2020 Top Fuel Official Post - Page 4- Mtbr.com
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 601 to 788 of 788
  1. #601
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by kdimon View Post
    After increasing your pressures do you feel it is close to the 4sl for being pedaling. The 4sl is the other bike I am considering but prices are significantly more
    Still dialing things in, so can't answer definitively yet. But at the moment no, 4SL is a better pedaler and TP is a more capable descender.

  2. #602
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,324
    I was kinda thinking the following thread with 282 posts was already the official supercal post:

    edit: Duh, wrong thread....this is Top Fuel, not supercal...
    Last edited by Lone Rager; 10-30-2019 at 11:08 AM.
    Do the math.

  3. #603
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    Still dialing things in, so can't answer definitively yet. But at the moment no, 4SL is a better pedaler and TP is a more capable descender.
    It's going to be hard to beat the way a DW-Link bike feels under power.

    Does anyone know the part number for the downtube protector? (not the knock block pad, the big one) We went through the "frame parts" section and could only find protective tape, ordered something that may or may not fit from Dexter...it was only $5, so if it works, it works and if it doesn't, oh well.

    Lots of rocks to kick up here, the lack of downtube armor is going to limit my riding somewhat.

  4. #604
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    does anyone know the part number for the downtube protector?
    w513305 ?

  5. #605
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by drdocta View Post
    Agreed, having ridden both I would label the TF as the BCBR version of the FEX. With this TF I would never ride a TF again, as if I wanted a heavier slacker TF I would just get a Slash and have a bike that climbs almost as well as the FEX but can descend with the best of them (plus I like races so Slash would be more suited to enduro racing than the FEX). The Slash and TF being such good bikes that can do so much that the TF feels like too much of a muddled middle ground to me. Not quite as fast or good at climbing as the new TF but almost not as good at chunk and descending as the Slash. It's likely just me but I feel like the FEX (my previous 3 bikes) are a bike created with the worst of both worlds.
    Currently owning all three (I know, I know, but ya gotta get something going on a major milestone b-day year), I'd disagree with some of this.

    The new FEX is a far better rugged trail bike than the Slash. But if you're running enduro races -- and in it to win it -- the Slash stands alone.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  6. #606
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post

    Lots of rocks to kick up here, the lack of downtube armor is going to limit my riding somewhat.
    So did yours come with any armor at all? On trekbikes the red 9.9 XX1 is shown with black armor, while the XTR has clear tape. Which did you get? Also, is the red paint matte or glossy?

  7. #607
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    I think you mean the FEX is the muddled middle ground.
    Whoops, yeah that I did.

  8. #608
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Currently owning all three (I know, I know, but ya gotta get something going on a major milestone b-day year), I'd disagree with some of this.

    The new FEX is a far better rugged trail bike than the Slash. But if you're running enduro races -- and in it to win it -- the Slash stands alone.
    I guess I agree too that it's a better rugged trail bike, I just always found myself wishing I was on a more xc oriented bike on climbs (and finessing my way downhill) or locking out a slash going up and then unleashing it downhill. I'm just weird like that and would rather have a bike that is great at something and ok at others than one that is just good at most things. (AKA I am deff not the target consumer for trail bikes)

  9. #609
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    201
    Finally I decided...just ordered a new TF carbon frame! I took considering yeti sb-100, intense sniper, fezzary signal peak.....but at the end I've referred TF....I hope it'll be the right choice!!
    I've had for 7 years a Rocky mountain element 2012 and more recently 2016. I'd like to transplant at the begininng all parts to TF including my carbon wheels even if they are no boost. I'd like to mantain also my sid 120mm fork even if 51mm offset. Curious to se how it performs.
    I've a question:
    - cable brake rear is inside the frame or outside like in my rocky?

    Within a couple of week I'll post some pics
    Cheers
    Ernesto

  10. #610
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by gartenmeister View Post
    So did yours come with any armor at all? On trekbikes the red 9.9 XX1 is shown with black armor, while the XTR has clear tape. Which did you get? Also, is the red paint matte or glossy?
    The photos are mixed, the first photo (XX1/VR) has the clear tape, the second one has the armor...I was thinking (hoping) the first photo was a photoshop. Mine has the clear tape.

    The paint is glossy and the TFR decal stands out more IRL.

    Weight for a ML with sealant, XTR Trail pedals, GPS mount, cage and Saint brakes with 180/180 RT86 rotors was 25lbs, 2oz. (Once you go 4-piston, you can't go back)

  11. #611
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post

    Weight for a ML with sealant, XTR Trail pedals, GPS mount, cage and Saint brakes with 180/180 RT86 rotors was 25lbs, 2oz. (Once you go 4-piston, you can't go back)
    With what wheels and tires?

  12. #612
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    With what wheels and tires?
    Just what came in the box, Kovee Pro and XR3. The trail pedals are an extra 3oz and Saints without rotors weigh as much as Level Ultimates with rotors, so it would be a 3/4 pound lighter with stock parts and regular XTR pedals, and even lighter with a "true XC" spec of XXX wheels and XR2s (or at least one in the back).

    I did not get the Bontrager Switch thru-axle, which I did NOT want anyway. Solid choice for a road bike, not so much for a MTB...just seems like something that'll eventually go missing.

  13. #613
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Just what came in the box, Kovee Pro and XR3. The trail pedals are an extra 3oz and Saints without rotors weigh as much as Level Ultimates with rotors, so it would be a 3/4 pound lighter with stock parts and regular XTR pedals, and even lighter with a "true XC" spec of XXX wheels and XR2s (or at least one in the back).
    That's incredible. My M/L 9.9 XX1 weighs 25.0 on with super lightweight pedals, XXX wheels, and XR2 on the back. Yours came stock at least 1.3 pounds lighter than mine.

  14. #614
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    That's incredible. My M/L 9.9 XX1 weighs 25.0 on with super lightweight pedals, XXX wheels, and XR2 on the back. Yours came stock at least 1.3 pounds lighter than mine.
    Seems almost too good to be true.

    My L (black) weighs 11.9 kg (26.2 lb) with XTR race pedals. It is a 9.8 XT that I got my shop to switch to full XTR (including 4 piston brakes) and Kovee Pro wheels. Moving the XT/wheels to another frame.

    Compared with 9.9 XTR, I'm adding 150g (brakes), 60g (saddle) and 110g (fork, according to r2-bike.com). With XXX and one XR2, it would be ~11.3 kg (24.9 lb) ... basically the same as yours.

  15. #615
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    That's incredible. My M/L 9.9 XX1 weighs 25.0 on with super lightweight pedals, XXX wheels, and XR2 on the back. Yours came stock at least 1.3 pounds lighter than mine.
    That's what the Park scale said, and it was with ONLY what I listed. No bottle, no saddlebag, no spare tube, not even a CO2 adaptor.

    Clean:


    Dusty:


    Really impressed with it and the XR3 tires, just need to try to tune some of the harshness out of it. Hit a rock and it jolts the bars, hit a small drop and it's like landing on a pillow.

  16. #616
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    ... just need to try to tune some of the harshness out of it. Hit a rock and it jolts the bars, hit a small drop and it's like landing on a pillow.
    Consider doing an airshaft service. Mine came from Fox with the somewhat common "so much grease it fouls things up" issue. More supple now.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  17. #617
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Finally got the shock dialed on my Top Fuel. As I mentioned before, the Trek suspension calculator was way off on PSI guidelines to provide appropriate sag and support. With the added PSI the pedaling platform is firm enough that I'm very happy, I'm at the appropriate sag point, and I'm not wallowing deep in the travel on hard efforts. The bike still feels great descending and provides enough feed back to feel a real boost while pumping.

    I weigh 160 pounds and assume fully loaded, water, tools, shoes, helmet, etc. I'm adding another ~10 pounds to the bike.

    My settings (160 rider weight, 170 pound loaded weight):
    Spring: 205 PSI
    Rebound: 9-10 clicks out
    Shock sag: 12mm
    stock .4 volume spacer (for now)

    Trek setting (170 pound loaded weight)
    Spring: 170 PSI
    Rebound: 8 clicks out
    Shock sag: 12mm
    stock .4 volume spacer

    Would love to hear other's thoughts. Edit: this was measured using the high flip-chip setting.

  18. #618
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    480
    The general consensus I've heard of those moving from the old Top Fuel to the new one is similar. Go 10-20% higher pressure on the shock from Trek's recommended number, and put in a bigger volume spacer (red one).
    -DC, just some XC Bum from FL in NW Arkansas

  19. #619
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkpowa View Post
    The general consensus I've heard of those moving from the old Top Fuel to the new one is similar. Go 10-20% higher pressure on the shock from Trek's recommended number, and put in a bigger volume spacer (red one).
    Hm. I was thinking about removing the volume spacer and increasing the PSI even further. Has anyone felt that the suspension is too soft/linear at the end of the stroke?

  20. #620
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    Hm. I was thinking about removing the volume spacer and increasing the PSI even further. Has anyone felt that the suspension is too soft/linear at the end of the stroke?
    Depends on how you feel about the initial shock movement, because that would make it even stiffer. But if you just wanted more mid and end stroke support, the same sag (and whatever pressure that takes, probably slightly less) with a bigger spacer would do that.

  21. #621
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Quick question for those with the black or have looked at the black, noticed this on the 9.8 GX at the local Trek shop. Normal due to the layup?


  22. #622
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    29
    That is normal and intentional.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    --------------
    2019 Trek Top Fuel 9.8 SL
    1999 Trek 8000 SL

  23. #623
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by DouglyssRuns View Post
    That is normal and intentional.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    Thank you.

