2020 Top Fuel Official Post - Page 5- Mtbr.com
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 801 to 898 of 898
  1. #801
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    640
    But it's all trade-offs. Personally, I purchased the TF because I loved my Canfield EPO, but where I ride I can get in over my head and really could use the forgiveness of some rear travel. This bike gets me there. Firm, yet good traction for climbing and enough travel to save my butt without feeling like a long travel machine.

  2. #802
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    901
    When I tried a 2020 Trek Fuel ex the rear suspension didn't feel as plush as the 2018 model. Maybe its the shock tune they are going for for 2020

    Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk

  3. #803
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    25
    Any ideas why I'm not seeing 120mm of travel from my the Fox 34SC on my 9.8? I decided to measure the travel while removing a volume spacer this morning. I am only getting 111mm, measuring from the bottom of the o-ring to the seal. That's where the travel o-ring is stopping. It doesn't go all the way to the fork crown. Is that normal?

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_5280.jpeg
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_5281.jpeg

  4. #804
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    640
    I have 3 Fox forks and this is pretty common unless you have a proper, near death experience to get that last 1cm.

  5. #805
    Super Moderator SuperModerator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,001
    x2. The last 1cm is the "oh Sh1t" part when you ride away and then go "how da flip did I not crash on that because I heard the fork bottom out.".

  6. #806
    Lover
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    36
    Just release all the air ..... Then you will see the maximum. (And that 1cm with it )

  7. #807
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    290
    2020 Top fuel 9.9 med. 5'7 put an 80 mm stem on it. Anyone running the stock 60mm stem?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  8. #808
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by PaneVino View Post
    Just release all the air ..... Then you will see the maximum. (And that 1cm with it )
    So, yeah I measured incorrectly earlier. Well... I measured correctly but the negative air chamber still had pressure and must have pulled the fork down. I was measuring before I added air and wasn't measuring full travel.

    I just did the whole thing again, making sure to equalize the negative air chamber and sure enough I measured 120mm on the dot between the fork seal and the bottom of the o-ring. The o-ring still ends about 1cm from the fork crown but per the above replies, that's by design.

  9. #809
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    25

    Xxl

    I'm on my third ride on my XXL 9.8.

    I brought it home last week and weighed it before adding anything. Bone stock from the store, set up tubeless it weighed 27.42 lbs using a generic fishing scale from Amazon.

    I'm 6'6" and 200lbs running this setup after lots of tinkering today
    • High setting
    • 70mm stem flipped up
    • Front 90psi, 9 clicks out, 19mm sag, 1 VS (came with 2)
    • Rear 230psi, 4 clicks out, 11mm sag, stock 0.4 VS

    The dropper is already sticking and requiring me to be on the nose of the saddle for it to go down. Seems that's normal...

    Here's the beast with the nest of cables and shameful saddle bag.

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_5239.jpg

  10. #810
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    619
    Quote Originally Posted by ksujeff99 View Post
    So, yeah I measured incorrectly earlier. Well... I measured correctly but the negative air chamber still had pressure and must have pulled the fork down. I was measuring before I added air and wasn't measuring full travel.

    I just did the whole thing again, making sure to equalize the negative air chamber and sure enough I measured 120mm on the dot between the fork seal and the bottom of the o-ring. The o-ring still ends about 1cm from the fork crown but per the above replies, that's by design.
    So maybe I have been measuring my Fox forks wrong, just want to get some clarification here...

    I've tried to be sure that I use about 90% of my travel on any given ride (featuring gnar) and I don't do any huge drops (most of my drops are usually only 1-2feet) or jumps bigger than a few feet off the ground.

    I weigh 180~ lbs fully geared and I am currently sitting on 55 (10 clicks out) and 200 (7 clicks out) and using about 90% on the rear and only about 80% on the front. I have no volume spacers in my fork (removed the two that came with it).

    I feel like I am still not utilizing the fork fully, and I have never seemed to do so on any of my last 4 fox 34s. I've been wondering if it is just my riding style that I am too far back or that I unload the front wheel too much because I always end up way lower than the recommended settings on these forks with each bike I have ever owned.

