2017 Fuel EX Official Post- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 18 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 3577
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,071

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    A significantly different bike, in both 29er and 27+ shoes, so a new thread seems appropriate.

    As an owner, I found last year's thread very useful and informative.

    Let the fun -- and pics -- begin!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    379
    I'm a bit worried about the reports of poor climbing ability. I know they're different beasts but the Scott Spark 120mm platform sounds interesting.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    I'm planning on selling my Scott Spark to go to the new Trek Fuel ex plus. Would love to hear more about it though.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    I'm planning on selling my Scott Spark to go to the new Trek Fuel ex plus. Would love to hear more about it though.
    What about the new Spark platform?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Hadn't even looked. Thanks. Will do now!


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Real quick, my goal is to get away from the aggressive cockpit of an xc bike. I test rode the trek today after a ride on my current Scott. I felt like I was on a beach cruiser but it felt good. I wasn't in my shoes and the seat wasn't at my ideal height, but it felt good. But I will certainly do some more homework.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,660
    I am interested to see what the geometry will be like. It sounds like a slight departure from last years bike. Is the 29er going to have the same numbers as the new 27.5+? I would like to know what the low and high setting will offer for numbers. At any rate I am seriously looking to sell my RIP9 this fall for a EX9. My local dealer emailed me the specs of the EX9. At any rate it looks like the ex9 will have most everything I would want. Only thing I would do is change out the grips for something with more shock absorption and maybe a carbon bar and stem swap depending on the length that comes stock.
    2017 Santa Cruz Tallboy CC

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    I decided to go with the EX 8 plus! Size 21.5; I have yet to pick the bike up, but feel free to ask any questions about it.

    Pics:




    Looks very good being one the larger sizes imo... No separation of the down tube and top tube at the head tube, head tube isn't too long, etc.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Nice, thats the one I test rode (Ex8). I was thinking of getting the 9.8 with 29, which my LBS has, but in a 19.5 frame. And then I could get a 27.5 plus wheel set later. Any thoughts? Im on a 29er now.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Nice, thats the one I test rode (Ex8). I was thinking of getting the 9.8 with 29, which my LBS has, but in a 19.5 frame. And then I could get a 27.5 plus wheel set later. Any thoughts? Im on a 29er now.
    Did the LBS switch out the 27.5+ for the 29er wheels?

    or are they starting to get the 29er's in?
    Too Many .

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Getting the 29er's in as well.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Getting the 29er's in as well.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    Nice.
    It can go both ways.
    get the 29er build a 27.5+ wheelset
    get the 27.5+ and build a 29er wheelset

    Too Many .

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    I just researched. Slightly different fork. 29er 130 mm performance grip. 27.5+ 140 mm performance fit 4. Or at least these are the specs I'm finding


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    Nice.
    It can go both ways.
    get the 29er build a 27.5+ wheelset
    get the 27.5+ and build a 29er wheelset

    But yes, that's what I was thinking. Buy the 29er and build the 27.5 wheel set


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    But yes, that's what I was thinking. Buy the 29er and build the 27.5 wheel set


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    After seeing the specs with the forks between the two wheel sizes.
    I'd buy the 27.5+ and build the 29er.

    Fit4 is worth it also get the extra 10mm out of the box in travel
    Too Many .

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    I'm going to confirm it with my lbs tomorrow. Now that you put it that way, makes sense


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    $300 price difference too.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    After seeing the specs with the forks between the two wheel sizes.
    I'd buy the 27.5+ and build the 29er.

    Fit4 is worth it also get the extra 10mm out of the box in travel
    I'd look at the quality of the wheelsets, too. Depending how and where you intend ride each version of the bike, you may want the flexibility to build a custom wheelset for one use or the other.

    Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    My dilemma... I have a $4k budget. Preference on 29 at the moment.
    - I love the EX 9 spec, but I don't want a White bike.
    - EX 9.7 is an interesting choice and the color scheme is okay. I'd lose the Line Comp Wheels.
    - If I break budget and go to a 9.8, it specs a 2x11 which is annoying - conversion to 1x not bad, but few extra $
    - EX 8 is also a good option, in 29 I'd have to convert to 1x11 which is annoying.

    In the 9 vs 9.7, how much better would the Line Comp wheels feel?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
    My dilemma... I have a $4k budget. Preference on 29 at the moment.
    - I love the EX 9 spec, but I don't want a White bike.
    - EX 9.7 is an interesting choice and the color scheme is okay. I'd lose the Line Comp Wheels.
    - If I break budget and go to a 9.8, it specs a 2x11 which is annoying - conversion to 1x not bad, but few extra $
    - EX 8 is also a good option, in 29 I'd have to convert to 1x11 which is annoying.

    In the 9 vs 9.7, how much better would the Line Comp wheels feel?
    I feel much the same way, though I'm still up in the air re: 27.5+ and 29er.

    As of this morning I'm thinking the EX 8 in a 27.5+ (for the extra 10mm fork, 1x setup, and black/black/red color scheme), then take the little bit left over in my budget and build out an extra 29er wheelset, maybe with some chinese carbon for the minimal amount of racing that I do.

    My primary concern is those new Rhythm forks on the EX 8s. Any word on how they perform vs. the FIT4s?

  21. #21
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    The 2017 EX 9 comes with the 34 Float FIT4.

    It is Matte Silver (basically a silver/gray/titanium) with Blue graphics, not white. The white bikes you see are usually the prototypes.

    The EX 29ers come with the new Bontrager dropper post instead of the new Reverb- to me, that's a plus. I know the internals of the Reverb have been updated, but I've lost some trust now. The Bontrager post is simpler and lighter and Trek testers have been loving it as far as durability.

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_8766.jpg

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    It does say 'Matte Quicksilver' (looks so white on the site!), so that makes me feel better about it... but not excited. Hopefully I'll see one in person soon though

    I'm glad the Bonty dropper is testing well, even though I'm happy on a KS.

    I like your idea with the EX 8 27+ sciencemike. I'll have to demo those plus tires, but EX 8 spec is spot on at the price.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    The 29er comes with the fit4?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Is the 9 aluminum or carbon?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    The 29er comes with the fit4?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    Nope, neither of the EX 8s do. The EX 9s do, though. Specs for everything available here:

    Full-Suspension - Trek Bicycle Superstore

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Is the 9 aluminum or carbon?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    The 9 is Alloy / FIT4.
    The 9.7 is Carbon / Rhythm.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
    The 9 is Alloy / FIT4.
    The 9.7 is Carbon / Rhythm.
    Got it- was just wondering if there was a model between the 9 and 9.8. Ill stick with the 9.8 if I buy. THank you for clearing things up for me.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Got it- was just wondering if there was a model between the 9 and 9.8. Ill stick with the 9.8 if I buy. THank you for clearing things up for me.
    EX8 29er Rhythm 34 grip 130mm
    EX8 27.5+ Rhythm 34 grip 140mm
    EX9 29er Fox 34 fit4 130mm
    EX9.7 29er Rhythem 34 grip 130mm
    EX9.8 29er fox 34 grip 130mm
    EX9.8 27.5+ 34 Grip 140mm

    The 9.7 and 9.8's are carbon main frames alum. stays
    Too Many .

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    The 9.7 and 9.8's are carbon main frames alum. stays
    I'm pretty sure the 9.8 has carbon seatstays, aluminum chainstays.

    Not sure on the 9.7.

    9.9 is probably full carbon.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    EX8 29er Rhythm 34 grip 130mm
    EX8 27.5+ Rhythm 34 grip 140mm
    EX9 29er Fox 34 fit4 130mm
    EX9.7 29er Rhythem 34 grip 130mm
    EX9.8 29er fox 34 grip 130mm
    EX9.8 27.5+ 34 Grip 140mm

    The 9.7 and 9.8's are carbon main frames alum. stays
    Anyone know with these Fox 34 Grip forks, if you can change them from 130 to 140 by doing something internally?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Chader09 View Post
    I'm pretty sure the 9.8 has carbon seatstays, aluminum chainstays.

    Not sure on the 9.7.

    9.9 is probably full carbon.
    Correct


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  32. #32
    A-X
    A-X is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Correct


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    Trek has a tendency to stick with aluminium chain stays with their bigger 9.9 29er frames so there is a good chance this carries on with the plus frame also catering for 29er wheels.
    Bird Aeris : Remedy 9.9 29er : Procaliber 9.8 SL

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    I think I read somewhere it will be like the current year 9.9 which would mean carbon chain stays. But we will see


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    I was able to ride the 2017 Fuel EX 8 (650+) yesterday; my thoughts are below. For reference, I:

    - prioritize descending and handling performance, but I'm not willing to accept a bike that can't pedal and climb efficiently
    - like bikes with a super long reach (think Geometron or Mondraker long) and super slack head angles, though I usually have to pick a bike with only some of these characteristics
    - have recently been on several Plus bikes, including the Scott Genius 710, Santa Cruz Hightower, and Devinci Hendrix
    - am 183 cm (6') tall and rode the 21.5" size
    - currently own a Specialized Stumpjumper EVO that's been slighly lowered and slacked out with a 160 mm Lyrik

    First impression was that it feels quite "normal". Accelerates quickly, rolls quickly, steers lightly and low speeds, and pedals well. Seat position is "modern", meaning the effective seat angle is steeper than most bike in past years, though this is partially due to me riding a larger frame than intended for my height.