  24. #624
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,324
    Personally, I wouldn't call it intentional. No marketing guy said, "Hey! Lets make it look all mottled and uneven." It looks that way as a unrepentant byproduct of how it's manufactured.
    Do the math.

  25. #625
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    29
    If they wanted, they could have used a solid paint, like the red color. But they purposely used a semi for the black color so the fiber shows through. It's definitely for effect.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    --------------
    2019 Trek Top Fuel 9.8 SL
    1999 Trek 8000 SL

  26. #626
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    Personally, I wouldn't call it intentional. No marketing guy said, "Hey! Lets make it look all mottled and uneven." It looks that way as a unrepentant byproduct of how it's manufactured.
    I haven't looked closely at a "how carbon bikes are made" but they wanted to offer "raw carbon," so that's what they did. I'm almost sure that all the raw carbon with a pretty weave is just a cosmetic feature and not how it would normally look coming out of a mold if it were destined to be painted.

  27. #627
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,749
    Its exactly how Enve and other high end bars wheels, etc. look.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  28. #628
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Quick question for those with the black or have looked at the black, noticed this on the 9.8 GX at the local Trek shop. Normal due to the layup?

    Normal. The cool thing is that all of them are different. For instance the top bar on mine in the same spot as your photo looks more like the down tube in your photo.

  29. #629
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,708
    This is totally normal. My OG Tallboy LT had the same finish.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #630
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    Personally, I wouldn't call it intentional. No marketing guy said, "Hey! Lets make it look all mottled and uneven." It looks that way as a unrepentant byproduct of how it's manufactured.
    Thats what unidirectional carbon looks like..

  31. #631
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    Finally got the shock dialed on my Top Fuel. As I mentioned before, the Trek suspension calculator was way off on PSI guidelines to provide appropriate sag and support. With the added PSI the pedaling platform is firm enough that I'm very happy, I'm at the appropriate sag point, and I'm not wallowing deep in the travel on hard efforts. The bike still feels great descending and provides enough feed back to feel a real boost while pumping.

    I weigh 160 pounds and assume fully loaded, water, tools, shoes, helmet, etc. I'm adding another ~10 pounds to the bike.

    My settings (160 rider weight, 170 pound loaded weight):
    Spring: 205 PSI
    Rebound: 9-10 clicks out
    Shock sag: 12mm
    stock .4 volume spacer (for now)

    Trek setting (170 pound loaded weight)
    Spring: 170 PSI
    Rebound: 8 clicks out
    Shock sag: 12mm
    stock .4 volume spacer

    Would love to hear other's thoughts. Edit: this was measured using the high flip-chip setting.
    I weigh 172 and use 210psi to get Fox's recommended 30% "plush" sag setting, but what I found was that adding a couple clicks of rebound damping (towards closed) removed some of the harshness (same with the fork).

    The suspension seems overdampened on high speed compression and underdampened on high speed rebound. Too little high speed rebound allows the tire to rebound too quickly when unweighted and allows the tire to slap the ground when coming off a trail obstacle. (harshness)
    Last edited by richde; 4 Weeks Ago at 08:35 PM.

  32. #632
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    There is a lot of talk in the middle of the thread about needing more than recommended pressure in the rear shock.

    So I'll ask here -- where it's easy to find -- whether anybody has tried the 0.6 VR (0.4 is stock).

    I may give it a whirl later this week, if the weather holds.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  33. #633
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    There is a lot of talk in the middle of the thread about needing more than recommended pressure in the rear shock.

    So I'll ask here -- where it's easy to find -- whether anybody has tried the 0.6 VR (0.4 is stock).

    I may give it a whirl later this week, if the weather holds.
    The recommend pressure may just be wrong.

    Volume spacers will mostly just change mid to end stroke behavior anyway, it'll probably make a small difference in the sag, but that's not what they're for.

    From the DPS tuning guide:
    Changing volume spacers in the shock is an internal adjustment that allows you to change the amount of mid stroke and bottom out resistance.

    If you have set your sag correctly and are using full travel (bottoming out) too easily, then you could install a larger spacer to increase bottom out resistance.

    If you have set your sag correctly and are not using full travel, then you could install a smaller spacer to decrease bottom out resistance.

  34. #634
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    The recommend pressure may just be wrong.

    Volume spacers will mostly just change mid to end stroke behavior anyway, it'll probably make a small difference in the sag, but that's not what they're for.
    Right. I think the bigger VR might be just what I want. May let me set pressure for a softer feel off the top, especially when the rear of the bike is lightly weighted, but still provide a good pedaling platform and bottoming resistance.

    As you increase the size of the VR, it allows a slightly lower pressure for the same sag, and it's a 10 minute experiment, so I'll probably give it a shot this weekend.

    But for me, it's just really fine tuning at this point. The bike rips!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  35. #635
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Right. I think the bigger VR might be just what I want. May let me set pressure for a softer feel off the top, especially when the rear of the bike is lightly weighted, but still provide a good pedaling platform and bottoming resistance.

    As you increase the size of the VR, it allows a slightly lower pressure for the same sag, and it's a 10 minute experiment, so I'll probably give it a shot this weekend.

    But for me, it's just really fine tuning at this point. The bike rips!
    Where are you at on rebound relative to the Fox DPS turning guide?

    I'm coming off a Stache so a little rear end harshness isn't as critical as it used to be but another two clicks of damping has taken a lot of the edge off. 60 miles on it so far and the second 30 was much better than the first after the adjustment. Maybe it'll loosen up more with usage, but I'm not unhappy with it now.

    The fork though...just took 10psi out of it to run 25% sag, since I was only using 100mm of travel anyway and I'm having a little trouble imagining holding onto the grips all the way through True Grit.

  36. #636
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slimphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    785
    For all your hardcore XC racers. Is the top fuel the only XC bike you guys would have or would a hardtail compliment the top fuel for those XC races?

  37. #637
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    480
    XC racer here, I wouldn't have a 2020+ Top Fuel as my primary race bike based on feedback from fellow racers who've raced the last Top Fuel and this one. 2020 Top Fuel and a super light Hardtail like the new SWORKS Epic HT could be a good combo with 5-6# between them depending on build.
    -DC, just some XC Bum from FL in NW Arkansas

  38. #638
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    10
    I race about 10-12 Cat 2 (Sport) races/year and a several of festival endurance races. I don't consider myself hardcore as I only ride about 2,500 miles/year - mostly off road.

    I just pulled the trigger on the 9.9 TF and plan to use it as my XC race/trail/play bike combined. I will keep my existing 2014 FS XC race bike and use it for really nasty/muddy conditions or for easy things like the Virginia Creeper Trail.

    The new TF will be my first time trying a dropper post. If I don't like it, I will just remove it and save 0.6 pounds. But, I keep hearing that once you get used to it there is no going back.

    I don't ever see a time I would go back to a hardtail for racing as I don't think it is worth the 3 pounds or so weight savings (for me).

  39. #639
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Re: Sizing

    Several reviews have mentioned that riders have been finding it more comfortable to go one size larger than theyd previously ridden on a Trek.

    The owners here found that to be true?

    I was on a 19.5 with my 17 EX 9 which would place me on a Large TF. Curious what you all have experienced prior to purchase and what you have found most comfortable as you got used to the bike.

  40. #640
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Re: Sizing

    Several reviews have mentioned that riders have been finding it more comfortable to go one size larger than theyd previously ridden on a Trek.

    The owners here found that to be true?

    I was on a 19.5 with my 17 EX 9 which would place me on a Large TF. Curious what you all have experienced prior to purchase and what you have found most comfortable as you got used to the bike.
    Depends on what you mean by "comfortable." You can get "comfortable" on a lot of things if you make an effort to get used to it.

    The reach measurements are pretty long, and since that's one of the main reasons for sizing up, it's just not as necessary once manufacturers catch up to what people want. I came off a 19.5 Stache 9.8, which has a slightly shorter reach and significantly higher stack height and the 18.5 TF feels just as good. Bars are definitely lower, but the balance is good.

  41. #641
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by slimphatty View Post
    For all your hardcore XC racers. Is the top fuel the only XC bike you guys would have or would a hardtail compliment the top fuel for those XC races?
    It isn't a "hardcore XC race" bike.

    Top Fuel 9.9 is our top-of-the-line full suspension mountain bike for endurance racers and multi-discipline riders.

  42. #642
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Re: Sizing

    Several reviews have mentioned that riders have been finding it more comfortable to go one size larger than theyd previously ridden on a Trek.

    The owners here found that to be true?

    I was on a 19.5 with my 17 EX 9 which would place me on a Large TF. Curious what you all have experienced prior to purchase and what you have found most comfortable as you got used to the bike.
    Road 19.5 treks now i ride 21.5 treks. The standover gain is not an issue but i way prefer the longer reach.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Fatbike, XC bike, Gravel Bike....

  43. #643
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    10
    Hello there!
    I would like to change my SC 5010 with the new TopFuel and I planned to change the stock shox with a Fox dps 3pos without remote. How do you see this? There will be some issues in reaching the shox level while pedaling?

    I am 5.7, would you go with a M or ML ? I do not race and I ride from a quick tour 30km/D+500m to all day trip on mountains 90km/D+2500.

    Last, I have also tested the Yeti SB100 and I will really appreciate if anyone may share his impressions on this comparison...