    But I've always assumed that unlike the rear, the fork stanchions are measured 120mm for a 120mm fork. Meaning that if I measure my o-ring travel to be 100mm from the lowers then I am using 100mm/120mm or 83.33% of my travel. Is the stroke length not 120mm on the fork?

    I'm fine with saving a cm of reserve fork for osh!ts but I am sitting on such a low PSI as is and still struggling to get even 100mm out of the travel even with some fairly hard hits.

  11. #811
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by drdocta View Post
    So maybe I have been measuring my Fox forks wrong, just want to get some clarification here...

    I've tried to be sure that I use about 90% of my travel on any given ride (featuring gnar) and I don't do any huge drops (most of my drops are usually only 1-2feet) or jumps bigger than a few feet off the ground.

    I weigh 180~ lbs fully geared and I am currently sitting on 55 (10 clicks out) and 200 (7 clicks out) and using about 90% on the rear and only about 80% on the front. I have no volume spacers in my fork (removed the two that came with it).

    I feel like I am still not utilizing the fork fully, and I have never seemed to do so on any of my last 4 fox 34s. I've been wondering if it is just my riding style that I am too far back or that I unload the front wheel too much because I always end up way lower than the recommended settings on these forks with each bike I have ever owned.

    But I've always assumed that unlike the rear, the fork stanchions are measured 120mm for a 120mm fork. Meaning that if I measure my o-ring travel to be 100mm from the lowers then I am using 100mm/120mm or 83.33% of my travel. Is the stroke length not 120mm on the fork?

    I'm fine with saving a cm of reserve fork for osh!ts but I am sitting on such a low PSI as is and still struggling to get even 100mm out of the travel even with some fairly hard hits.
    I'm near 200, and run about 74 psi with no VRs, and seldom use full travel.

    Then somewhat unintentionally, I ended up in Moab with the bike, and I was glad I had a VR in my tool box to install, because full travel was happening a bit too often, and a bit too "exuberantly".

    Maybe your trails just don't call for using 120 mm very often? Or maybe you need a lighter compression tune on the fork?

    Also, you might get some near pro-level input if you post this on the suspension forum. Some of those guys really know their forks.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  12. #812
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186
    Build is finished now, had to swap the 60 mm stem to one with 80 mm...










  13. #813
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    ^^^ Sweet!

    Low bars. Hard core XC racer?
    Whining is not a strategy.

  14. #814
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186
    Not really ;-)
    TF is supposed to be my keep-in-shape-bike for fast laps on my hometrails...

  15. #815
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    18
    Nice. I'm wondering about that dropper post. Sometimes I have to try a couple of times to raise my seat on my Top Fuel 9.8 (I have to ask my kids 2 or 3 times to do things, can't have the same from my bike &#128516. AXS seems like the solution.

  16. #816
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    623
    Good looking bike. What's hanging off the saddle looks like a seat but but seems small?

    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Build is finished now, had to swap the 60 mm stem to one with 80 mm...










  17. #817
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    623
    Nice looking ride. What's hanging off the saddle? Looks like a seat bag but seems small?

    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    Build is finished now, had to swap the 60 mm stem to one with 80 mm...










  18. #818
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,877
    AXS dropper.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  19. #819
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186
    Exactly: AXS Reverb and also AXS XX1 group.

  20. #820
    tke
    tke is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    13
    I just completed my setup too - final step was to replace the sram gearing with shimano
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-19-12-15-13-34-47-1516.jpg

  21. #821
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,082
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowTiger View Post
    Nice. I'm wondering about that dropper post. Sometimes I have to try a couple of times to raise my seat on my Top Fuel 9.8 (I have to ask my kids 2 or 3 times to do things, can't have the same from my bike &#128516. AXS seems like the solution.
    Try some Slick Honey

  22. #822
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride_2_Fast View Post
    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
    Hi
    I've just read your message. I'm looking for a Fox SC 120mm is still available?
    Thanks
    Ernesto