    At high speeds, the "fat bike" handling (highly responsive to lean, but unresponsive to steering) is present, but modest. Surprisingly, 2.8" tires rarely exhibit much of it, but the 3.0" tires on the Hendrix were terrible for it.

    Trek's RE:aktiv shock did exactly what they claim: for a given level of low-speed damping selected via the lever, the shock was significantly smoother on sharp impacts, yet remained supporting for climbing and didn't blow through the travel. It felt like a preview of a next-generation shock.

    The Fox Grip damper was surprisingly good. I haven't been a Fox fan in the past, but this left me with no complaints on my test ride, though I reserve judgement until I can take one on a truly intense descent.

    Chupacabra tires seemed to roll well and resisted lateral collapse, but traction wasn't great for a Plus tire (still far better than narrow tires, though). I would leave a Chupacabra on the rear and put a far superior Maxxis Rekon (3C) on the front.

    Pedal strikes were plentiful - and I'm used to a low bike. Still, I'd rather switch to 170 mm cranks than sabotage the handling with a higher BB.

    With the shock wide open, climbing seemed on par with the Scott and Santa Cruz: good, but not exceptional. With the shock on a firmer setting, climbing became very good, with minimal harshness and hang-up on rocks and roots. On most bikes, I climb with the shock wide open to maintain momentum over trail roughness; on this bike, the firmer settings did more good than harm.

    Picking up the bike, the front is light, suggesting a very light frame, but the rear seemed heavy. Unsure whether it's just heavy relative to a light front or whether the rear wheel and cassette were excessively heavy. My suspicion is that the carbon [correction: it's aluminum] frame is very expensive and its weight benefits are negated by the component sacrifices required to hit a price point (i.e. probably better to get the aluminum frame and lighter wheels and cassette).

    Handling strikes a good balance of quickness and stability. Felt similar to the Hightower and, unsurprisingly, many other bikes with similar geometry. Plus tires were well supported by the rims and struck a good balance of traction, lateral stability, and smoothness without excessive bounce or "fat bike" feel.

    Summary:
    - Achieved most of the Plus benefit with minimal drawbacks
    - Felt like many other modern trail bikes with similar geometry, which is a good thing
    - Set itself apart from competitors with the excellent RE:aktiv shock, which allows a better balance of efficiency and descending performance than I've found with other shocks
    - Did nothing wrong ... though I would prefer an even longer reach and slacker head angle; I have yet to determine whether angled headset cups will work on this frame
    Last edited by R-M-R; 07-02-2016 at 01:55 PM. Reason: Correcting an error

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Thanks for the review, very interesting. Just for clarification: You say you rode the 2017 Fuel EX 8? That's an aluminum frame, not carbon. Did you mean the 9.8?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemike View Post
    Thanks for the review, very interesting. Just for clarification: You say you rode the 2017 Fuel EX 8? That's an aluminum frame, not carbon. Did you mean the 9.8?
    Hmm ... Now I'm confused. It was definitely a single ring drivetrain and KS dropper post, yet I feel certain it was a carbon frame. Maybe the shop built up a carbon frame with the 8 kit? If it was aluminum, then - aside from raising questions about my sanity - that's a seriously light aluminum front triangle.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    That sounds exactly like the 8. Was the frame black with red accents?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    954
    Here is another curious thing about this new '17 Fuel EX 9.9 full carbon frame; it is no longer available in a 23" frame (which is really a 22" frame). Strange.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Do you have a link to the 9.9?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Do you have a link to the 9.9?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    Trek's official website (US version) doesn't have the full lineup on it yet. For some reason, the Trek Superstore has the frame-only full carbon listed. While this is certainly not the "definitive" answer, it suggests a good likelihood that Trek is not making the full frame sizes available in full carbon that they did with the '16 Fuel EX's.

    Trek Fuel EX Carbon Frameset - Trek Bicycle Superstore

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Interesting in the pic the chain stay looks like carbon as compared to the models with alum chain stays. Also description says performance shock again the pic looks like a factory model. Again I know I'm just looking at a pic. Hopefully we will have the definitive answer


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by R-M-R View Post
    Hmm ... Now I'm confused. It was definitely a single ring drivetrain and KS dropper post, yet I feel certain it was a carbon frame. Maybe the shop built up a carbon frame with the 8 kit? If it was aluminum, then - aside from raising questions about my sanity - that's a seriously light aluminum front triangle.
    If you were at the Calgary Cycle demo day yesterday, it was the 8. Alum frame. I've got one on order that should be here this week.

    I rode the Scott genius 710 non plus, the 5010 and the Bronson yesterday. All bikes that are more money than I want to spend. This will be my first DS bike and will be replacing a 17 year old hard tail. Your review suggests that I made a good choice. I've been on road bikes for the last 10 years. Madone and Domane. I seem to like Trek.

    I loved the 710. I'm seriously debating upping my budget to get one. We rode race of spades and family guy and swapped bikes part way through each trail.

    The 710 was much better and quicker turning. Both the Bronson and 5010 felt like busses.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by beastmaster View Post
    Trek's official website (US version) doesn't have the full lineup on it yet. For some reason, the Trek Superstore has the frame-only full carbon listed. While this is certainly not the "definitive" answer, it suggests a good likelihood that Trek is not making the full frame sizes available in full carbon that they did with the '16 Fuel EX's.

    Trek Fuel EX Carbon Frameset - Trek Bicycle Superstore
    Usually:
    - 9.7 carbon main frame, alloy seat and chainstay.
    - 9.8 carbon main frame, carbon seatstay, allow chainstay.
    - 9.9 caron main frame, seatstay and chainstay

    That frame looks full carbon to me, I'd imagine they will also do that on a complete bike.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110


    Here's the Ex 9.9:

    -Full carbon
    -looks like eagle x01 drivetrain


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,003
    Yes it will have Eagle XX1.

  46. #46
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Interesting in the pic the chain stay looks like carbon as compared to the models with alum chain stays. Also description says performance shock again the pic looks like a factory model. Again I know I'm just looking at a pic. Hopefully we will have the definitive answer


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    The Trek Bicycle Superstore photos aren't accurate at all. I'm curious where they even get the photos they have up.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Velokid1 View Post
    The Trek Bicycle Superstore photos aren't accurate at all. I'm curious where they even get the photos they have up.
    Didn't somebody indicate that all Fuel EX info would be up on the Trek consumer website by the 30th?

    If so, we'll know a lot more then.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  48. #48
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    dealers got the announcement on the 23rd, including photos and specs on the dealer website, which is where the accurate photos in this forum have come from, like the matte silver EX9 vs the 2x white version on the Superstore website. Trek gives dealers 7-10 days to actually get bikes in stock before making announcement to public, magazines and publications, and updating the consumer website.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    I believe 6/30 was an estimate. But lets hope its legit.

    I'm still wavering between the EX 9 and EX 8 Plus. I'm worried that 27+, while fun & fast, would make my OH/KY/IN trails seem too easy eventually. I loved demoing 27+, but owning it might slow down my improvement as a rider. I'm 27, been mountain biking for less than 2 years. On the other hand, the plus would give me more confidence when traveling to take on some bigger chunk.

    I'm also looking at the Transition Smuggler 3, but it I have virtually no chance of demoing it

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
    I believe 6/30 was an estimate. But lets hope its legit.

    I'm still wavering between the EX 9 and EX 8 Plus. I'm worried that 27+, while fun & fast, would make my OH/KY/IN trails seem too easy eventually. I loved demoing 27+, but owning it might slow down my improvement as a rider. I'm 27, been mountain biking for less than 2 years. On the other hand, the plus would give me more confidence when traveling to take on some bigger chunk.

    I'm also looking at the Transition Smuggler 3, but it I have virtually no chance of demoing it

    Im 42, been mountain biking for over 10 years and I'm still as slow as molasses . But I too am in the same dilema, my first thought was get the 29 and build the 27.5+ wheel set. But with the difference in the fork (9.8), now Im thinking +. But according to current specs, the 29 comes with the line seat dropper versus ther reverb on the plus, and Ive the reviews are solid on the line dropper. decisions decisions. My LBS is going to check into the fork, that if I go 29, if the fork can be adjusted to 140mm later on.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    25
    I'm curious about the Line Comp wheels that are on the EX 29. I'm guessing they are about a $600 retail wheelset? The width is nice I hope they're not too heavy.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by jkinnee View Post
    I'm curious about the Line Comp wheels that are on the EX 29. I'm guessing they are about a $600 retail wheelset? The width is nice I hope they're not too heavy.
    I'm wondering, too. I just hope they are sub-1900g, are wide and strong, and have the 54pt engagement of the more expensive Line series wheels.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    I'm curious about the Line Comp wheels as well. How wide are the Duster Elites?

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,660
    Just got back from the LBS. I just ordered a Superbly for the wife to replace an old Trek 3700. I have interest in the EX9 and they brought up the spec page for the 2017. It looks like the HA is going to be 67 low setting and 67.7 in the high for the 29er version. The CS was 433,434, 0r 435 cannot remember.....but about the same as the 2016's. The stem was 60mm long. These measurements were for a 17.5 or 18.5
    2017 Santa Cruz Tallboy CC

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    That sounds exactly like the 8. Was the frame black with red accents?
    I realize it sounds just like the 8, but I'm pretty sure it was the carbon front triangle.