  44. #644
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Re: Sizing

    Several reviews have mentioned that riders have been finding it more comfortable to go one size larger than theyd previously ridden on a Trek.

    The owners here found that to be true?

    I was on a 19.5 with my 17 EX 9 which would place me on a Large TF. Curious what you all have experienced prior to purchase and what you have found most comfortable as you got used to the bike.
    Im on a 2019 Remedy 9.8 in size 19.5 inch. After reading some reviews about the TF I was also unsure about the sizing of my new TF. Then I had the chance to sit on a 19.5 inch Top Fuel for another customer at my LBS: fits perfectly! Im sure that one size up would be way too long for me.
    But how I understood the mentioning by the reviewers of taking the TF one size larger was compared to the old TF. Owners of the old TF, thinking about making the change to the new TF, maybe should take it one size larger.
    But thats only how my interpretation is...

  45. #645
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by 83ale83 View Post
    Hello there!
    I would like to change my SC 5010 with the new TopFuel and I planned to change the stock shox with a Fox dps 3pos without remote. How do you see this? There will be some issues in reaching the shox level while pedaling?

    I am 5.7, would you go with a M or ML ? I do not race and I ride from a quick tour 30km/D+500m to all day trip on mountains 90km/D+2500.

    Last, I have also tested the Yeti SB100 and I will really appreciate if anyone may share his impressions on this comparison...
    The shock is inverted so you won't be able to reach the lever on the bottom while riding. I am not sure if you could mount the shock traditionally. In the end, I am not sure why you would do this. The bike already comes with a DPS and it is nice. Mine even came with the Elite version. I rarely use the lockout. I may even eliminate it completely when the POS lever I am using wears out.

    As far as size, you need to try both. The limiting factor for most is the dropper length. I prefer the larger size but, couldn't use the dropper I wanted so went a size down...

  46. #646
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    30
    With the lockout being push-to-unlock ... if you removed it completely, would the shock/fork both remain fully open?

  47. #647
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    With the lockout being push-to-unlock ... if you removed it completely, would the shock/fork both remain fully open?
    The rear lock out is push to lock...

  48. #648
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by yarbrough462 View Post
    The shock is inverted so you won't be able to reach the lever on the bottom while riding. I am not sure if you could mount the shock traditionally. In the end, I am not sure why you would do this. The bike already comes with a DPS and it is nice. Mine even came with the Elite version. I rarely use the lockout. I may even eliminate it completely when the POS lever I am using wears out.

    As far as size, you need to try both. The limiting factor for most is the dropper length. I prefer the larger size but, couldn't use the dropper I wanted so went a size down...
    I want to switch to 3 pos level to have a bike more trail-oriented and to simplify the cockpit. Even also I lean while pedaling I won't be able to change the lever position? It looks to me strange...

    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    With the lockout being push-to-unlock ... if you removed it completely, would the shock/fork both remain fully open?
    I will change the shock not only remove the lockout

  49. #649
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by 83ale83 View Post
    I want to switch to 3 pos level to have a bike more trail-oriented and to simplify the cockpit. Even also I lean while pedaling I won't be able to change the lever position? It looks to me strange...


    I will change the shock not only remove the lockout
    Im afraid you will not be able to reach the lever...

  50. #650
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by yarbrough462 View Post
    The rear lock out is push to lock...
    Not on my bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by 83ale83 View Post
    I will change the shock not only remove the lockout
    That's cool. I was asking for myself, as I also wouldn't mind simplifying the cockpit. And changing grips. I don't really need to lock the suspension out with the riding I do.

  51. #651
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    Not on my bike.


    You have a 2020? They all use the same shock I believe so I am not sure why yours would be different from all the others? I wouldn't have bought this bike if it were push to unlock. I hate that set up.

  52. #652
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Im afraid you will not be able to reach the lever...
    Agreed...

  53. #653
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by yarbrough462 View Post
    Agreed...
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Im afraid you will not be able to reach the lever...
    Best will be that some bike owner will "simulate" to act the lever, even also in a garage will be sufficient...

    For who are interested in this modification, I have already checked with Trek about warranty and until the shock is 190x45 (European sizing sorry) there won't be any issue.

  54. #654
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by yarbrough462 View Post
    You have a 2020? They all use the same shock I believe so I am not sure why yours would be different from all the others? I wouldn't have bought this bike if it were push to unlock. I hate that set up.
    Yes. Have had it about 2 weeks now. It's a 9.8 with Performance Elite shock. Most definitely twist the grip to lock, and then push the button to release/open. Which I prefer, contrary to yourself.

  55. #655
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    Yes. Have had it about 2 weeks now. It's a 9.8 with Performance Elite shock. Most definitely twist the grip to lock, and then push the button to release/open. Which I prefer, contrary to yourself.
    ? That is a push to lock system. The exact same one we all have...You said that yours was not push to lock? When you twist the lock, you are doing the same thing pushing a remote does. When you press the button, you are releasing the lock. If it were a push to unlock system, that would be reverse. If you remove your remote, your system will remain unlocked.

  56. #656
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    I've been toying with the idea of trying a standard 3-position DPS "lever" rear shock.

    It appears like I could simply install it right side up to allow for lever access.

    Thoughts? Am I missing something?
    Whining is not a strategy.

  57. #657
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    I've been toying with the idea of trying a standard 3-position DPS "lever" rear shock.

    It appears like I could simply install it right side up to allow for lever access.

    Thoughts? Am I missing something?
    It was my plan also, do you mean to install it upside-down, so you will have the lever on the top of the shock ?

  58. #658
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by 83ale83 View Post
    It was my plan also, do you mean to install it upside-down, so you will have the lever on the top of the shock ?
    Well, the opposite of stock, which is kind of upside down to start with.

    In any event, I thought it would fit with the blue lever up, and facing forwards.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  59. #659
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Well, the opposite of stock, which is kind of upside down to start with.

    In any event, I thought it would fit with the blue lever up, and facing forwards.
    I am not really sure looking to that frame ''edge'' where the link is attached
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-p5pb17244013.jpg

  60. #660
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    895
    Has anyone ridden both the 2020 Top Fuel and the current model Scott Spark?

    I have a 2018 18.5 Top Fuel and found the reach a bit short but then the 19.5 seat tube is too big. So thought the 2020 TF would be a better fit. But then noticed the current model Spark whick looks like it might be more capable for XC and trail riding. However my concern for the Spark was on paper the reach was even shorter than my current TF.

    Just wondering if people have any comments on how both these bikes ride

    Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk

  61. #661
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by yarbrough462 View Post
    ? That is a push to lock system. The exact same one we all have...You said that yours was not push to lock? When you twist the lock, you are doing the same thing pushing a remote does. When you press the button, you are releasing the lock. If it were a push to unlock system, that would be reverse. If you remove your remote, your system will remain unlocked.
    OK then. Seems this is another weird thing like "clipless" pedals. Seeing as I push a button to unlock the suspension, I thought it would be logical to assume that was a push to unlock system.

  62. #662
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    Yes. Have had it about 2 weeks now. It's a 9.8 with Performance Elite shock. Most definitely twist the grip to lock, and then push the button to release/open. Which I prefer, contrary to yourself.
    Can most of you verify that the 2020 Top Fuel is indeed coming with the Fox Performance Elite shock? Same for the fork? Specs on trek website dont show the Performance Elite. Only the performance.
    Trek Top Fuel 9.9 RSL
    Trek Procaliber 9.8 SL P1
    Trek Madone SLR9
    Trek Checkpoint SL

  63. #663
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by dsills View Post
    Can most of you verify that the 2020 Top Fuel is indeed coming with the Fox Performance Elite shock? Same for the fork? Specs on trek website dont show the Performance Elite. Only the performance.
    Ill be waiting for responses; think Im committing to a 9.8 tomorrow but if new builds are Elites, then Ill have them order one in lieu of taking the bike off the floor.

  64. #664
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    22
    On mine the shock is the elite, the fork is the performance.

  65. #665
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by dsills View Post
    Can most of you verify that the 2020 Top Fuel is indeed coming with the Fox Performance Elite shock? Same for the fork? Specs on trek website dont show the Performance Elite. Only the performance.
    Still waiting for my TF 9.8 P1; maybe I will get it next week.

    The Fox forks on the TFs are stepcast models.
    Ive visited the Fox website and saw, that theres only Factory and Performance as stepcast models, but no Performance Elite available as stepcast.
    This means for me theres no way that the fork can be a Performance Elite on the 9.8 TFs, except FOX might have produced some OEM only Performance Elite stepcast forks for Trek. But I dont think this has happened.

    As already written a few days ago: I will give that "Performance-only" Fox fork a chance...

  66. #666
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by ksj View Post
    On mine the shock is the elite, the fork is the performance.
    Same with mine (9.8 XT).

  67. #667
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    OK then. Seems this is another weird thing like "clipless" pedals. Seeing as I push a button to unlock the suspension, I thought it would be logical to assume that was a push to unlock system.
    In this case it is because the twist loc system is rarely used. You usually use a push to lock lever to actuate the suspension. Trek did it this way so there was room to add a dropper lever.

  68. #668
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    except FOX might have produced some OEM only Performance Elite stepcast forks for Trek. But I dont think this has happened.
    This kind of thing happens all the time.

  69. #669
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by 83ale83 View Post
    I am not really sure looking to that frame ''edge'' where the link is attached
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p5pb17244013.jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	245.0 KB 
ID:	1291253
    Ah, good point. I need to pull a standard shock off another bike and check for clearance there, but it does look tight..