  23. #823
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    13
    I missed my extra chunky grips too much so I decided to try to build up the thickness of the twist loc to match the extra chunky grips. I used some 3M 2228 rubber mastic tape and was surprised at how well it worked. Its not the prettiest solution but it does work and seems really durable as well.
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_5199.jpg

  24. #824
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    13
    selling the fox fork that come on my top fuel. https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2695059/

  25. #825
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    474
    awesome, i was thinking of the same. does it provide some cushioning as well? my thumb was getting sore from resting on the twist loc during the rough stuff

  26. #826
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by fishywishy View Post
    awesome, i was thinking of the same. does it provide some cushioning as well? my thumb was getting sore from resting on the twist loc during the rough stuff
    It provides a hair more than the twist loc but it isn't as soft as the esi grips. Still a 1000% improvement.

  27. #827
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by jdlbb View Post
    selling the fox fork that come on my top fuel. https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2695059/
    Did you go with a Pike?

  28. #828
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by gartenmeister View Post
    Did you go with a Pike?
    No, I actually upgraded to the Fox Factory.

  29. #829
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by jdlbb View Post
    selling the fox fork that come on my top fuel. https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/2695059/
    I've sent a message on pinkbike form

    E.

  30. #830
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    13
    Has anyone else noticed their frames tend to hold water? Particularly in the chainstays? I've had to spray my bike off a couple times after muddy rides and I always make sure to dry it off well afterwards with my leaf blower and air compressor. Anyway, sprayed it off this past Sunday after a ride and went to move it today(Thursday). I picked it up by the handlebars and rolled on its back wheel across my house and left a stream the whole way. It seems there's ample areas for water ingress, but no real built in drainage holes so any water that gets in has to basically get back out the same hole. Not a great design considering all the holes for internal cables.

  31. #831
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,519
    Removed, thx

  32. #832
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    142
    Wrong thread...

  33. #833
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    749
    Headset Play

    Anyone removed spacers and stem while tweaking the fit only to notice some play in the headset once everything is reinstalled?

    Got everything back in place and snugged up but now noticing some fore and aft play. Something Iím missing that may or may not be Knock Block specific???

  34. #834
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,082
    Did anyone's bike include the chain guide that's in some of the photos?

    What kind is it?

  35. #835
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    21
    Has anyone done anything special in terms of cable management. I just ordered my bike, should arrive after the new year. Was looking at the stock bike in lbs and all the cables, is heat shrink the only option?

  36. #836
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,082
    Quote Originally Posted by maddchase View Post
    Has anyone done anything special in terms of cable management. I just ordered my bike, should arrive after the new year. Was looking at the stock bike in lbs and all the cables, is heat shrink the only option?
    I just used electrical tape in a couple spots combining the two lockout cables, and both cables/hoses coming off either side...I'm not very good at stuff like that and it ended looking pretty good, imo. By far the best cable management I've ever pulled off.

    One upside about knockblock is that you can cut the cables/hoses super short.

  37. #837
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    Did anyone's bike include the chain guide that's in some of the photos?

    What kind is it?
    It's an MRP.

  38. #838
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slimphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    807
    T minus 5 days till my frame arrives. I can't wait.

  39. #839
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,487
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    One upside about knockblock is that you can cut the cables/hoses super short.
    Agree. You can make them bout 1.5" shorter...except for the front brake hose. When you turn the bars further than where the knock block would stop, say 180 pointing backward, the cables/hoses have to wrap an additional ~120 degrees around the steerer spacers. That's ~1.5 inches. The front brake hose needs to be longer.
    Do the math.

  40. #840
    ksj
    ksj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    26
    Top Fuel ended up on top in this test: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/field-...ideo-2019.html

  41. #841
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by ksj View Post
    Top Fuel ended up on top in this test: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/field-...ideo-2019.html
    Sort of a stupid test given that it could be just plain old luck, but the bike is an excellent climber. My other MTB is a Stache with the 3.0 XR2s, so same tread design (and material/softness?) on the part of the tire used for climbing. The Top Fuel has significantly more climbing grip and is much better on steep rocks - wet or dry.