    Just called the shop and spoke to an employee who hasn't seen the demo bikes, but says they're the 8, so it's likely it was just a basic 8.

    I suppose we can conclude:
    1. I'm crazy
    2. It's a very light aluminum frame

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by benyl View Post
    If you were at the Calgary Cycle demo day yesterday, it was the 8. Alum frame. I've got one on order that should be here this week.

    I rode the Scott genius 710 non plus, the 5010 and the Bronson yesterday. All bikes that are more money than I want to spend. This will be my first DS bike and will be replacing a 17 year old hard tail. Your review suggests that I made a good choice. I've been on road bikes for the last 10 years. Madone and Domane. I seem to like Trek.

    I loved the 710. I'm seriously debating upping my budget to get one. We rode race of spades and family guy and swapped bikes part way through each trail.

    The 710 was much better and quicker turning. Both the Bronson and 5010 felt like busses.
    I was indeed at the 22X demo!

    Interesting that you found the handling of the 710 so different from the 5010, as their geometries are similar. The lower BB and shorter chainstays of the 5010 should make it quicker, if anything, though the steeper head angle of the Scott (especially if it was in the High position) could make its steering feel lighter.

    If you haven't been on a Plus bike, you'll find the steering feels heavier than with narrow tires. It's almost imperceptible at low speeds, but becomes prominent at high speeds. I felt the Fuel EX struck a good balance between stability and quickness and managed the quirks of wide tires as well as any bike I've tested, though I still think all bikes should be much longer and slacker.

    I do think you made an excellent choice. If pedal/crank strikes are a concern, swap the cranks for 170 mm.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by R-M-R View Post
    I realize it sounds just like the 8, but I'm pretty sure it was the carbon front triangle.

    Just called the shop and spoke to an employee who hasn't seen the demo bikes, but says they're the 8, so it's likely it was just a basic 8.

    I suppose we can conclude:
    1. I'm crazy
    2. It's a very light aluminum frame
    The new frames have extremely smooth welds, so it may have looked carbon.

    Another thing, I previously said that I went with the Ex 8 plus, but I have decided to order an Ex 9 instead through my lbs. Based on the huge interest in this bike, I will be more than willing to answer questions about it when it comes in.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    The new frames have extremely smooth welds, so it may have looked carbon.

    Another thing, I previously said that I went with the Ex 8 plus, but I have decided to order an Ex 9 instead through my lbs. Based on the huge interest in this bike, I will be more than willing to answer questions about it when it comes in.
    What time frame did they give you? And ya I'm super curious about what the 'Matte Quicksilver' looks like in person.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
    What time frame did they give you? And ya I'm super curious about what the 'Matte Quicksilver' looks like in person.
    They said about one week. I hope the color looks as good as it does in the stock photos. I'll let you know!

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    The new frames have extremely smooth welds, so it may have looked carbon.

    Another thing, I previously said that I went with the Ex 8 plus, but I have decided to order an Ex 9 instead through my lbs. Based on the huge interest in this bike, I will be more than willing to answer questions about it when it comes in.
    Yes photos please!

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    Also, what made you decide to change from EX 8 Plus to EX 9?

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
    Also, what made you decide to change from EX 8 Plus to EX 9?

    I just felt that the Ex 9 was a much better value given the price difference and that i wanted a 29er out of the gate. Building a decent 29er wheelset for the Ex 8 plus would have brought the money spent on the bike really close to the price of the ex 9, but I still wouldnt have all of the other better parts of the ex 9.

    Just made more sense in the long run.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    106
    Picked up my EX 8 27.5+ today. Pretty stoked for the weekend.

    Rode around my neighbourhood tonight and I like it so far.

    Already modded it. Moved the dropper post lever to inside the brake so it doesn't rub my thumb.

    Got a 28T ring put on to replace the 32T. The granny is super granny. I'll see how it goes.

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0663.jpg

    What is this plastic shit? Did I pick this up from Walmart?

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0665.jpg

    Matte paint with red accents. Check out the pedal strike carnage already...

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0666.jpg

    The bike just floats over this pea sized gravel at a local park. I've set my tires to 20 PSI. Still have the tubes. Debating whether I should go tubeless.

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0667.jpg

    I am really liking the infinitely adjustable fork.

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0668.jpg

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Sweet! Post pic of the seat post lever remount please


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    106
    Sure, here's a few different angles. I might move it back and adjust my grip. The cable it kind of "out there." It was between the grip and the brake. It definitely tucked behind the brake in the original location. It definitely doesn't rub the scaphoid area.

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0670.jpg2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0671.jpg2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0672.jpg

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    36
    Nice pics benyl!

    Has anyone compared this new Fuel to the new Ibis Mojo 3? Both are 140/130 setups with tires that can go 2.8 wide. The Ibis has the flexibility to run regular 27.5 tires whereas Trek doesn't recommend it for the Fuel EX. Any thoughts and comparisons? Also, is the standover correct for the 15.5? Looks like a typo to me...

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by benyl View Post
    Sure, here's a few different angles. I might move it back and adjust my grip. The cable it kind of "out there." It was between the grip and the brake. It definitely tucked behind the brake in the original location. It definitely doesn't rub the scaphoid area.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0670.jpg 
Views:	508 
Size:	218.4 KB 
ID:	1079161Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0671.jpg 
Views:	448 
Size:	210.6 KB 
ID:	1079162Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0672.jpg 
Views:	1558 
Size:	214.3 KB 
ID:	1079163
    Size 21.5?

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    479
    will the suspension be affected by changing the ring size?

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    Ring size of what?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  70. #70
    A-X
    A-X is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Ring size of what?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    Chainring size.

    Some rear suspension systems will have their anti-squat optimised to a specific chainring size while pedalling.
    Bird Aeris : Remedy 9.9 29er : Procaliber 9.8 SL

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by A-X View Post
    Chainring size.

    Some rear suspension systems will have their anti-squat optimised to a specific chainring size while pedalling.
    That's what I figured, but didn't realize it impacted the suspension as well. Thank you for the education


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by A-X View Post
    Chainring size.

    Some rear suspension systems will have their anti-squat optimised to a specific chainring size while pedalling.
    How does that work with double and triple chainrings?

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by benyl View Post
    How does that work with double and triple chainrings?
    There's a tradeoff in performance.

    Is that a KS dropper? Their Southpaw lever is awesome, works like a shift lever. Or you could spend more for the Race Face version.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by benyl View Post
    Sure, here's a few different angles. I might move it back and adjust my grip. The cable it kind of "out there." It was between the grip and the brake. It definitely tucked behind the brake in the original location. It definitely doesn't rub the scaphoid area.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0670.jpg 
Views:	508 
Size:	218.4 KB 
ID:	1079161Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0671.jpg 
Views:	448 
Size:	210.6 KB 
ID:	1079162Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0672.jpg 
Views:	1558 
Size:	214.3 KB 
ID:	1079163
    Can't wait to hear what you think of it once you get to really get a feel or it. I'm stopping by my Trek dealer tomorrow to see if they might have one I can demo. I'm really starting to think about trading my 9.8 29er for the EX8 plus since they are in the same price range. I really don't think I will notice the little bit of extra weight in that vs. the carbon frame.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Just got off the phone with my LBS. Talked to them about ordering a 2017 Fuel EX 8 27.5+ in a size 19.5. They said that the ordering system shows expected delivery for that model isn't until late October!

    Strangely, the EX8 29ers show good availability (even though they're not officially out yet) so we may order one of those and swap parts with floor models of the 27.5+ that they have in stock.

    Still, sounds crazy to not have the plus models until late October. Anyone else run into this problem?

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemike View Post
    Just got off the phone with my LBS. Talked to them about ordering a 2017 Fuel EX 8 27.5+ in a size 19.5. They said that the ordering system shows expected delivery for that model isn't until late October!

    Strangely, the EX8 29ers show good availability (even though they're not officially out yet) so we may order one of those and swap parts with floor models of the 27.5+ that they have in stock.

    Still, sounds crazy to not have the plus models until late October. Anyone else run into this problem?
    That is weird. There are people on here that already have the EX8's so maybe they just did a first batch and they wont have anymore until then?

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemike View Post
    Just got off the phone with my LBS. Talked to them about ordering a 2017 Fuel EX 8 27.5+ in a size 19.5. They said that the ordering system shows expected delivery for that model isn't until late October!

    Strangely, the EX8 29ers show good availability (even though they're not officially out yet) so we may order one of those and swap parts with floor models of the 27.5+ that they have in stock.

    Still, sounds crazy to not have the plus models until late October. Anyone else run into this problem?
    I'm not ready to pull the trigger, but my LBS has the EX8 Plus in the store on the floor. And its $100 off. So hard not to just go buy it... I talked to them about the EX 9 and they have them available for order (one of the few apparently). They might bring a 9 in for stock so myself and others can check it out.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    The links have been pulled.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemike View Post
    Still, sounds crazy to not have the plus models until late October. Anyone else run into this problem?
    Yes. I ended up with an 18.5 instead of a 19.5 because the 19.5 were October delivery. The shorter reach is better for me anyway.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Sorry if this is a double post but the links have been pulled


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    The links have been pulled.
    Sorry, what links are you talking about?