    Good project for a rainy winter day.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  70. #670
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by 83ale83 View Post
    Hello there!
    I would like to change my SC 5010 with the new TopFuel and I planned to change the stock shox with a Fox dps 3pos without remote. How do you see this? There will be some issues in reaching the shox level while pedaling?

    I am 5.7, would you go with a M or ML ? I do not race and I ride from a quick tour 30km/D+500m to all day trip on mountains 90km/D+2500.

    Last, I have also tested the Yeti SB100 and I will really appreciate if anyone may share his impressions on this comparison...
    I'm 5'10 and went with an ML. I suspect you're a M but you should test ride.

  71. #671
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748

  72. #672
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Nice!

  73. #673
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    I'm 5'10 and went with an ML. I suspect you're a M but you should test ride.
    Same, no need to upsize the TF...and I like bikes with longer reaches. No way I'd have bought the old TF.

  74. #674
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Well, the opposite of stock, which is kind of upside down to start with.

    In any event, I thought it would fit with the blue lever up, and facing forwards.
    Hello,
    It won't fit, I had today a quick ride on the parking and there is not enough room to have the shock with the blue level on top. You can fit a 3pos shock with the level on the bottom and you can reach the level while riding but you have to lean...not the best if you have to do this while racing but it can work.

  75. #675
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    19
    Has anyone ridden both the 2020 Top Fuel and the Yeti SB100? I'm trying to decide between these two bikes.

  76. #676
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by maddchase View Post
    Has anyone ridden both the 2020 Top Fuel and the Yeti SB100? I'm trying to decide between these two bikes.
    I've ridden both and own a TF 2020. The yeti had really heavy tires. I like the way both bikes pedal, but got along with the TF better. The yeti also made a noise from the rear suspension on occasion. As always it's never a apples to apples comparison, but my impression of the yeti turned me off of it.

  77. #677
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by maddchase View Post
    Has anyone ridden both the 2020 Top Fuel and the Yeti SB100? I'm trying to decide between these two bikes.
    These guys did:
    https://enduro-mtb.com/en/the-best-m...ail-bike-test/

  78. #678
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    2
    Hello! About the sizing..

    I have heard that with this particular model it is better to size up, is this true?
    I'm 187cm, so just between L and XL, and having a dilemma to decide.
    Any thoughts?

  79. #679
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    22
    I'm the same height with a 86cm inseam. Went with an XL, which seems to work well though if I did it again I would go with L as I don't need a 170 dropper. A 150 would probably fit perfect.

  80. #680
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post

    First ride in the books. Love it. Been away from riding a year and a half so a lot of distrust in myself, the tires, etc., but so thankful to be back in the saddle in the dirt.




  81. #681
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by vkixc View Post
    Hello! About the sizing..

    I have heard that with this particular model it is better to size up, is this true?
    I'm 187cm, so just between L and XL, and having a dilemma to decide.
    Any thoughts?
    I'm right between the ML and L, ended up going with the M/L and it handles great. I like a longer reach, but the Large has a 470mm reach, which is way out there for for someone my height (5'10"/178cm). Probably would have had to use a 50mm stem if I'd have sized up.

  82. #682
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by vkixc View Post
    Hello! About the sizing..

    I have heard that with this particular model it is better to size up, is this true?
    I'm 187cm, so just between L and XL, and having a dilemma to decide.
    Any thoughts?
    I'm your height with a 79 cm inseam (yes, LONG torso) and went with an XL.

    It's perfect for my tastes, with the stock 80 mm stem. Interesting is that the new Fuel EX is a bit longer for a given size.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  83. #683
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    Only thing pushing the TF out of top spot is weak brakes and twisloc? I'll take that, enjoying the twistloc (year 2 of using it now) and brakes are an easy upgrade.

  84. #684
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    Nice review!
    They forget to sumarize in "riding charateristiques" for TF !!

    Just arrived invisiframe protection for new frame.....I hope in a ferw days to post the bike!

  85. #685
    Trek Top Fuel 9.8XT P1
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    2
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2686.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2687.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2688.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2689.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2690.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2691.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2692.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2693.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2694.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2695.jpgPicked up the new bike last week and absolutely love it!! here are some pics. cheers. Trek Top Fuel 9.8XT P1.

  86. #686
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by maddchase View Post
    Has anyone ridden both the 2020 Top Fuel and the Yeti SB100? I'm trying to decide between these two bikes.
    I sold my sb100 for a top fuel and have no regrets. I bought it for marathon racing on rougher courses but like it so much that I have trouble justifying racing another bike regardless of the course. This is my first Trek in quite a few years after a string of Yetis. Id say the yeti climbs slightly better with a more firm pedaling platform but just barely. This is something I can only feel on pavement. The TF descends better. The TF is lighter too - Having swapped the same parts from one to the other I think I saved around a pound. If given the choice, Id pick the TF regardless of scenario over the sb100. I just swapped on a heavier Wheelset with minions to see if I can get rid of my longer travel bike as I feel that the TF can handle pretty rough stuff but Im not sure I want to beat on my race bike like that

  87. #687
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by dgregorie View Post
    I sold my sb100 for a top fuel and have no regrets. I bought it for marathon racing on rougher courses but like it so much that I have trouble justifying racing another bike regardless of the course. This is my first Trek in quite a few years after a string of Yetis. Id say the yeti climbs slightly better with a more firm pedaling platform but just barely. This is something I can only feel on pavement. The TF descends better. The TF is lighter too - Having swapped the same parts from one to the other I think I saved around a pound. If given the choice, Id pick the TF regardless of scenario over the sb100. I just swapped on a heavier Wheelset with minions to see if I can get rid of my longer travel bike as I feel that the TF can handle pretty rough stuff but Im not sure I want to beat on my race bike like that
    Hello,
    which size for both bikes? How tall are you ?

  88. #688
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by 83ale83 View Post
    Hello,
    which size for both bikes? How tall are you ?
    Im just over 6 ft. Large in both

  89. #689
    mtbr member
    Reputation: expatrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,180
    Just in case anyone was wondering about tire clearance, I put on 2.6" Schwalbe tires front (HD) and rear (NN). Plenty of clearance. 34 Stepcast up front.

  90. #690
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by expatrider View Post
    Just in case anyone was wondering about tire clearance, I put on 2.6" Schwalbe tires front (HD) and rear (NN). Plenty of clearance. 34 Stepcast up front.
    Incredible!!

  91. #691
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by kzadro View Post
    Picked up the new bike last week and absolutely love it!! here are some pics. cheers. Trek Top Fuel 9.8XT P1.
    A beautiful color scheme.
    What is the size and the weight? Do you have other upgrades besides the brakes?

    I am also very interested in the XT version and will upgrade the brakes and the wheels to the kovee pros.



    Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

  92. #692
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,878
    Quote Originally Posted by expatrider View Post
    Just in case anyone was wondering about tire clearance, I put on 2.6" Schwalbe tires front (HD) and rear (NN). Plenty of clearance. 34 Stepcast up front.
    How about pics of clearance. Thanks.

  93. #693
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by eb1888 View Post
    How about pics of clearance. Thanks.
    2.6 Vittoria Barzos fit too. I'll snap a few pics when I get a minute, but there isn't much of a need. They fit with quite a bit of room to spare, front and rear. The Barzos are 2.55 after some stretch on the "30 mm" Bontrager carbon rims the 9.8 is fitted with. That makes it pretty close to a real 2.6 tire if it was fitted to a proper 35mm rim.

    Now if it didn't take a wood vice and 3000 pounds of force to dismount tires off of those rims ...

  94. #694
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by adaycj View Post
    2.6 Vittoria Barzos fit too. I'll snap a few pics when I get a minute, but there isn't much of a need. They fit with quite a bit of room to spare, front and rear. The Barzos are 2.55 after some stretch on the "30 mm" Bontrager carbon rims the 9.8 is fitted with. That makes it pretty close to a real 2.6 tire if it was fitted to a proper 35mm rim.

    Now if it didn't take a wood vice and 3000 pounds of force to dismount tires off of those rims ...
    How do you like the Barzos? Do you race on the 2.6 model?

  95. #695
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by drdocta View Post
    How do you like the Barzos? Do you race on the 2.6 model?
    If you call my mid pack late 40's sport/age group stuff racing, yes I race on 2.6s. But I've also raced on a fat bike, and my "race" bike for the last three years was a steel Jamis with 3.0 inch tires.

    For me and my riding the Barzos are the perfect mix of relatively low rolling resistance, enough tread to ride XC, and more durable (so far) than the paper thin WTB and Schwalbe plus tires I've ridden on in previous seasons. Talking about speed, and PRs, a such it is never easy to quantify in comparison to another rider, or another region, or, or, or ... but I'm faster on the Barzos pretty much everywhere over the XR3s. They also have more grip in the corners, can be run at lower pressures (17, 18 for me), and are a little more comfortable.

  96. #696
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by eb1888 View Post
    How about pics of clearance. Thanks.
    Not the tires you quoted, but 2.6 Barzos

    https://photos.app.goo.gl/JnRPBUZH2rzrWbPZ9

    About 10mm at the seat stay for each side, 9mm at the chain stay.

  97. #697
    Trek Top Fuel 9.8XT P1
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    2
    Thanks man! it looks awesome in the flesh. Looks a bit green in the pictures with the reflection of the grass, but is black and shadow grey.

    I got a M/L size. I'm 172cm and felt good. I tried the L but was too big for me. Came from a M Superfly so fells a bit bigger than I'm used to but very happy that I went the M/L. I haven't weighed it as yet.