    It's also better at cornering. About the same level of grip, but much more responsive. Leaves and mud patches are much less "adventurous." It's also nearly 3x the price...

  42. #842
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by ksj View Post
    Top Fuel ended up on top in this test: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/field-...ideo-2019.html
    Interesting test. Odd circumstances found me in Moab this fall with the "wrong" bike -- a new Top Fuel. Much to my surprise, it climbed the tech stuff easier than any other bike I've ever had out there.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  43. #843
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186

  44. #844
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,877
    Quote Originally Posted by petejupp View Post
    It really just plays on the biases of the reviewers. If they feel that XC bikes are scary, that tells me they can't ride very well, and/or their perceptions of XC bikes are stuck in a previous decade. No offense to the dudes with double chins and man boobs, but I personally don't need them defining what a short travel bike should ride like for the rest of us.

    Also, complaining about a stem? Really? Swap the damn thing.

    Last, their "there is not a faster bike on the planet" comments are strange, given the fact that they only reviewed one XC bike in this test.
    Death from Below.

  45. #845
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    623
    That was a great piece by Pinkbike. I was thinking for sure a 27.5 wheel bike of the enduro variety would be KOM on that climb with the tight, twisty turns.

    So much for that as the top fuel took the KOM! At least no Beers were harmed during filming!


    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Interesting test. Odd circumstances found me in Moab this fall with the "wrong" bike -- a new Top Fuel. Much to my surprise, it climbed the tech stuff easier than any other bike I've ever had out there.

  46. #846
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    Interesting that the new frame and shock are only ~60 grams heavier than last year's 100 mm version.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  47. #847
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    It really just plays on the biases of the reviewers. If they feel that XC bikes are scary, that tells me they can't ride very well, and/or their perceptions of XC bikes are stuck in a previous decade. No offense to the dudes with double chins and man boobs, but I personally don't need them defining what a short travel bike should ride like for the rest of us.

    Also, complaining about a stem? Really? Swap the damn thing.

    Last, their "there is not a faster bike on the planet" comments are strange, given the fact that they only reviewed one XC bike in this test.
    Everyone has biases, some are stronger than others and some just don't want to give them up, ever.

    The bikerumor guy is on crack. Too steep, too twitchy, compared to what?

    I raced mine in an "enduro" (it wasn't very technical), and my average speeds for the stages were 22, 20, and 18.5mph...twitchy? Not even close, try to ride at the limit on a Stache with the chainstays shortened, THAT'S twitchy.

    It's a relatively lightweight, short travel trail bike, IMO. In a few years as the market evolves, that'll change, but right now that's what it is.

  48. #848
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,487
    Longer/lower/slacker bikes are simply less scary to descend on, and IMO, that's what sells them as most riders focus on descending. They're going to be less bothered by having to put a foot down or get off the bike to negotiate difficult climbs or tight tech portions of a ride.
    Do the math.

  49. #849
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    Longer/lower/slacker bikes are simply less scary to descend on, and IMO, that's what sells them as most riders focus on descending. They're going to be less bothered by having to put a foot down or get off the bike to negotiate difficult climbs or tight tech portions of a ride.
    I'm just saying it isn't short, steep or tall. I don't know what those people are used to but their perspective is off.

    It's not an enduro bike by any measure, but come on.

  50. #850
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,877
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    I'm just saying it isn't short, steep or tall. I don't know what those people are used to but their perspective is off.

    It's not an enduro bike by any measure, but come on.
    I can't imagine having to ride an enduro bike to confidently make it down the trails, in Park City of all places. What the hell do they do when they are in a place with actual pucker-worthy terrain?
    Death from Below.

  51. #851
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrewBird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,354
    Quick question for taller riders on the TF: How do you like the effective seat angle?

    At 6'3" my saddle will be a few inches above measured stack height, and the slack actual STA of bikes with a kinked seat tube sometimes puts me further back than I'd like.