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
    I'm not ready to pull the trigger, but my LBS has the EX8 Plus in the store on the floor. And its $100 off. So hard not to just go buy it... I talked to them about the EX 9 and they have them available for order (one of the few apparently). They might bring a 9 in for stock so myself and others can check it out.
    Yes. I ended up with an 18.5 instead of a 19.5 because the 19.5 were October delivery. The shorter reach is better for me anyway.
    Yeah, my LBS has 2017 Fuel EX 8 27.5+ models in sizes 17.5, 18.5 and 21.5 on the floor. But no 19.5, which is what I'm after (I'm 6'1", 34" true inseam).

    I'm going to throw my leg over the 18.5 and 21.5 next time I'm in the shop, but I'm not going to get a bike that doesn't fit just right.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    I went to look at the specs again from the links provided and it says its been pulled from their catalog

  84. #84
    A-X
    A-X is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    345
    I had similar issues last year when the Procaliber was first released. Certain sizes and colours were November/December delivery.
    Bird Aeris : Remedy 9.9 29er : Procaliber 9.8 SL

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    I went to look at the specs again from the links provided and it says its been pulled from their catalog
    Well that explains it

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Sorry. Meant the links provided in this forum towards the beginning of the posts


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Sorry. Meant the links provided in this forum towards the beginning of the posts
    You mean the Trek Bicycle Superstore links?

    Full-Suspension - Trek Bicycle Superstore

    They seem to be working for me. Actually, they now also have a page for the 2017 Farley 8, which I don't remember being there before (though maybe I just didn't notice it).

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemike View Post
    You mean the Trek Bicycle Superstore links?

    Full-Suspension - Trek Bicycle Superstore

    They seem to be working for me. Actually, they now also have a page for the 2017 Farley 8, which I don't remember being there before (though maybe I just didn't notice it).
    Try clicking the spec for a 2017 bike though, for me they haven't been working. For example I can't view the EX 9 2017 spec anymore.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Yes. Me too. I can see them listed but when you click on a specific one, you get the message.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  90. #90
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    You're right. Now all you can see is the EX 9 photo, which is nothing like the actual EX 9 bike that Trek is shipping.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Interesting! Yeah, I see the same thing. Yet some as-yet-unannounced bikes (e.g. the EX 8 29er) are still there.

    Anyway, the public announcement for all the new models is scheduled for tomorrow, I believe, so I guess we just have to wait 24 hours.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemike View Post
    Yeah, my LBS has 2017 Fuel EX 8 27.5+ models in sizes 17.5, 18.5 and 21.5 on the floor. But no 19.5, which is what I'm after (I'm 6'1", 34" true inseam).

    I'm going to throw my leg over the 18.5 and 21.5 next time I'm in the shop, but I'm not going to get a bike that doesn't fit just right.
    I'm 5'10" with a 33.5" inseam. My legs are proportionally longer than my torso. The 19.5 9.8 I sat on fit, but like I said, I was fine getting the 18.5 as the reach is only 1.5 shorter on the 18.5 which is fine by me. Frame stack is the same.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by benyl View Post
    I'm 5'10" with a 33.5" inseam. My legs are proportionally longer than my torso. The 19.5 9.8 I sat on fit, but like I said, I was fine getting the 18.5 as the reach is only 1.5 shorter on the 18.5 which is fine by me. Frame stack is the same.
    Similar here:

    5'10" with 34" actual inseem. Riding a 18.5" 2016 EX 9.8 with a 90mm stem. My short torso and desire to have a more nimble bike lead me to the 18.5" and longer stem.

    This is my XC/Endurance bike since I have a more slack trail bike already.

    I could have done the 19.5" with a 70-80mm stem, but I like the front wheel closer for more balanced weight on the tires.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,710
    FWIW: 5'9", 34" bike inseam, stock 18.5" '16 EX-9. Running the Mino link in high.

    Edit: 28 chainring.
    Last edited by Lone Rager; 06-30-2016 at 03:16 AM.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by benyl View Post
    Got a 28T ring put on to replace the 32T. The granny is super granny. I'll see how it goes.
    How much granny do you need =D

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by R-M-R View Post
    2. It's a very light aluminum frame

    If you think thats light, try picking up a CF Top Fuel. Made my CF Remedy feel like a monster truck.
    Still surprising how light a dual suspension FS bike weighs. Especially when my first dually was a kmart/walmart special, think it was made of solid steel.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    fc's got his first ride posted:

    2017 Trek Fuel EX first ride - Mtbr.com

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    nice-ordering mine today

  100. #100
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemike View Post
    fc's got his first ride posted:

    2017 Trek Fuel EX first ride - Mtbr.com
    Sweeeeeeet. Here' my photo dump.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2017 Fuel EX Official Post-steep-drop.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-abp-tech.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-cable-management.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-downtube-indent.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-dtswiss-hub.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-eagle-cassette-derailleur.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-eagle-drivetrain.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-entering-slab-drop.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-frame-side.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-front-quarter-profile.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-knock-block.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-left-cable-management.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-mino-link.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-rear-der-cable.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-rocker-arms.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-rocks-root.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-rolling-big-rock.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-side-profile.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-sitting-giant-slab.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-taking-hairpin.jpg  

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-talking-cam-mccaul.jpg  

    IPA will save America

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by fc View Post
    Sweeeeeeet. Here' my photo dump.
    Nice. Did Trek hand out spec sheets for the full model lineup?

    Thanks for putting those weights in the review, btw. Much appreciated.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    Does anyone have updates on the Line Comp wheels found on many of the new Remedys and Fuel EXs? (Especially hub engagement)

    Also, they are called Line Comp 30. Does the "30" in the name suggest internal or external width if the rims?

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    9.8 to 9.9 weight difference- what is the main factor-wheel set? Im coming from a 23lb scott spark and was just wondering. The weight doesn't bother me one way or the other. I know the 9.9 has the carbon cs, but isnt that much of a diff-right?

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Nevermind. The 29ers now up on Trek's site:

    Fuel EX | Trek Bikes

  105. #105
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    30 mm is internal width

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Velokid1 View Post
    30 mm is internal width
    Oh wow. Nice Was wondering the same. Thank you


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Velokid1 View Post
    30 mm is internal width
    Thanks! Just wondering where you got this info?

  108. #108
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    From one of Trek's product developers. I wish they had gone with a 40mm rim, but that's just me.

    I'm impressed by the changes Trek has made to the lines. Really smart (offering as many bikes as they did last year seems unsustainable in the long-term) and should be welcomed by most customers. I have a few friends who rode the 2016 Remedy after owning the 2015 Fuel EX and felt like the Remedy was an improvement, even for 4-8 hour trail rides at altitude rather than just "shredding", so I was on the fence between Fuel and Remedy.

    Now it seems like the Fuel EX is the new Remedy, the Remedy is darn near the current Slash, and perhaps the Slash is going to turn into a badass 29er trail monster?

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    770
    Agreed on the new spread. Last year with the Fuel EX available in two wheel sizes for nearly every build was silly. Way too many SKU's to track and impossible to stock. I like the current spread much better.

    I would have preferred a different name for the 650B+ just to make quick model designations easier.

    Fuel EX = 29er, mid-travel, XC/Trail
    Stache EX = 650B+, mid-travel, mid-fat Trail
    Remedy = 650b, mod/long-travel, Trail
    Slash = 29er, long-travel, Enduro

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    Does anyone have updates on the Line Comp wheels found on many of the new Remedys and Fuel EXs? (Especially hub engagement)

    Also, they are called Line Comp 30. Does the "30" in the name suggest internal or external width if the rims?
    I was messing around with the project one site; building a 2017 Fuel and when it came to wheel choices it gives a description that states it is a 54 tooth rapid drive system on the Line Comp wheels.
    2017 Santa Cruz Tallboy CC

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    That's pretty cool. This year you have more models to customize.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by stygz1 View Post
    I was messing around with the project one site; building a 2017 Fuel and when it came to wheel choices it gives a description that states it is a 54 tooth rapid drive system on the Line Comp wheels.
    Thank you for that info! I didn't even think to look there.

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,660
    Ill be curious if the new Line 30 wheels will include the rim strip with the new bike. In the past, higher end model bikes like the ex9 and 9.8 would come with rim strips right from Trek
    2017 Santa Cruz Tallboy CC

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Just ordered. Will have next weds


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Right now the 29ers that they are getting in have the reverb instead of the line (9.8). I told them I wanted the line.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Right now the 29ers that they are getting in have the reverb instead of the line (9.8). I told them I wanted the line.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    Looks like its the new reverb b1

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    I have no experience with droppers. Just read stories of some failing.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    Here is the new EX 9's color in person as many were asking. Can't wait for mine to come in!

    You can see the reverb in the pic.

    https://instagram.com/p/BHTL5IJgbRN/

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    Edit: Thanks for sharing the pic! It looks pretty sweet. I might order tomorrow

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
    How do you guys know? I might order my EX 9 tomorrow, although it might only affect 9.8?
    Its in the Instagram link in my above post. It also looks like it is shipping with Sram Level brakes... Hopefully they are Guide RS (the picture isnt clear enough to fully tell)

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by Velokid1 View Post
    30 mm is internal width
    Are you sure? I just bought a new set of Line Elite wheels in 27.5 and they are 28mm internal. I'd be surprised if the Line Comp were wider.