    I ended up going for the XR2 Tyres, Kovee Pro wheels and carbon seat.

    When I bought mine it came with the XT Brakes which was awesome. I think now it only comes with SLX.

    I'm super happy with it though. The bike just wants to float over stuff and gives you so much confidence.

    Not sure why people are hating on the twist lock. Its fantastic. I regularly ride to the trails so on the road its awesome. There isn't any bounce and super stiff. Then press the button when you hit the tracks, so easy. There is an extra cable but who cares about that.

  98. #698
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    6

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kzadro View Post
    Not sure why people are hating on the twist lock. Its fantastic. I regularly ride to the trails so on the road its awesome. There isn't any bounce and super stiff. Then press the button when you hit the tracks, so easy. There is an extra cable but who cares about that.
    I totally agree, I had a test ride at the roc dazur in France and really loved the twist lock. For me, it is a must have in Flanders (Belgium).
    I am 181cm with long legs and arms, a L will fit me. Even a XL will be possible with a shorter stem, but I am doubting about the longer wheelbase.



    Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

  99. #699
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    29
    My 2019 TF is twist to unlock, so sometimes it gets jarred locked. That really sucks. Otherwise it's fine.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    --------------
    2019 Trek Top Fuel 9.8 SL
    1999 Trek 8000 SL

  100. #700
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Grips to match TwistLoc...

    Anyone have calipers to check the TwistLoc so I know which thickness of ESI to get?

    I noted in one thread Racers Edge (once trimmed) was perfect whereas ESI says the Chunky. Just trying to verify the actual size so I can maintain the transition.

  101. #701
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    3
    Ive got Chunky on mine, and they are too big, about a 2 millimeters in diameter. Racers Edges probably fit better.

  102. #702
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Grips to match TwistLoc...

    Anyone have calipers to check the TwistLoc so I know which thickness of ESI to get?

    I noted in one thread Racers Edge (once trimmed) was perfect whereas ESI says the Chunky. Just trying to verify the actual size so I can maintain the transition.
    FWIW, I've got a less than ideal left hand that makes the twist-loc approach unusable.

    I'm having great luck with my "new and improved" Fox push/push lever, combined with my beloved Wolftooth Fatpaw grips.

    No dropper here, so plenty of room for the Fox lever.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  103. #703
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by SS78 View Post
    Ive got Chunky on mine, and they are too big, about a 2 millimeters in diameter. Racers Edges probably fit better.
    Racers Edge it is. Thanks.

  104. #704
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Racers Edge it is. Thanks.
    I used Racers Edge on mine, and the diameter is as perfect as you can get with a foamy grip.

    One thing to consider. The ESI grips are wider so you can move the twist lock inboard some if you like your controls inboard more which also makes the LH grip wider. I almost cut the ESI LH grip to the length of the removed stock grip right away. I think I got nearly 10mm more grip on the LH side with perfectly comfortable controls, which makes me like the twist lock even more because I have more real estate for my hand when I'm on trails that don't lend themselves towards lockout usage.

  105. #705
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by adaycj View Post
    I used Racers Edge on mine, and the diameter is as perfect as you can get with a foamy grip.

    One thing to consider. The ESI grips are wider so you can move the twist lock inboard some if you like your controls inboard more which also makes the RH grip wider. I almost cut the ESI RH grip to the length of the removed stock grip right away. I think I got nearly 10mm more grip on the RH side with perfectly comfortable controls, which makes me like the twist lock even more because I have more real estate for my hand when I'm on trails that don't lend themselves towards lockout usage.
    Was going to do the same (cut it to match that which Im replacing) until you said something. Ill bear with the Bontrager grips a bit longer allowing time to mess with control placement and see what I settle on.

  106. #706
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,727
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Grips to match TwistLoc...

    Anyone have calipers to check the TwistLoc so I know which thickness of ESI to get?

    I noted in one thread Racers Edge (once trimmed) was perfect whereas ESI says the Chunky. Just trying to verify the actual size so I can maintain the transition.
    I am running the FIT XC grips and they mesh up well with the Twist Lock. I believe that is what many riders on Trek Factory Racing use as well.

  107. #707
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Today I was called from my LBS: my 9.8 P1 in Icon/Brushed Liquid Metal has arrived.
    Unfortunately, I cannot pick it up before the end of this week. Im very excited! :-)

  108. #708
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    What's the max chainring size for the carbon models?

  109. #709
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    What's the max chainring size for the carbon models?
    i was told 34t, but that it can cause some anti-squat

  110. #710
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by fishywishy View Post
    i was told 34t, but that it can cause some anti-squat
    That's what I thought. There's a little room left with the 34t I have so I wasn't quite sure.

    Gearing is still a touch low, but I guess it's close enough.

  111. #711
    tke
    tke is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    9
    I'm planning to change a chainring to 34t oval version. Assuming that, there is enough room for that?

  112. #712
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by tke View Post
    I'm planning to change a chainring to 34t oval version. Assuming that, there is enough room for that?
    It looks like there's room to fit a 36t, what the big half of a 34 oval is, but there's probably some mandated clearance like with tires. Most likely a holdover allowing for poor upkeep and more flexible frames and generally lower quality parts of the past.

  113. #713
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    1
    Does anyone know the size of the tiny screw that holds the twist-loc in place? I've been tinkering with mine and lost it. The twist-loc is not exactly spinning around on the bars, but it would feel better to have it secured in place!

  114. #714
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    6
    My 9.8 XT arrived at the LBS yesterday but won't be ready until tomorrow. We did open the box though and I can confirm it was shipped with an upgraded performance elite shock and 4 piston m7120 brakes. I had already purchased XT m8100 brakes to replace the brakes that the website specs(2 piston m7000) and now I'm a little torn. Other than weight and # of pistons, what's the difference in the current XT and SLX brakes?

  115. #715
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by jdlbb View Post
    My 9.8 XT arrived at the LBS yesterday but won't be ready until tomorrow. We did open the box though and I can confirm it was shipped with an upgraded performance elite shock and 4 piston m7120 brakes. I had already purchased XT m8100 brakes to replace the brakes that the website specs(2 piston m7000) and now I'm a little torn. Other than weight and # of pistons, what's the difference in the current XT and SLX brakes?
    Not much really.

    If you wanted to really nitpick for the best of what you have, you could swap the levers and keep the calipers, since the XT levers would probably have a little edge in reliability/longevity.

    I would definitely give the 4-pistons a chance though. The reduced lever effort is pretty amazing.

  116. #716
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by jdlbb View Post
    My 9.8 XT arrived at the LBS yesterday but won't be ready until tomorrow. We did open the box though and I can confirm it was shipped with an upgraded performance elite shock and 4 piston m7120 brakes. I had already purchased XT m8100 brakes to replace the brakes that the website specs(2 piston m7000) and now I'm a little torn. Other than weight and # of pistons, what's the difference in the current XT and SLX brakes?
    Are you sure? 4 pistons?

  117. #717
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Question to the TF P1 owners: mine came with only a thin protection foil under the down tube. The stock TFs have that solid protection guard down there. What about your TF P1s?

    [email protected]: is that the case with the P1s? Are they shipped with only a foil to protect the down tube?

  118. #718
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Question to the TF P1 owners: mine came with only a thin protection foil under the down tube. The stock TFs have that solid protection guard down there. What about your TF P1s?

    [email protected]: is that the case with the P1s? Are they shipped with only a foil to protect the down tube?
    Could you please attach a photo? With a 9.9 TF in front of me, I can tell you it has the standard guard. Curious to know what the foil is...
    Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

    Need help? Send me a message!

  119. #719
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    Could you please attach a photo? With a 9.9 TF in front of me, I can tell you it has the standard guard. Curious to know what the foil is...


    Color is ICON/Brushed Liquid Metal

    I guess you agree its not acceptable that a paint job (with a massive price increase) and at the most stressed part of the Top Fuels frame is not protected the same way like the stock models?

  120. #720
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Question to the TF P1 owners: mine came with only a thin protection foil under the down tube. The stock TFs have that solid protection guard down there. What about your TF P1s?

    [email protected]: is that the case with the P1s? Are they shipped with only a foil to protect the down tube?
    My Viper Red was the same.

    The regular protector is <$15, not a big deal.

  121. #721
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    Could you please attach a photo? With a 9.9 TF in front of me, I can tell you it has the standard guard. Curious to know what the foil is...
    No guard on my P1. Only the thin piece of helicopter tape

  122. #722
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    612
    I'm a grip shift guy and running foam grips on all my bikes like ESI and Red Monkey. Tried a pair of Ergon GA3 (for grip shift) and really prefer them over foam. Worth trying if you ever get a chance to check them out.



    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Grips to match TwistLoc...

    Anyone have calipers to check the TwistLoc so I know which thickness of ESI to get?

    I noted in one thread Racers Edge (once trimmed) was perfect whereas ESI says the Chunky. Just trying to verify the actual size so I can maintain the transition.

  123. #723
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by newking View Post
    I'm a grip shift guy and running foam grips on all my bikes like ESI and Red Monkey. Tried a pair of Ergon GA3 (for grip shift) and really prefer them over foam. Worth trying if you ever get a chance to check them out.
    Which ESI did you find to best match up on your bike(s)?

  124. #724
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    My Viper Red was the same.

    The regular protector is <$15, not a big deal.
    Exactly...

    The regular protector is only $15, really no big deal... so lets accept it!

    SLX brakes on a 7299 Dollar bike? Upgrading to XT is no big deal... so lets accept it!

