes. I have the guide brakes on my bike and I love them. If you can afford it, go with the 9.8

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzwardo View Post
    Never had carbon wheels or the carbon steerer. How will they hold up to a bigger guy? This would be my most expensive bike ever so I am a little nervous about pulling the trigger.
    They will be as durable or more durable than alloy. Being a bigger guy you will appreciate the additional wheel stiffness.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    509
    Well looks like you guys sold me on the 9.8. Hopefully by Wednesday next week I have a new badass bike.

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    FWIW I think the 7 with a 29+ wheel set for summer, or when you're in the mood for that is the sweet spot. That's the route I'm taking. This way I can run 3.8" to 4.8" on the stock rims, then 29+ sometimes. Huge tire selection, Max versatility.

    I think the 27.5 rims should have been 65mm to maximize the mass advantage. As it stands, I'm not going to bother with them since tire selection is also an issue.

    For what I'm spending on upgrades I can easily get one of the 9's. I just keep coming back to the 7 FTW.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    152
    There may be lots of choice in the 26 fat but 27.5 fat will increase. I imagine(hope) Kenda and Maxxis will use interbike to release their 27.5x4 tires.

    The Hodag was/is a quality tire at 26" so I think it will remain quality at 27.5. I'm confused as to why Bontrager didn't release their new tire models in 27.5.

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Perhaps, but you're still left with an 80mm rim when narrower would be better.
    See here's the 'problem' as I see it - and there really isn't a problem strictly speaking - these are nice bikes. What I see as the issue, or the less than ideal situation though is that Trek had an idea about making a faster wheel set, but they didn't take it far enough. They stopped short of taking their own logic to it's conclusion. They're attempting to straddle 2 different modes here in an effort to stay fat, but go faster.

    What they should have done IMHO is gone with a 65mm, 27.5 wheel and a true to size 3.5" Hodag or Chuppie, or similar tire. THAT would make this whole 27.5 "fast" thing worthwhile. Or even a 65mm rim with the 4" Hodag tire - when as it stands it's simply a limitation the way I see it. Less than ideal tire profile (still fine, just not ideal) lower sidewall, wider rim than needed (heavier than need be) and not quite fat enough for softer snow conditions, but yet not as fast as it could be for dry conditions. Too much hedging bets here, and scored well, but missed the bullseye slightly with the 9's - again IMHO. I could ride one and be happy with it - still nice bikes, but the money shot for bang/buck and versatility is the 7 with a second wheel set. Or just leave it.

    I'm waiting for Interbike, and if someone steps up with a nice but reasonable 65mm rim (think Mulefut) then that will be my second wheel set instead of the 29+. We'll see.

    Also waiting to see what, if anything happens with fat suspension forks. I feel like I might screw myself if I pull the trigger on a Bluto right now, and still convinced I even want squish anyway.
    Last edited by Gambit21; 09-04-2015 at 06:59 PM.

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3
    I disagree with that. 80 mm rim will be faster in the winter on all but the hardest snow conditions and 29+ will be better in the summer in my opinion. And I hope the 27.5 is popular enough for others to release tires soon. Imagine a set of 27.5, 80 mm wide rims with a flowbeist and dunderbeist.

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Not really the point, nor does it relate to what I typed... but no matter. I hope more tires come along in that category as well.

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by [TA] View Post
    29+ will fit the 2016 Farley just fine.
    I thought so but when I email T-wreck directly I was told to look at the Stache and that 29+ would not fit the Farley. Odd.

  180. #180
    Pure Evil
    Reputation: [TA]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    75
    They're probably thinking of the 2014-15 bike. 29+ will not fit the first GEN Farley. As the guy who designed both the Farley and Stache I assure you 29+ has gobs of room with the sliders all the way back and enough for dry conditions with them forward.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    |Trek Bicycle Corporation|

    Stalk me on Instagram

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    I believe you. Perhaps the customer service folks just made an error.

    Job well done on the Stache/Farley! Haven't looked at Trek (after riding for 30 years) since my 2011 Rig. I might be back on board.

    Keep it up TA.

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,385
    Oh, and TA why no love for the tall folks? Likely not your call but I found the XL Stache to be too small. Short, low, and cramped. Maybe an XXL? The numbers seem similar to the Krampus but that frame feels better. Doesn't ride better though.

    Haven't had a chance to ride a 16' Farley. Will it feel bigger? More stack and reach might be nice.

    I'm 5'18" for reference.

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Has anyone seen a 9.6 in stores yet

    If not, do we have a date for when they should be arriving?

    Also, is there a weight posted for the 9.6 anywhere?

    Thanks

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Nope, nothing reliable, and nope.

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    ^

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81

    couple pics of my 9.8

    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-farley-29-plus.jpg
    with my 29 plus wheelset just to see if they would fit. They do.
    2016 Trek Farley 5, 7, 9, 9.6, and 9.8 Fat Bikes-stock-farley.jpg
    Stock at 22lbs setup Single Speed.