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    At my lbs, they has two 9.8's 29er both with the reverb


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    At my lbs, they has two 9.8's 29er both with the reverb


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    It could be looked at as a good thing and a bad thing

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,660
    The actual pic of the EX9 looks great. A little bit disappointed about not being the Line dropper as it is speced. It could be due to it being out of stock. It is showing out of stock on the Bontrager website. Anyway I plan on selling my RIP for the EX9 this fall. Hopefully by then we will have some reliability reports on the revised reverb post and possibly the EX9 will have the Line dropper by then.
    2017 Santa Cruz Tallboy CC

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    874
    I am glad to see the 9.7 back in the line-up and at the same price point as the 9. In 2014 when I bought my 9, the spec was so much better on the 9 (and that 2014 carbon frame had too much flex for that model year) so it was a no brainer to go aluminum. Now it is a much tougher call, as the spec is not as far off in areas I care about, and the carbon frame is supposed to be very stiff on the new bikes. I was also shocked to see how much of a weight difference there is now between aluminum and carbon frames...1.75lbs according to Trek. Since I tend to upgrade things over time, I am thinking I may go with the 9.7 this time if I decide to pull the trigger. One hesitation is the fork, as I have seen no reviews on the Grip damper and Rhythm fork. I have a Fit4 34 on my 2014 Fuel, and the fork is fantastic and I wouldn't want to go backwards in that area too far. Either way, this lineup from Trek at the price points they came in at is really strong from my perspective.

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Im noticing that many of the Australian 2017 29er shipments are shipping with reverbs. European 29ers are shipping with the Drop Line. Maybe American ones will ship with Drop Lines?

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    Was that instagram Aussy?

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
    Was that instagram Aussy?
    Yeah. Every pic of the EX 9 right now is Australian, but a Spanish EX 9.8 29 had a Drop Line.

    https://instagram.com/p/BHS--5kh4Hy/

    Australian^

    Two things:

    1. Looks like a SRAM steel chainring
    2. Has FitGrip and not Fit4 damper as listed on the specs

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    It could be looked at as a good thing and a bad thing
    Just got done talking to a trek rep (chat). He said due to availability, some are shipping with the reverb as an "upgrade". He did clarify it was a higher end seat post. I don't know much about these,but thought I'd pass this information along.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    652
    I've been thinking of the 2016 Fuel 9.8 or 9. Now the 2017 drops...but, being in Delaware, I'm wondering if I'd be better off finding a NOS discounted 2016?

    I see on the front page that the bike was perfect for Squamish...which Delaware is not. Maybe the 68HTA and 120/120 is better for the mid-atlantic that the new longer/slacker. CS is about the same.

    Or...maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

    Opinions?

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    I've been thinking of the 2016 Fuel 9.8 or 9. Now the 2017 drops...but, being in Delaware, I'm wondering if I'd be better off finding a NOS discounted 2016?

    I see on the front page that the bike was perfect for Squamish...which Delaware is not. Maybe the 68HTA and 120/120 is better for the mid-atlantic that the new longer/slacker. CS is about the same.

    Or...maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

    Opinions?
    The 2016 ex 9.8 is on sale for 4500 (500 more than the new fuel ex 9) in the US. This a a great deal given you get a carbon frame (except the chainstays). The parts arent quite as good as the 2017s, but they are still very good parts.

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Just got done talking to a trek rep (chat). He said due to availability, some are shipping with the reverb as an "upgrade". He did clarify it was a higher end seat post. I don't know much about these,but thought I'd pass this information along.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    Thanks for this. It makes sense given the new Reverb costs much more aftermarket than the Drop Line.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    78
    I'm in the same boat as you comparing 2016 to 2017. I saw a 2016 9.8 in person the other day and it doesn't look like it's flexy. The DT Swiss wheels are heavy and seem pretty crappy. Then you have the issues with the proprietary-sized Reaktiv. I also lives just a few miles from a tax free state (NH). I'm also concerned the 2017 may be a little too much bike because I like to go uphill. Wheelbase starts getting long on 2017. Interesting that the 2017 EX 9 weighs in at nearly 30 pounds. But you get a great spec. The Reverb on the 2016 9.8 felt crappy and that is something I would sell. I would also sell the Line Comp wheels and replace with Chinese carbons but the Lines would be much easier to sell than the DT Swiss. Trek is putting the Line dropper on the 9.9 so they must be confident in it. Sucks not being able to do a back to back ride on both bikes. Decisions, decisions.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    Thanks for this. It makes sense given the new Reverb costs much more aftermarket than the Drop Line.
    So is his interpretation of "high end" price or quality? Lol


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    976
    Why no XXL or true XL ? 510mm(20" ST) is a L/XL.....just a rant, as I want a carbon Fuel EX. Maybe they will update and have frame only as last year ?

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    So is his interpretation of "high end" price or quality? Lol


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    No, I'm simply pointing out that Trek is supplying a more expensive dropper post on the bikes but at the same price. I do feel like the Drop Line seat post may be the better of the two given its ergonomic underbar remote and easy-to-service cable-actuated mechanism over the hydraulics of the Reverb.

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    I was talking about the trek rep my friend.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    I was talking about the trek rep my friend.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    Oops, sorry lol. I'm using Tapatalk; is there a way to delete a post?

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    I think just press the actual post to get the option, but no worries.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Can I use the under the bar remote if running 2x?


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    379
    Climbing would be my biggest concern but the first ride reports point to equal climbing abilities to the 2016 models.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    Quote Originally Posted by hambocairns View Post
    Climbing would be my biggest concern but the first ride reports point to equal climbing abilities to the 2016 models.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I've heard the same; I hope the media isn't distorting the truth on climbing ability

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfdog93 View Post
    Why no XXL or true XL ? 510mm(20" ST) is a L/XL.....just a rant, as I want a carbon Fuel EX. Maybe they will update and have frame only as last year ?
    I noticed the same thing. Good thing I have the '16 XXL full carbon Fuel EX 29!

    Hearing reports about how "stiff" the 2017 carbon Fuel EX is and having just climbed off my bike, it seems impossible that the new platform could be significantly more stiff. It would be amazing if true.

    I don't think the new Knock Block Headset is going to play well, although it does need something like to prevent the hand controls and the fork crown from contacting the frame at full stop.

    The new carbon chain stays look good. The new lower pivot also looks good. Interesting bike overall.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    98
    I'd reconsider sizing based on seat tube length. Tube shaping and cross section has a lot to do with stiffness; lots of potential stiffness gains around the head tube and BB area. Just seems you're showing doubt/fear of the unfamiliar and uncertain things in general.

    This article has some illustrations that shows how knock block works: Trek Fuel EX Ditches 27.5" wheels (mostly); New Remedy gets more Enduro, drops 29" - Bikerumor

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    78
    The Bike Mag reviewer seems to think it climbs a little worse because the suspension is more supple. These guys are all on the 25 lb 9.9 model. Put them on the EX 8 with a 32T 1x and I bet they say it climbs like shit.

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Does anyone have information on how much stiffer the carbon frames are over the aluminum?

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    379
    EX 7 is 14.5kg!

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    I have no experience with droppers. Just read stories of some failing.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    A customer will tell 10 other people of a bad experience, and tell 1 other of a good one.

    With so many people on reverbs, there are many people to tell problems about. I bet in a % rate against other brands/types, they would look pretty good.

    Ive had no issues with mine.
    ...And a mate of mine has had one on his bike for 3-4 years with plenty of KMs and crashes, never had a service (besides a chain lube and some cable adjustments) and the reverb has only just started getting some play in it.
    A bleed and it'll be fine.



    IF, its not what you want ask your shop to swap it out (should be able to seeing as you are going to a bontrager/trek branded item)

    ... I swapped my 2x11 XT system for a 1x system, and my bars from 750 to 820s, and tyres to tubeless .. No charge.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    No, I'm simply pointing out that Trek is supplying a more expensive dropper post on the bikes but at the same price. I do feel like the Drop Line seat post may be the better of the two given its ergonomic underbar remote and easy-to-service cable-actuated mechanism over the hydraulics of the Reverb.
    get your shop to swap out the standard RH remote for a LH and run it underneath the bar?

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-13096100_10153606761612916_3805002517707789409_n.jpg

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    "Too slack now it will climb like a pig"

    its .3deg slacker than 2016 fuel ex?

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    get your shop to swap out the standard RH remote for a LH and run it underneath the bar?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	13096100_10153606761612916_3805002517707789409_n.jpg 
Views:	468 
Size:	159.0 KB 
ID:	1079765
    In your photo, that's a right hand remote that's flipped over.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,710
    ^ right. And those remotes aint cheap. Using a right lever under the left side of the bar is way better than a left lever on top of the left side of the bar but I still find the force required and the linear travel of the plunger to be less than ideal. I haven't yet seen a Drop Line in person, but from the pics on line it appears to have a much better lever arrangement for mounting under the left side of the bar.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    503
    I have used the hell out of my Reverb stealth in the last year and it has been flawless. Having said that it's a 125mm travel and I'd like to have a 150 due to my super long inseam, so I'm going to pick up a Drop Line 150 when they become available. I'll put the Reverb on my Farley which has a longer seat tube.