    Why not accept anything?

  125. #725
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Exactly...

    The regular protector is only $15, really no big deal... so lets accept it!
    Ask your dealer to order the protector for you at no charge. If you spent $7300 with them on your new bike, I'm guessing they wouldn't mind helping you out and further protecting your frame at the same time.

  126. #726
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by tswp View Post
    Ask your dealer to order the protector for you at no charge. If you spent $7300 with them on your new bike, I'm guessing they wouldn't mind helping you out and further protecting your frame at the same time.
    Im pretty sure they will do so. But thats not what makes me upset.
    What makes me wondering is why Trek does not deliver the P1 bikes also with that solid protector on the down tube. Even the cheapest aluminum model comes speced with this protector. Because they will not "disturb" the clean look of the P1 colors or the Trek logo on the down tube? Clear: its no bigger deal, but its additional effort for me and my LBS, which is in my opinion completely unnecessary!

  127. #727
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    6
    Turns out they weren't the 4 pistons. I guess the mech was just excited, lol. They were the 7100 though.

  128. #728
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Im pretty sure they will do so. But thats not what makes me upset.
    What makes me wondering is why Trek does not deliver the P1 bikes also with that solid protector on the down tube. Even the cheapest aluminum model comes speced with this protector. Because they will not "disturb" the clean look of the P1 colors or the Trek logo on the down tube? Clear: its no bigger deal, but its additional effort for me and my LBS, which is in my opinion completely unnecessary!
    After speaking with the product team (and seeing the image of what you meant by 'foil',) what you have on your bike is correct. The original intention was to spec all MY20 TFs with the clear protective film but there were product delays so some did get spec'd with the rubberized armor (part number W532098) early on. It can be directly applied over the clear guard however, so if it was something you wanted, it would be a quick and easy addition to your paint job.

    Also, this is for stock and P1 bikes.

  129. #729
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    After speaking with the product team (and seeing the image of what you meant by 'foil',) what you have on your bike is correct. The original intention was to spec all MY20 TFs with the clear protective film but there were product delays so some did get spec'd with the rubberized armor (part number W532098) early on. It can be directly applied over the clear guard however, so if it was something you wanted, it would be a quick and easy addition to your paint job.

    Also, this is for stock and P1 bikes.
    Just thinking aloud here... if I were to want to ditch the armor, can one get the film?

  130. #730
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Thanks Mitch for your reply.
    But: Treks intention really was to spec its super potential trail bike on the down tube with clear protective film only?
    Seriously?
    The pictures on Treks website show all models of the Top Fuel with that rubberized armor. Even the Procaliber has not just a protective film, but a solid armor under the down tube.
    Strange!
    But maybe Im a little bit too narrow-minded at the moment;-)

  131. #731
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Just thinking aloud here... if I were to want to ditch the armor, can one get the film?
    You could! Part number is W582461
    Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

    Need help? Send me a message!

  132. #732
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Thanks Mitch for your reply.
    But: Treks intention really was to spec its super potential trail bike on the down tube with clear protective film only?
    Seriously?
    The pictures on Treks website show all models of the Top Fuel with that rubberized armor. Even the Procaliber has not just a protective film, but a solid armor under the down tube.
    Strange!
    But maybe Im a little bit too narrow-minded at the moment;-)
    I get your point and concern - but the performance of the bike will not be inhibited.

    The images online do need to be updated as the clear film was not available at the time of the photo shoot. This product is just for Top Fuel and Supercaliber only.
    Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

    Need help? Send me a message!

  133. #733
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Exactly...

    The regular protector is only $15, really no big deal... so lets accept it!

    SLX brakes on a 7299 Dollar bike? Upgrading to XT is no big deal... so lets accept it!

    Why not accept anything?
    If you wanted top of the line parts, you should have bought the top of the line model. You paid an extra $1,300 for custom paint, not to upgrade anything.

    My bike came with Line Ultimates, I didn't want them and swapped them out. I can read the spec sheet and planned accordingly...and we all know the main difference between SLX and XT brakes is purely cosmetic.

    As everyone can clearly see, there are photos of the P1 Now Viper Red TF with and without the DT armor. I don't know why that is, but being upset for it not being there is no different than being upset that it IS there....and it's not as if plenty of similar bikes have no DT armor at all.

    So you wait a week to get the armor in and slap it on yourself if it matters to you....no big deal.

  134. #734
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Ok Mitch, following this thread carefully and if Im not wrong we can summarize:

    - we have TF 9.8s delivered with XT 4 piston brakes (spec is SLX)
    - we have TF 9.8s delivered with XT 2 piston brakes (spec is SLX)
    - we have TF 9.8s delivered with SLX 2 piston brakes
    - we have TF 9.8s delivered with Fox Performance Elite shocks (spec is still Elite only)
    - we have the wrong pictures on the Trek website regarding frame protection armors
    - weve had XT brakes on the P1 website, later this was modified to SLX brakes

    I understand clearly that this has mainly something to do with the stock availabilities of your suppliers. And thats the reason why Trek "reserves the right to make changes to the product information contained on this site at any time without notice, including with respect to equipment, specifications, models, colors, and materials."

    For Treks consumers, this is not only confusing, but can also be very unsatisfying. So one can only recommend that purchasers of Trek mountain bikes carfefully should check if they really got what they ordered. ;-)

  135. #735
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    748
    Wish my 9.8 GX had accidentally come with SRAM brakes and suspension to satisfy my OCD.

  136. #736
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Ok Mitch, following this thread carefully and if Im not wrong we can summarize:

    - we have TF 9.8s delivered with XT 4 piston brakes (spec is SLX)
    - we have TF 9.8s delivered with XT 2 piston brakes (spec is SLX)
    - we have TF 9.8s delivered with SLX 2 piston brakes
    - we have TF 9.8s delivered with Fox Performance Elite shocks (spec is still Elite only)
    - we have the wrong pictures on the Trek website regarding frame protection armors
    - weve had XT brakes on the P1 website, later this was modified to SLX brakes

    I understand clearly that this has mainly something to do with the stock availabilities of your suppliers. And thats the reason why Trek "reserves the right to make changes to the product information contained on this site at any time without notice, including with respect to equipment, specifications, models, colors, and materials."

    For Treks consumers, this is not only confusing, but can also be very unsatisfying. So one can only recommend that purchasers of Trek mountain bikes carfefully should check if they really got what they ordered. ;-)
    Looks like everyone is getting AT LEAST what they ordered, yet you're acting as if they're downgrading. Would anyone be "unsatisfied" by a free upgrade?

    The P1 online configuration tool shows no downtube armor, and not all photos of Viper Red models show DT armor.

  137. #737
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Looks like everyone is getting AT LEAST what they ordered, yet you're acting as if they're downgrading. Would anyone be "unsatisfied" by a free upgrade?

    The P1 online configuration tool shows no downtube armor, and not all photos of Viper Red models show DT armor.
    Not long ago the P1 website didnt even show the brake rotors on the TFs... ;-)

  138. #738
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Not long ago the P1 website didnt even show the brake rotors on the TFs... ;-)
    You've spent weeks complaining about getting the bike you ordered and trying to make it sound as if you didn't.

  139. #739
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    201
    Hi everybody
    finally I have my TF ML frame. I'd like to use a oneup dropper post. 180mm has 267mm insert lenght, do you think could fit? or better 150mm with 237mm insert lenght?
    thanks in advance

    Ernesto

  140. #740
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Not long ago the P1 website didnt even show the brake rotors on the TFs... ;-)
    Well there you go, another free upgrade!

  141. #741
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    182
    So lets move over to some pictures. Condition is stock; complete drivetrain, brakes and seatpost will be removed and upgraded. Thats why everything still looks a little bit rowdy











    Unfortunately, the pictures arent able to show how beautiful the paintwork really is. It looks like a polished raw aluminum under the clearcoat.

  142. #742
    Lover
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    33
    Some already noticed the weight difference between the 9.8 and the 9.8 XT version. About 500gr. That is a lot.

    Is there a specific part that can be marked as suspect for this difference?

  143. #743
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    463
    i ordered a 9.7 last week, very quick turn around with my lbs only done 1 ride and the bike rocks. only part holding it back in the fork. there is a bit of flex when standing and hammering, the rotors just barely rub.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-top-fuelsm.jpg  


  144. #744
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    121
    Awesome bike man!
    Last edited by Davesnhere; 1 Week Ago at 02:25 PM.

  145. #745
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by edibetta View Post
    Hi everybody
    finally I have my TF ML frame. I'd like to use a oneup dropper post. 180mm has 267mm insert lenght, do you think could fit? or better 150mm with 237mm insert lenght?
    thanks in advance

    Ernesto
    What's the BB to saddle rail distance on your bike now?

  146. #746
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    10
    If it could be of help, I had a real quick ride in the parking of my LBS and it felt quite short and compact. Size M for 170 height, 69 BB center to saddle. I think I will go for a M/L with a shorter stem (50mm)

  147. #747
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by PaneVino View Post
    Some already noticed the weight difference between the 9.8 and the 9.8 XT version. About 500gr. That is a lot.

    Is there a specific part that can be marked as suspect for this difference?
    I've mapped out all the weights of the parts and the quick answer is ... the weight of the GX build is about 500g optimistic.

    I'm considering using almost the GX drivetrain stuff on another build and buying XT for the TF 9.8. Leaving the cranks alone, my math says I'd loose 8g going to XT drive train (ie, its a wash). There just isn't 500g, or even 100g between the two drivetrains.