    It is a 17.5" and an absolute blast to ride. i have not ridden it in 29+ as i dont have the right width hubs..........yet. i'd guess it will be around 20lbs setup that way. as my plus wheelset is 3lbs lighter than the wampas with hodags.

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    22
    22lbs......with pedals? Tubeless? Single speed....

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    944
    What, how did you get yours! I preordered mine in May! I hate you, only because I am jealous.

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

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Took my Farley 5 out for its first spin today. Did some off-road trails and a single track. Coming from a junker Target bike, I'm absolutely blown away by the quality. It's such a blast. Can't wait to go out on my next ride. What do you guys think about going tubeless?

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    Nobody on this board would recommend going tubeless.

    Tubeless is cool. Does the 5 have the Mulefut rims? If so should be easy.

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    OK. I got off my lazy *ss, and looked at the spec's for the 5. They do come with the Mulefut 80's. Good thread on tubeless set up: http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/my-...th-948032.html

    nuf said here.

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    I had my LBS order the goods already to make it tubeless, but I haven't had the time to get it in the shop to have them do it yet. I'm a bit concerned with the maintenance I'm reading about with tubeless and temperature changes. Should I give it a try or stick with tubes? Anyone else going go tubeless?

    Thanks for that link krapper. I read through it, but I'm not sold yet. I'm afraid of potential flats and temperature drops affecting the sealant. Thoughts?

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brock Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    38
    Silver2ks4-

    Have you ridden much dirt yet? What's your initial thoughts on the 27.5s and how they ride? Did you have a 26" fatbike before tis as well to compare them to?

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by mkdiehl View Post
    22lbs......with pedals? Tubeless? Single speed....
    yes to all of the above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Photo View Post
    Silver2ks4-

    Have you ridden much dirt yet? What's your initial thoughts on the 27.5s and how they ride? Did you have a 26" fatbike before tis as well to compare them to?
    they ride very well. Tons of cornering grip and very predictable with minimal self steer. my only other fatbike experience was a weekend with a geared beargrease on 26 x 3.8 knards. both bikes are equally fun and handle about the same. the knards seamed to roll a little better from what i remember.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,604
    thanks. will be intereted in your thoughts on 29+ vs 27.5x4... im guessing the diameter of the wheels are within mm....kinda isolating the tyre effect. bike looks good!

    Quote Originally Posted by silver2ks4 View Post
    yes to all of the above.

    they ride very well. Tons of cornering grip and very predictable with minimal self steer. my only other fatbike experience was a weekend with a geared beargrease on 26 x 3.8 knards. both bikes are equally fun and handle about the same. the knards seamed to roll a little better from what i remember.
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by moshock View Post
    I had my LBS order the goods already to make it tubeless, but I haven't had the time to get it in the shop to have them do it yet. I'm a bit concerned with the maintenance I'm reading about with tubeless and temperature changes. Should I give it a try or stick with tubes? Anyone else going go tubeless?

    Thanks for that link krapper. I read through it, but I'm not sold yet. I'm afraid of potential flats and temperature drops affecting the sealant. Thoughts?
    Before you opt out of tubeless because of concerns about cold weather, check out this Bike Rumor link: Tire Pressure and the Cold: Bontrager?s PSI Conversion Chart Will Keep You Inflated This Winter

  197. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    The difference is about .5" in diameter. comparing to my Gnarvester the Gnar is a rocket ship in straight line speed and flowy single track. the Farley handles tighter trails better and with the plus wheels only raising the bb .25" i think it is gonna be the better bike overall. plus its 4lbs lighter than the gnar now but the gnar does have an MRP stage on it. i cant wait to put some plus wheels on the Farley.

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn View Post
    thanks. will be intereted in your thoughts on 29+ vs 27.5x4... im guessing the diameter of the wheels are within mm....kinda isolating the tyre effect. bike looks good!
    29+ effectively keeps the outer diameter of the wheels the same - Chupies on 50mm Mulefuts are only 3mm larger/outer diameter. So things stay basically the same as the stock setup. Going with 27.5+ will lower the bottom bracket by a larger degree -still most likely not a problem, but measurably different than the stock setup.

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    22
    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!

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    22
    My LBS in regional Aus just notified me that my new Farley 5 has been built up. Dead keen to pick it up & go ride. Trips planned are a short one to catch the tail end of our highly variable snow season in the High Country, then a beach-biking cruise with the fam to South Aus's Limestone coast in November.
    I see fat bikes as the legit evolution of the true all-terrain bike from a retro-grouch perspective, for back country exploring rather than racing and high-buck sponsored exposure such as racing and Red Bull events.
    With developments beyond the obvious tyre & rim technology, such as hydroformed alu frames, sealed bearings, hydraulic discs and dry type chain lubes rather than long travel & multi pivot full suspension, the fat bike keeps it real in the original spirit of just ridin' around.
    Anyway, 'nuff cogitating: time to go and ride!!

Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2015 Trek Farley 6 and 8 fat Bikes
    By Robg68 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1899
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 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: 165

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.