    I guess my point is I have nothing but good things to say about the performance of my Reverb, like everyone else I'm not a huge fan of the remote although I've gotten used to it and it's become very easy to use.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by dvXin View Post
    In your photo, that's a right hand remote that's flipped over.
    Even in a 2x, this will work? Just figured there would be too much there with the shifter.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfdog93 View Post
    Why no XXL or true XL ? 510mm(20" ST) is a L/XL.....just a rant, as I want a carbon Fuel EX. Maybe they will update and have frame only as last year ?
    Seat tubes reduced in height to allow for longer droppers.

    Reach is still appropriate for an XL bike, and has actually been stretched a bit from 16.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,071
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    I've been thinking of the 2016 Fuel 9.8 or 9. I see on the front page that the bike was perfect for Squamish...which Delaware is not. Maybe the 68HTA and 120/120 is better for the mid-atlantic that the new longer/slacker. CS is about the same.

    Or...maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

    Opinions?
    From your very brief description of Delaware trails, I think grabbing a 16 would be a fine idea, and would save some serious coin.

    Mine feels like a slightly long-legged xc bike. Nimble and just quick enough. On smooth-ish trails, it is more engaging than my Remedy, which can be a bit like killing ants with a hammer in that environment.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    Has anybody noticed that the media is completely neglecting to talk about the new aluminum frames? Obviously they want to report on the high-end 9.9s that they tested, but do the changes to the aluminum frames make them THAT much better (stiffness wise) than last year's aluminum frames? It has been made clear that the carbon frames are markedly stiffer... nothing on the aluminum. I know this is a lot to ask, but maybe some of you have some opinions, experience, or knowledge about this.

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    Even in a 2x, this will work? Just figured there would be too much there with the shifter.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    I don't think it'd work with 2x, at least if you have small clumsy hands.

    The only reason that I can think of in which it's not welcome up top is because when you flip your bike over to the maintenance position, it rests on the remote, and the mfg says to specifically avoid that... and I don't think putting a glove down under it is going to save that ~3.5mm thick piston underneath the boot from being damaged.

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by dvXin View Post
    I don't think it'd work with 2x, at least if you have small clumsy hands.

    The only reason that I can think of in which it's not welcome up top is because when you flip your bike over to the maintenance position, it rests on the remote, and the mfg says to specifically avoid that... and I don't think putting a glove down under it is going to save that ~3.5mm thick piston underneath the boot from being damaged.
    Just got back from my LBS. Checked another 9.8 and it would work as far as the reverb. Might not be ideal and me be a little more of a reach but is possible. I guess in either case going on my 5th bike it's time to by a stand lol


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,071
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    Has anybody noticed that the media is completely neglecting to talk about the new aluminum frames? Obviously they want to report on the high-end 9.9s that they tested, but do the changes to the aluminum frames make them THAT much better (stiffness wise) than last year's aluminum frames? It has been made clear that the carbon frames are markedly stiffer... nothing on the aluminum. I know this is a lot to ask, but maybe some of you have some opinions, experience, or knowledge about this.
    Keep in mind that in 15, the alu frames were stiffer than the carbon frames. I'm big-ish at 190, and still found the stiffness of the 15 carbon frame adequate.

    The 16 frame is markedly stiffer laterally than the 15 was. I can't imagine that I need anything stiffer than my 9.9, but at least up to a point, stiffer is better, so bang on for the 17 frameset.

    Although that offers no concrete info on the 17 alu frameset, if you assume that it is at least somewhat stiffer than the 15/16 alu version, I think it will be perfectly adequate in that department.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    maybe some of you have some opinions, experience, or knowledge about this.
    I found the aluminum frame to be plenty stiff. The fork is, by far, the weakest link in the stiffness chain, so there's no sense fixating on minute differences in frame stiffness unless you're planning to use, for example, a 36 or Lyrik (which is what I did with my personal bike).

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by R-M-R View Post
    I found the aluminum frame to be plenty stiff. The fork is, by far, the weakest link in the stiffness chain, so there's no sense fixating on minute differences in frame stiffness unless you're planning to use, for example, a 36 or Lyrik (which is what I did with my personal bike).
    Do you have a 34 or 34 rhythm

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    Do you have a 34 or 34 rhythm
    I tested a Fuel EX 8 650 Plus with the Rhythm 34. It felt vastly smoother than the 120 mm Performance Elite 29 34 on a Norco Optic (2.2" tire at 20 psi) and somewhat smoother than the 140 mm Performance Elite 650 Plus 34 on the Scott Genius 710. The tires probably account for much of the difference on the Optic, but there's no excuse for the harshness on the Scott's more expensive fork.

    Also noteworthy is that the 110 mm Reba on the Devinci Hendrix (with 3" tires at a not-at-all-laterally-stable 12 psi) felt as harsh as the FIT4 Foxes.

    For whatever reason - including the possibility this Rhythm 34 had the most perfectly matched tolerances ever - the Rhythm 34 was the best feeling Fox fork I've ever ridden. Felt similar to the Pikes on the Hightowers (29" and 650 Plus), though not as stiff.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    98
    The Rhythm uses a 6000 series alloy stanchion and steerer, compared to the 7000 series that more expensive models use. Also, the Rhythm's IFP based damper cartridge should take on average more force to compress, since the piston needs to work against the pressure created by the IFP, over the FIT dampers that are simply compensated by an expanding bladder.

    Don't think the 6000 series should be any less stiff than the 7000 series, if the wall thickness is the same (diameter/cross section should be the same), but the 7000 series stuff is stronger. Though, it's not like anyone will be snapping forks at the stanchion for that to matter... seems like it could be a good value, as they cut costs where it wouldn't be that noticeable. I wouldn't be prejudiced to seek an upgrade for it right away, without giving it a proper chance.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by dvXin View Post
    The Rhythm uses a 6000 series alloy stanchion and steerer, compared to the 7000 series that more expensive models use. Also, the Rhythm's IFP based damper cartridge should take on average more force to compress, since the piston needs to work against the pressure created by the IFP, over the FIT dampers that are simply compensated by an expanding bladder.

    Don't think the 6000 series should be any less stiff than the 7000 series, if the wall thickness is the same (diameter/cross section should be the same), but the 7000 series stuff is stronger. Though, it's not like anyone will be snapping forks at the stanchion for that to matter... seems like it could be a good value, as they cut costs where it wouldn't be that noticeable. I wouldn't be prejudiced to seek an upgrade for it right away, without giving it a proper chance.
    I've disliked every Fox I've ridden, so I expected to hate the entry-level Rhythm 34. It was a pleasant surprise that this is the only Fox fork I've ever liked.

    You're correct that a bladder compensator should move more freely than an IFP, so there must be something more to it than that.

    If dimensions are the same, all alloys of the same base material have essentially the same stiffness (there are some exotic exceptions, but we're not talking about those). When a lower strength material is used, the standard practice is to maintain the designed strength, so I'm sure the Rhythm uses more material, which would slightly increase the fork's stiffness, all else being equal. The lowers are different from other 34 models and the crown isn't hollow, which probably offset any stiffness gains elsewhere.

    All I know is that Fox claims it would be about $500 at retail and I liked it more than other 34s at double the price.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    So the Rhythm feels stiffer and smoother than the regular 34? This is what I take away from this.

    Also, would anybody here go with the EX 9.7 over the EX 9 just because of the carbon frame?

    And one more thing, Flow MTB shows that the new Fuel EX's have a severely travel-reduced rear shock (apparently this is the full usable stroke shown):


    Has anybody experienced this travel reduction? Wouldn't this make shock future replacements difficult if the stock ones fail?

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    So the Rhythm feels stiffer and smoother than the regular 34? This is what I take away from this.

    Also, would anybody here go with the EX 9.7 over the EX 9 just because of the carbon frame?

    And one more thing, Flow MTB shows that the new Fuel EX's have a severely travel-reduced rear shock (apparently this is the full usable stroke shown):


    Has anybody experienced this travel reduction? Wouldn't this make shock future replacements difficult if the stock ones fail?
    I would definitrly consider the 9.7 over the 9. The frame is way lighter and supposedly stiffer, and stiffer is better in frames. The overall bike is a tiny bit lighter with the 9.7. I want to hear more reviews on the Grip fork on the 9.7. Fox Fit4 34 forks are fantastic in my mind (that is what I have currently), so is the Grip in the same ball park? If it is then maybe the 9.7 is the way to go. The rest of the parts are comperable except the wheels, and I would probably pull either set and build up a new set, so that doesn't mean a lot to me. When I bought my 2014 Ex 9, it was an easy call, this one is much tougher.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,071
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    Has anybody experienced this travel reduction? Wouldn't this make shock future replacements difficult if the stock ones fail?
    Is that where the o-ring bottoms when you depressurize the shock and bottom the suspension? It seems too high. My 16 doesn't go quite all the way to the bottom, but closer than that. Best to depressurize/bottom, then measure shock stroke, and compare to specs.