    More evidence; GX build 9.8, minus reflectors, dork disc, and stickers weighs within a few dozen grams of the XT build weight for the same bike as published by Trek.

  148. #748
    Lover
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by adaycj View Post
    I've mapped out all the weights of the parts and the quick answer is ... the weight of the GX build is about 500g optimistic.

    I'm considering using almost the GX drivetrain stuff on another build and buying XT for the TF 9.8. Leaving the cranks alone, my math says I'd loose 8g going to XT drive train (ie, its a wash). There just isn't 500g, or even 100g between the two drivetrains.

    More evidence; GX build 9.8, minus reflectors, dork disc, and stickers weighs within a few dozen grams of the XT build weight for the same bike as published by Trek.
    Great info! Thanks a lot. XT it is then

  149. #749
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by tke View Post
    I'm planning to change a chainring to 34t oval version. Assuming that, there is enough room for that?
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    It looks like there's room to fit a 36t
    I saw somewhere that a 36t chainring has a 4mm bigger radius than a 34t, if that's the case there definitely isn't room for a 36t or a 34t oval.

  150. #750
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    10
    My 9.9 M/L XTR came with the stem flipped up - makes me feel a little more upright than my old bike. Has anyone tried flipping the stem down?

    I only have one ride in with the bad weather here so I am going to give it some more time before considering a change.

  151. #751
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Tort40 View Post
    My 9.9 M/L XTR came with the stem flipped up - makes me feel a little more upright than my old bike. Has anyone tried flipping the stem down?

    I only have one ride in with the bad weather here so I am going to give it some more time before considering a change.
    Yep - works and looks great. I've only ridden the bike with it flipped down b/c it more closely tracks my XC fit.

  152. #752
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    Yep - works and looks great. I've only ridden the bike with it flipped down b/c it more closely tracks my XC fit.
    Also riding flipped down, to most closely duplicate fit of previous bike, and "retired racer" preference.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  153. #753
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Another flipped and slammed stem here.

    You can't get the stock bars that low because of the 120mm fork unless you go really small on the frame size.

    (5'10" on a ML with 1-2" of bar drop)

  154. #754
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Another flipped and slammed stem here.

    You can't get the stock bars that low because of the 120mm fork unless you go really small on the frame size.

    (5'10" on a ML with 1-2" of bar drop)
    What do you mean?
    Trek Top Fuel 9.9 RSL
    Trek Procaliber 9.8 SL P1
    Trek Madone SLR9
    Trek Checkpoint SL

  155. #755
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by dsills View Post
    What do you mean?
    A much smaller frame would have a shorter head tube, and the stack height is taller than something like a SuperCaliber or an older Top Fuel because the fork is longer...and it does have riser bars.

    Someone like Payson McElveen would ride a smaller frame, run straight bars and a 100mm fork (depending on the course)...that would give you some crazy low bars. But with stock parts, it seems like it's meant to be run with at least some bar drop with the stem flipped to negative with minimal spacers under it.

    Something is off with the Trek geo charts, they show the SC and TF having the same stack height despite having the same length headtubes and the fact that according to Fox, the axle to crown distance for a 34SC is ~26mm longer than a 32SC.

  156. #756
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post

    ....

    Something is off with the Trek geo charts, they show the SC and TF having the same stack height despite having the same length headtubes and the fact that according to Fox, the axle to crown distance for a 34SC is ~26mm longer than a 32SC.
    That is because stack height is from the BB to the head tube, and the fork doesn't matter. You are making a 90 degree turn between the two.

  157. #757
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4
    Long time listener, first time caller. After a very long absence from mountain biking I have a 2020 TF frame coming my way. I have most of the parts gathered, but couldn't find the spec for the brake caliper mounting bolts. Anything special required or someone have the size I need to get? Thanks!

  158. #758
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by rbrnut View Post
    Long time listener, first time caller. After a very long absence from mountain biking I have a 2020 TF frame coming my way. I have most of the parts gathered, but couldn't find the spec for the brake caliper mounting bolts. Anything special required or someone have the size I need to get? Thanks!
    It depends on the rotor size you're choosing to use. Basically you want to make sure you have long enough caliper mounting bolts so that you get a certain insertion depth into the frame and fork up front.

    I don't know that exact insertion spec, but somebody will (or perhaps post the question on the brake forum). Very important question.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  159. #759
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    It depends on the rotor size you're choosing to use. Basically you want to make sure you have long enough caliper mounting bolts so that you get a certain insertion depth into the frame and fork up front.

    I don't know that exact insertion spec, but somebody will (or perhaps post the question on the brake forum). Very important question.
    Thanks. Will repost there is necessary.

    I am going to run 160mm F/R with Magura MT8 SL's

  160. #760
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by adaycj View Post
    That is because stack height is from the BB to the head tube, and the fork doesn't matter. You are making a 90 degree turn between the two.
    derp

    Thanks, it all makes sense now. I guess I've just seen so many people on undersized frames with huge seat-to-bar drops that I thought it was normal geo/sizing.

  161. #761
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by rbrnut View Post
    Thanks. Will repost there is necessary.

    I am going to run 160mm F/R with Magura MT8 SL's
    I guess I am thinking of flat mount calipers where the chainstay thickness comes into play. With the post mount the bolt only needs enough to go through the caliper and firmly into the mount. I didn't get the brakes yet, so not sure if they include bolts.

  162. #762
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slimphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    785
    Now that some of you guys have had a few months on the new top fuel, i would like to hear about some stuff you guys don't like about this bike.

    I really think this is the bike for me but i haven't had the chance to test ride one. Im not a cross country guy but i love endurance, hammering up hills and every once in a while participate in a xc race.

    If i decide to go with the top fuel, id be building her frame up. Id imagine it comes with a. Push/pull lever for the shock lockout, right? Something like a dropper post.

    Thank you guys! I would love for this bike last me a few years.

  163. #763
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    6
    Loving my new 9.8 XT. Thought I'd show how the ESI Fit XC grips mate up to the TwistLoc lock out. I much prefer extra chunky grips but I'm actually really enjoying the lock out more than I expected so I might have to keep it. 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-9vplotmsgfcxdqsqcgimsv8cxdvsg2i_yevgof6o_xi-2048x1536.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_4954.jpg

  164. #764
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    6
    So I ordered the Kovee Pro's when I bought my 9.8 XT for the higher engagement and slightly lighter weight. I also got the Kovee Elite wheels that came on the bike and I was just going to sell them. Today, out of curiosity I pulled the free hub bodies off both rear wheels and was surprised to see that they appear to be identical on the inside. The pro's are marked 108T and the elite's are marked 54T but they have the exact same number of teeth inside, 54. I counted the number to clicks per revolution and its 108, I'm assuming because the dual notches on the paws. Am I missing something? I attached photos of both hubs. The elites have j-bend spokes and the pros have straight pull just for reference. 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_5047.jpg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_5045.jpg

  165. #765
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    2
    It's just the difference between the number of pawls on the freehub that determine the engagement.You can buy additional pawls and springs to upgrade 54T to 108T.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UUnVQIoj0uQ

  166. #766
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    2
    I bought a TF 9.7 as a winter hack a month back. I've just under 300 miles on it now and it's turned out to be much more bike than I anticipated. I'm even quietly impressed with the functionality of the budget components, yes the NX mech looks and feels terribly cheap, but it all works very well. It's rained every day here in the UK since I bought the bike, so not having to care about the cost of a new drivetrain has been a revelation. The Reba's are mint, the XR3's are proving to be a surprisingly good mud tyre, with great grip on wet roots. All in all I'm very pleased with it.

    My 'best bike' is an XX1, Fox Factory equipped Yeti sb55, which is a phenomenal bike, but this little TF has seen the Yeti tucked away unused since its arrival. A totally different beast entirely I know, but sometimes I have to remind myself I'm on a hopped up XC bike, it descends the chunky stuff very well and the climbing traction is up there with the Yeti's switch infinity, which IMHO is awesome.

    Stock grips were too slim and hard - modified my favorite thick Deathgrips to accommodate the twistloc, which is a bit of a bodge but works well. It also meant that I could cut the grips a bit longer than stock, moving the twistloc inboard by about 15mm, which suits me better.

    The bike climbs so well that the twistloc is only really necessary on prolonged fire road climbs, it just stops the visual minimal bob, of which there is no feedback to the pedals anyway, but just feels slightly more efficient. I did think I might ditch it, but now think I'll live with it given the grip mod above.

    I'm 179cm and went for a size large. This means that the seatpost is fully slammed into the frame so not much room for adjustment. You can buy a spacer for the seatpost to reduce the throw if this is a problem. It's slightly longer than I'm used to (always ridden med bikes), but this is proving to be a lot more comfortable on 4hr + rides.

    That said, the stock bars were too narrow for me. I've fitted some 800mm carbon fatbars cut down to 780mm and fitted an 80mm Apex stem in place of the stock 90mm. This has made it fit like a glove and I can literally spend all day on it, the Renthal thing has just become a habit on every bike I've owned, not very XC I know, but it works for me.

    The brakes are probably the only items of real concern - resin pads only discs, which I never knew existed. They work ok, but a definite weak point on a bike which carries so much speed.

    I'm looking to try out some XC racing next year, so I think I have the perfect bike for that transition. I did have a sub 11kg Canyon Lux a few years back (too XC for me - broke it!), which I set most of my Strava PR's on. I've been beating these almost without fail on the TF. Some of the lighter builds should be absolute rocket ships. Maybe once the winter slop has gone, I'll put mine on a diet.