    When I set sag to 30%, I do find that easy or moderate xc rides do not bottom the rear suspension, but rugged riding does.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Haymarket View Post
    I would definitrly consider the 9.7 over the 9. The frame is way lighter and supposedly stiffer, and stiffer is better in frames. The overall bike is a tiny bit lighter with the 9.7. I want to hear more reviews on the Grip fork on the 9.7. Fox Fit4 34 forks are fantastic in my mind (that is what I have currently), so is the Grip in the same ball park? If it is then maybe the 9.7 is the way to go. The rest of the parts are comperable except the wheels, and I would probably pull either set and build up a new set, so that doesn't mean a lot to me. When I bought my 2014 Ex 9, it was an easy call, this one is much tougher.
    Good points, but it's important to keep in mind that the 9.7 has a completely alloy rear end. Both weight savings and stiffness gains are, therefore, somewhat decreased by this. You only get the carbon front triangle on the 9.7, but I could definitely see the benefits of this as it is the majority of the whole frame. Don't take my word on this, but I doubt the stiffness gains or weight savings on just having a carbon front triangle on the 9.7 over the aluminum front triangle of the 9 are that significant compared to having more carbon in the higher models (9.8 and 9.9).

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Is that where the o-ring bottoms when you depressurize the shock and bottom the suspension? It seems too high. My 16 doesn't go quite all the way to the bottom, but closer than that. Best to depressurize/bottom, then measure shock stroke, and compare to specs.

    When I set sag to 30%, I do find that easy or moderate xc rides do not bottom the rear suspension, but rugged riding does.
    Here is the link to the article:
    http://flowmountainbike.com/tests/fl...nd-remedy-9-9/

    I just interpreted the amount of limited stroke based on the image, but they do state this too.

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by dvXin View Post
    In your photo, that's a right hand remote that's flipped over.
    Yep, going underneath. Much win, better looking, better to use (demo'd a fuel ex9 2016 with one ontop and found it a little annoying)

    My bike shop swapped it for me new.

    When you are dropping BULK coin on a bike, get them to do things like that.

    They are basically taking new parts off a new bike, and getting in new parts (cheap) to replace them... and most likely sending the take off parts back to suppliers for credit.


    I swapped stock 750 bars for 820s, and LH for RH lever, and 2x11 XT for 1x11 XT setup. No cost.

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by dvXin View Post
    In your photo, that's a right hand remote that's flipped over.
    Whoops. Just noticed that yeah lefty righty mixed up on that one.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    9.7 vs 9 ...

    TBH I'd rather save the coin and go an 8, or spend the extra and go 9.8
    Already spending 4k (rrp) whats 1k more =)

    ..... talk to the shop and ask them what they can do to put you on a 9.8

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    So the Rhythm feels stiffer and smoother than the regular 34? This is what I take away from this.

    Also, would anybody here go with the EX 9.7 over the EX 9 just because of the carbon frame?

    And one more thing, Flow MTB shows that the new Fuel EX's have a severely travel-reduced rear shock (apparently this is the full usable stroke shown):


    Has anybody experienced this travel reduction? Wouldn't this make shock future replacements difficult if the stock ones fail?
    That is a tough call. In my experience when I had a Fuel 29 I noticed most of the flex to come from the wheels that were stock. This never occurred to me until I got a set of Roval Carbons. Depending on your future plans of upgrades, I would rather have the better set of wheels that a carbon front triangle. Rotational weight and stiffness is much more of a performance gain that the static weight of the carbon frame. Yes carbon is better and has a better feel than Aluminum. The EX9 frame is no slouch though.

    As for the fork. One thing to consider is how much time was on the Fox 34 vs the Rhythm fork? There may have been alot more demo's taken on the bike with the Fox 34 than the Rhythm. I have ridden bikes that the fork needed to be serviced and they are really sticky though the travel.

    On my RIP 9 if I were to let all the air out and compress the shock, it would look similar to the pic you offer.
    2017 Santa Cruz Tallboy CC

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,660
    I have to wonder if the new XT is better than X1? I read a review of the newest GX1 against the 1x XT group. The reviewer overall prefered the GX1.


    What is all involved with converting the new XT 2x to a 1X? New crank or is it a modular design?
    2017 Santa Cruz Tallboy CC

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post

    My thoughts are to convert to 1x but still have the 2x option versus 1x only. They told me it's just a new chain ring. Thought I read and article saying the 1x and 2x cranks were indeed the same but I may be wrong.

    As far as the amount of carbon on the tri, when I spoke to trek I asked if I could in fact purchase carbon chain stays to make my 9.8 full carbon and he said yes. Unfortunately I did not get any pricing. So it may or may not be worth the cost


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    To address several of the recent questions:

    Fork
    The Rhythm 34 has comparable stiffness to the rest of the 34 line; if one is stiffer than the other, I didn't notice it. Neither is especially stiff, nor are they disastrously flexible. The one GRIP damper I've ridden felt much more supple than the FIT4; this is counter-intuitive and I can't explain it, but that's what I felt.

    Shock stroke
    A shock does not need to use the entire shaft to get full travel. If the shock is getting as much stroke as it's designed to get (which it is), then the bike is getting full travel, even without the O-ring going to the end of the shaft.

    Weight, carbon, and value
    - Carbon is not always stiffer: Often, yes, but not always. The designer will usually choose a desired level of stiffness and get very close to that value with both materials, so the difference is usually more in the weight than the stiffness.
    - Carbon is not always lighter: I've seen aluminum frames and parts that weigh less than carbon.
    - Carbon frames usually represent a poor value for saving weight: You can usually save a lot more weight for the same money on other components (especially tires, wheels, and cassette). For example, compare the 9 and the 9.7: same weight, same price, probably similar stiffness(?), so you're getting about the same bike with better parts on the 9.
    - Weight is a small component of efficiency: When looking to justify the cost of a more expensive bike, weight is the easiest thing to quantify and the most tangible. I loved selling light bikes because I could tell a customer to just pick it up; often he or she was astounded by the weight difference and usually bought the lighter one, though no one ever asked if it will make them faster. In some cases, the lighter bike was less capable and slower, overall, or the extra money could have been used for a couple trips that would improve skills and fitness enough to overcome the weight issue tenfold.

    Summary
    - The Rhythm 34 is surprisingly good
    - The shock is fine and the bikes are getting full travel
    - The aluminum frame is plenty stiff; if you want more, address the fork before the frame
    - Get the aluminum unless your budget is unlimited - even then, still get the aluminum and just buy more bikes!

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Just FYI if nobody has checked yet...
    Australia Trek website does not list any 2017 Fuel EX 27.5+ specific bike =(

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    106
    Something doesn't seem right here...

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-screen-shot-2016-07-03-10.33.33-am.jpg2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_0702.jpg

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    106
    I can't find a part number on the levers.

    The 2017 EX7 29 explicitly stated the m506, yet all models of the ex8 simply state

  181. #181
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347

    Rockshox Reverb problems

    I was told by some demo staff that SRAM put out 350,000 Reverbs last year and has warrantied 150,000. The Reverb that came on my 2016 EX9 was ridden for 2-3 months before failing and I was very gentle with that post because I was aware of the problems SRAM was having.

    Right after my dropper post took a dook, I was on a ride with several people and asked if anyone else had problems with their Reverbs. "No, mine has been great so far." But when I asked everyone to push down on the post to check, two of the posts sagged 7-10mm. I suspect that many, many people are riding Reverbs that have failed but they haven't noticed.

    There's no question that the old Reverbs have a serious design flaw. The only question is if the updated internals of the new "gold" Reverbs (March 2017) solve the problem. We'll know soon enough.

  182. #182
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347

    Aluminum frame flex

    I have been on a 23" (I'm 6'3" and 200 lbs) 2016 EX 9 29 since October and have never found the frame to be flexy.

    The Roam 30 wheelset it came with however were noticeably flexy (21mm inner width). Those wheels were an obviously weak link in an otherwise brilliant bike spec.

    I commend Trek for striving to stiffen up the spine of the bike. Personally, I could take or leave the Knock Block. It certainly doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in swapping out stems on the regular, and if I were, I wouldn't mind spending an additional $20 on the required locking collar.

    My EX9 arrived a couple days ago and I hope to have it built up early this week. In the meantime, here's some eye candy I swiped from Instragram...

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-13573359_1541067352866624_814473016_n-1-.jpg

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    Good points, but it's important to keep in mind that the 9.7 has a completely alloy rear end. Both weight savings and stiffness gains are, therefore, somewhat decreased by this. You only get the carbon front triangle on the 9.7, but I could definitely see the benefits of this as it is the majority of the whole frame. Don't take my word on this, but I doubt the stiffness gains or weight savings on just having a carbon front triangle on the 9.7 over the aluminum front triangle of the 9 are that significant compared to having more carbon in the higher models (9.8 and 9.9).
    I didn't consider the rear triangle, great point. I just saw that the all carbon bare frame is a whopping 1.75lbs lighter than the aluminum bare frame (Trek's numbers). That is a much bigger difference than the difference in the previous frames. I would have no idea how much having the aluminum rear ends closes that gap. 9 or 9.7 is a tough call...yesterday I was thinking 9.7, now thinking maybe the 9 makes more sense and I wouldn't be tempted to upgrade the fork, and maybe could live with the stock wheels.