    Also just fitted some Slik graphics decals on the reba's to balance the colours out a bit.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-fb_img_1575153525332.jpg  


  167. #767
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    259
    Any of the owners (future owners) of TF 9.9 model that comes with Rockshox Pike fork like Fox better and may want to swap that fork for 2020 Fox 34 Stepcast Factory Fit4 with manual lockout (mine is new and would like to swap for a new one too), please send me private message.
    (2020 Fox Factory SC 29in, 120mm, FIT4, 3Pos-Adj, Matte Blk, Orange Kabolt 110, 44mm Rake). Tx

  168. #768
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    22
    Any one know what adapters to use to upgrade the rotors on a 9.8 to 203 up front and 180 in back?

    The descriptions I've found are confusing to say the least...

  169. #769
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by ksj View Post
    Any one know what adapters to use to upgrade the rotors on a 9.8 to 203 up front and 180 in back?

    The descriptions I've found are confusing to say the least...
    For the front, you'll need a Shimano F203P/PM adapter (OE # ESMMAF203PPM).
    For the rear, you'll need a Shimano F180P/P2 adapter (OE # ESMMAF180PP2).
    Last edited by [email protected]; 8 Hours Ago at 08:45 AM.
    Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

    Need help? Send me a message!

  170. #770
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    For the front, you'll need a Shimano F203P/PM adapter (OE # ESMMAF203PPM).
    For the rear, you'll need a Shimano R180P/S adapter (OE # ISMMAR180PSA).
    Thank you!

  171. #771
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by ksj View Post
    Any one know what adapters to use to upgrade the rotors on a 9.8 to 203 up front and 180 in back?

    The descriptions I've found are confusing to say the least...
    The stepcast forks are limited to 180mm max

    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    For the front, you'll need a Shimano F203P/PM adapter (OE # ESMMAF203PPM).
    For the rear, you'll need a Shimano R180P/S adapter (OE # ISMMAR180PSA).
    No problem with the rear though.

  172. #772
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by slimphatty View Post
    Now that some of you guys have had a few months on the new top fuel, i would like to hear about some stuff you guys don't like about this bike.

    I really think this is the bike for me but i haven't had the chance to test ride one. Im not a cross country guy but i love endurance, hammering up hills and every once in a while participate in a xc race.

    If i decide to go with the top fuel, id be building her frame up. Id imagine it comes with a. Push/pull lever for the shock lockout, right? Something like a dropper post.

    Thank you guys! I would love for this bike last me a few years.
    It's a shorter travel trail bike. You can't bash through the gnar like with an enduro bike, but it's not a traditional XC bike either. The bike can go downhill just as fast as a bigger bike, conditions allowing (which they usually do).

    Hopefully the frame would come with the twist lock.

  173. #773
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    The stepcast forks are limited to 180mm max
    That was true for the 32 but I don't think it is for the 34.

  174. #774
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by PoshJosh View Post
    That was true for the 32 but I don't think it is for the 34.
    You are correct. It's 180mm max for the 27.5's, but 203 for the 29's.

  175. #775
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by PoshJosh View Post
    That was true for the 32 but I don't think it is for the 34.
    Quote Originally Posted by ksj View Post
    You are correct. It's 180mm max for the 27.5's, but 203 for the 29's.
    WTF, it's only the 27.5 that have the limitation, even 32s can use 203s.

    https://www.ridefox.com/fox17/help.p...tingdiscbrakes
    Maximum brake rotor diameter for all FOX forks except Step Cast 27.5in is 203mm. Step Cast 27.5in forks have a maximum rotor diameter of 180mm.
    Was there a change or has everyone been wrong since SC forks came out?

  176. #776
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,749
    Im guessing it has something to do with bushing placement vs brake caliper bolt placement.

    Meaning, Im thinking theyd overlap with the shorter lowers.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  177. #777
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    10
    I see where people have stated that the Trek suspension guide for the Top Fuel rear shock is about 20% low.

    Has anyone found that the Trek suspension guide for the front fork feels too harsh or like there is too much pressure?

  178. #778
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Tort40 View Post
    I see where people have stated that the Trek suspension guide for the Top Fuel rear shock is about 20% low.

    Has anyone found that the Trek suspension guide for the front fork feels too harsh or like there is too much pressure?
    I'm about 15 psi over Trek recommendations in back, and 15 psi under in front.

    Working out well for me.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  179. #779
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    I'm about 15 psi over Trek recommendations in back, and 15 psi under in front.

    Working out well for me.
    Did you also change your rebound settings or did you keep them at the Trek recommendation?

    I'm going to change the rear from 180 psi to 195 psi and the front from 80 psi to 65 psi based on your settings and see how that feels. I'm around 180 pounds fully geared up with my 100 oz camelbak.

  180. #780
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Tort40 View Post
    Did you also change your rebound settings or did you keep them at the Trek recommendation?

    I'm going to change the rear from 180 psi to 195 psi and the front from 80 psi to 65 psi based on your settings and see how that feels. I'm around 180 pounds fully geared up with my 100 oz camelbak.
    Increased rear psi, so increased rebound a click or two IIRC.

    Decreased front psi, decreased rebound a click or two.

    I'm happy with the rear end. Most bikes I get, possibly due to my ex-racing background, if I get the rear set for crisp pedaling, I never use full travel. On the Top Fuel, I'm having my cake, and eating it too.
    Last edited by kosmo; 3 Days Ago at 08:06 AM.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  181. #781
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Tort40 View Post
    I see where people have stated that the Trek suspension guide for the Top Fuel rear shock is about 20% low.

    Has anyone found that the Trek suspension guide for the front fork feels too harsh or like there is too much pressure?
    the front was way too hard. the rear felt ok but with a lockout available i think im gonna run it a bit softer.

  182. #782
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by fishywishy View Post
    the front was way too hard. the rear felt ok but with a lockout available i think im gonna run it a bit softer.
    I said this earlier in the chain. I'm 162 pounds unloaded and found 205 psi was about right in the rear. Good pedaling platform, and I use all of the travel.

    The front I'm still working out. I thought the stock PSI was a little too harsh, so I took out a volume spacer, and now it feels lifeless.

  183. #783
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    For the front, you'll need a Shimano F203P/PM adapter (OE # ESMMAF203PPM).
    For the rear, you'll need a Shimano R180P/S adapter (OE # ISMMAR180PSA).
    Mitch - I ordered both front and rear part numbers above, which arrived today. The front one looks correct, but the rear looks to be an IS mount while the bike looks to be P/P or P/PM. This is what the bike looks like:
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-brakemount.jpg
    Any idea what the correct one is?

  184. #784
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by ksj View Post
    Mitch - I ordered both front and rear part numbers above, which arrived today. The front one looks correct, but the rear looks to be an IS mount while the bike looks to be P/P or P/PM.
    Any idea what the correct one is?
    You can actually just take the front caliper bracket/bolts/washers + the 180mm rotor and move it directly to the rear. Obviously you will reuse your rear caliper (or upgrade it).

    However, to answer your question, the correct PN is SM-MA-F180P/P2.

    Here is how it looks on mine which I installed about a month ago along with new 4 Piston XT Calipers and ICE Tech rotors 203mm front / 180mm rear.



    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-sm-front.jpg  

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-sm-rear.jpg  


  185. #785
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbkev View Post
    You can actually just take the front caliper bracket/bolts/washers + the 180mm rotor and move it directly to the rear. Obviously you will reuse your rear caliper (or upgrade it).

    However, to answer your question, the correct PN is SM-MA-F180P/P2.

    Here is how it looks on mine which I installed about a month ago along with new 4 Piston XT Calipers and ICE Tech rotors 203mm front / 180mm rear.



    Thanks! I was just going to reply that I had done just that and it all fit perfectly.

  186. #786
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    I said this earlier in the chain. I'm 162 pounds unloaded and found 205 psi was about right in the rear. Good pedaling platform, and I use all of the travel.

    The front I'm still working out. I thought the stock PSI was a little too harsh, so I took out a volume spacer, and now it feels lifeless.
    I used a Shockwiz on my front fork today and did a 20 mile ride that included uphills, technical trails, smooth-ish trails and a few small jumps. I was trying to make it somewhat like a XC/marathon race. I never used lockout as I wanted the device to collect all the data.

    The Trek setting on the website listed 80 psi for me (around 180 lbs with camelbak) and the Shockwiz said I should be at 66/67 psi which is in line with what some others said about reducing the front fork pressure. The lower pressure felt much better than the harsh feeling 80 psi.

    It also shows I need to slow down my rebound by 1-2 clicks. I will try that my next ride and see if I can get my shock tuning score higher.

  187. #787
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by ksj View Post
    Thanks! I was just going to reply that I had done just that and it all fit perfectly.
    That was my mistake, I noticed as soon as I looked at the bike over the weekend that I did say IS when it is PM.
    Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

    Need help? Send me a message!

  188. #788
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    139

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Post Your FUEL EX official post
    By efecto 0 in forum Trek
    Replies: 1159
    Last Post: 10-13-2017, 01:50 PM
  2. Trek Top Fuel 9 vs Top Fuel 9.8
    By thisisbenji in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 08:12 AM
  3. What will the future of bike technology bring us in 2020?
    By AC/BC in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 09-03-2016, 11:47 PM
  4. Top Fuel 9 vs. Top Fuel 9.8
    By Spencerespencer in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-28-2016, 09:30 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 11:01 AM

Members who have read this thread: 573

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.