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,710
    1.76 lb is a lot, and I'm skeptical the diff is that big. Anyway, looking at a '17 aluminum frame I'm impressed by a number of things. The down tube is much larger in in width and depth, the seat tube gets huge from just above the rocker pivot, the swingarm castings extend further back and include an integral crossmember, the chains stays are more rectangular in cross section and taller.... all of this suggests a significantly stiffer frame.

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    So the Rhythm feels stiffer and smoother than the regular 34? This is what I take away from this.

    Also, would anybody here go with the EX 9.7 over the EX 9 just because of the carbon frame?

    And one more thing, Flow MTB shows that the new Fuel EX's have a severely travel-reduced rear shock (apparently this is the full usable stroke shown):


    Has anybody experienced this travel reduction? Wouldn't this make shock future replacements difficult if the stock ones fail?
    It is actually a *GOOD* thing to have extra length on the shock.

    - more oil volume
    - more surface area for heat dissipation
    - more room for damping circuits

    Shock: 210x52.5mm
    - this means 210mm total length from eyelet to eyelet, and 52.5mm total of movement along its slider
    - the bike has 130mm of travel, and with a 52.5mm of shock stroke, the leverage ratio is almost exactly 2.5
    - most "Medium" damper tunes are optimized for 2.5

    As long as it measures 52.5mm, from the o-ring to the lip of the air can (or whatever is pushing the o-ring), with the shock fully extended (the negative air spring could be keeping it from being fully topped out), you're getting full travel. As long as the shock has the same 210x52.5 measurement, it will not change your geo or how much travel you get, though that's no guarantee that other shocks will fit without touching some part of the frame or linkage at some part of its range of motion (too fat of an air can, or too bulky around the eyelets maybe).

    The air can doesn't need to be so long that it covers more of the shock than it has to, if they have the precise air volume that they wanted to get the spring curve they wanted. This effectively makes the shock sort of a "tweener" between a normal inline shock and one with a piggyback reservoir, but closer to typical inlines in function. The CC DB Inline sort of used similar reasoning in its design, though I wouldn't say these are in the same class, since the DB is a twin-tube damper.


    I'd expect the 9 to have a better ride experience out of the box without any changes, compared to the 9.7. The 9.7 seems to be more for someone that is already planning upgrades, such as new rims to replace those Dusters.

    Random trivia: Specialized bikes also have shocks where the o-ring doesn't go all the way to the end. On top of that, the BRAIN unit and the hose connecting it to the shock, also holds additional oil volume. The IFP is probably in the BRAIN unit too, giving so much room in the shock that they can afford to be so small in diameter, which slides more freely due to less surface area touching seals.

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,710
    The exposed length of the shaft of the shock needs to be at least as long as its travel, 52.5mm in this case, which is determined by suspension travel and the leverage ratio. After that, the shock needs to be long enough to reach between the two mounting points. It doesn't matter how long it is beyond that IMO. They might be doing something beneficial with the extra length, or they might not.

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    My current bike (a Specialized Camber) also doesn't use the full stroke; I just felt that the new Fuel had A LOT of unused stroke.

    I have some pictures of the new bikes:

    EX 9:



    EX 8:


    Both are a 21.5

    Just based on aesthetics: Does anyone think that the EX 8 in the same size looks far more proportional than the EX 9?

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,660
    Has anyone ridden the latest version of the Fox 34 and compared it to a Pike? I would be interested in hearing thoughts on that.

    Regarding frame weight and materials used. Trek seems to state kind of a big weight difference between the Carbon and the Aluminum frames. When I was purchasing my RIP 9 there was supposed to be a .65 lb difference between the RIP RDO frame (full carbon unlike the Fuel 9.8) and the Aluminum frame.
    2017 Santa Cruz Tallboy CC

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by stygz1 View Post
    Has anyone ridden the latest version of the Fox 34 and compared it to a Pike? I would be interested in hearing thoughts on that.
    Rhythm 34 GRIP: Smooth, controlled, and moderate stiffness. No serious complaints, but could be stiffer.

    Performance 34 FLOAT FIT4: Harsh, controlled, moderate stiffness. For unknown reasons, vastly more harshness than a Pike or a 34 GRIP. Resists dive, but I've felt forks that were just as smooth with the lockout accidentally left on.

    Pike RC: Smooth, controlled, above-average stiffness. A small step above the Rhythm 34 in smoothness and control, with better stiffness.

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justinnardella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by R-M-R View Post
    Rhythm 34 GRIP: Smooth, controlled, and moderate stiffness. No serious complaints, but could be stiffer.

    Performance 34 FLOAT FIT4: Harsh, controlled, moderate stiffness. For unknown reasons, vastly more harshness than a Pike or a 34 GRIP. Resists dive, but I've felt forks that were just as smooth with the lockout accidentally left on.

    Pike RC: Smooth, controlled, above-average stiffness. A small step above the Rhythm 34 in smoothness and control, with better stiffness.
    Despite the spec sheet, it seems that the EX 9 and others are not shipping with the FIT4 damper on the regular Fox 34s (non-Rhythm models). They have the Grip dampers. Would this make them as well-damped as the Grip-based Rhythm?

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    Despite the spec sheet, it seems that the EX 9 and others are not shipping with the FIT4 damper on the regular Fox 34s (non-Rhythm models). They have the Grip dampers. Would this make them as well-damped as the Grip-based Rhythm?
    The FIT4 forks I rode were on non-Trek bikes.

    I don't think there's anything about the Rhythm that would make its GRIP better than any other GRIP model. One would hope the higher models would be, if anything, better, though I don't see anything in the Fox specs to suggest the GRIP three position should be smoother than the GRIP adjustable.

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    I'm curious as to the difference as well. The GRIP three appears to be infinitely adjustable as well except with a distinct click in the middle


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  193. #193
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by justinnardella View Post
    My current bike (a Specialized Camber) also doesn't use the full stroke; I just felt that the new Fuel had A LOT of unused stroke.

    I have some pictures of the new bikes:

    EX 9:



    EX 8:


    Both are a 21.5

    Just based on aesthetics: Does anyone think that the EX 8 in the same size looks far more proportional than the EX 9?
    In those photos, yes. The EX 9 has its dropper compressed and the angle of the photo was taken from an odd low angle.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Went in to order at 2017 Fuel EX 8 Plus this weekend, somehow ended up with this:

    2017 Fuel EX Official Post-img_2642.jpg

    Mostly stock 9.8 Plus. (sorry for the crap photo)

    My LBS had it in the box but had been planning to send it back to Trek, so they gave me a great deal on it. I had them swap out the 2x drivetrain for a 1x XT with a 30T chainring. I also had them mount the dropper lever under the bar on the left side. (And yes, it's a Reverb.)

    I've only had time to ride it up and down the driveway to burn in the brake pads, but I hope to get out of work in time to put some miles on it this afternoon. Can't wait.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    763
    Nice! Did you go for the 11-46 cassette as well or stick with the 11-40 that the 2x comes with?

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by LinkyPinky87 View Post
    Nice! Did you go for the 11-46 cassette as well or stick with the 11-40 that the 2x comes with?
    I've got the 11-42.

  197. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencemike View Post
    Went in to order at 2017 Fuel EX 8 Plus this weekend, somehow ended up with this:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2642.jpg 
Views:	2955 
Size:	318.7 KB 
ID:	1080248

    Mostly stock 9.8 Plus. (sorry for the crap photo)

    My LBS had it in the box but had been planning to send it back to Trek, so they gave me a great deal on it. I had them swap out the 2x drivetrain for a 1x XT with a 30T chainring. I also had them mount the dropper lever under the bar on the left side. (And yes, it's a Reverb.)

    I've only had time to ride it up and down the driveway to burn in the brake pads, but I hope to get out of work in time to put some miles on it this afternoon. Can't wait.
    Very nice. Can't wait to get mine tomorrow. I'm going to call today to make sure they build with the remote under the bar versus over.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    62
    Nice! I pick up my EX 9 on Thurs/Fri

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation: leathernuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311
    @sciencemike was the 1x change simply a different chain ring or different crank as well? I'm currently on a 1x on my Scott with 30t, but want to give the 2x a go again and may change out later.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by leathernuts View Post
    @sciencemike was the 1x change simply a different chain ring or different crank as well? I'm currently on a 1x on my Scott with 30t, but want to give the 2x a go again and may change out later.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    I believe (though tbh I'm not sure) that they kept the same cranks in.

Page 1 of 18 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Fuel EX 29 Official Post
    By kosmo in forum Trek
    Replies: 2038
    Last Post: 10-16-2019, 10:33 AM
  2. Post Your FUEL EX official post
    By efecto 0 in forum Trek
    Replies: 1159
    Last Post: 10-13-2017, 01:50 PM
  3. Fuel EX 29er official post
    By stygz1 in forum Trek
    Replies: 815
    Last Post: 03-30-2017, 06:46 AM
  4. 2016 or 2017 Fuel Ex 9.8?
    By a6rnner in forum Trek
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 06:46 AM
  5. Mountain Cycle (official post)
    By TWISTED in forum Mountain Cycle
    Replies: 707
    Last Post: 07-14-2013, 01:46 PM

Members who have read this thread: 117

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.