    At my height I'm thinking an XL would be ideal. If anyone has a pic of an XL frame built up, I'd love to see it to get a sense of where the saddle is when extended.

  52. #852
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Quick question for taller riders on the TF: How do you like the effective seat angle?

    At 6'3" my saddle will be a few inches above measured stack height, and the slack actual STA of bikes with a kinked seat tube sometimes puts me further back than I'd like.

    At my height I'm thinking an XL would be ideal. If anyone has a pic of an XL frame built up, I'd love to see it to get a sense of where the saddle is when extended.
    I'm 6'2" and a shorty 32.5" inseam. Happy on the XL, and happy with the STA. In fact, I've ended up with the seat a bit behind the centerline of the rails to get the fit I at least think I like.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  53. #853
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Quick question for taller riders on the TF: How do you like the effective seat angle?

    At 6'3" my saddle will be a few inches above measured stack height, and the slack actual STA of bikes with a kinked seat tube sometimes puts me further back than I'd like.

    At my height I'm thinking an XL would be ideal. If anyone has a pic of an XL frame built up, I'd love to see it to get a sense of where the saddle is when extended.
    I'm 6'3 and have the post slammed, guess I have short legs. i have the seat centered on the post. it feels great when spinning, when climbing steep stuff i will slide forward.

    i have the 9.7 with the standard stem, not the +/- stem.

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-top-fuelsm.jpg

  54. #854
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewBird View Post
    Quick question for taller riders on the TF: How do you like the effective seat angle?

    At 6'3" my saddle will be a few inches above measured stack height, and the slack actual STA of bikes with a kinked seat tube sometimes puts me further back than I'd like.

    At my height I'm thinking an XL would be ideal. If anyone has a pic of an XL frame built up, I'd love to see it to get a sense of where the saddle is when extended.
    See post #809 above for a pic of my setup. Iíve since flipped the stem to positive rather than negative. Iím 6í6Ē on an XXL. Iím at 814mm from the seat rail to center of the BB. I have the saddle in the middle of the rails. One of the reasons I decided on the XXL v the XL was the slack effective STA, as you point out. I believe itís a bit less of an issue for me on the taller frame. I havenít done any climbing on my bike yet so I canít comment on how it feels there. I only have 5 rides on it and live in the Midwest.

  55. #855
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3
    2020 9.9 AXSName:  IMG_8112.jpg
Views: 161
Size:  104.2 KBName:  IMG_8113.jpg
Views: 142
Size:  96.8 KBName:  IMG_8114.jpg
Views: 125
Size:  91.1 KBName:  IMG_8115.jpg
Views: 153
Size:  107.4 KBName:  IMG_8111.jpg
Views: 152
Size:  102.4 KB



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  56. #856
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    6
    Your 2020 9.9 AXS looks great. How did you install a bashguard on this frame since there's no ISCG mount points for the TF frame? If you can share details on what you installed that will be great.

  57. #857
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3
    Thanks for the comments!

    Hereís the adapter I used, I had to remove a bit of metal for a tight fit, YMMV.


    https://za.csixx.com/products/iscg-a...ant=7082607045



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  58. #858
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    816
    That adapter shows an aluminum frame, you feel safe mounting that to your carbon frame? I'm looking for a way to add a small XC chainguide for mud races to my fatbike, which is carbon. Didn't know this existed. Interesting!

  59. #859
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    3
    I have it on my 2, 2020 Top Fuel, 9.9 with no issues so far


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  60. #860
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    It really just plays on the biases of the reviewers. If they feel that XC bikes are scary, that tells me they can't ride very well, and/or their perceptions of XC bikes are stuck in a previous decade. No offense to the dudes with double chins and man boobs, but I personally don't need them defining what a short travel bike should ride like for the rest of us.

    Also, complaining about a stem? Really? Swap the damn thing.

    Last, their "there is not a faster bike on the planet" comments are strange, given the fact that they only reviewed one XC bike in this test.
    For me, I felt like those guys actually spent time on the bike and gave it a fair shake. The TF is in a strange place in the market. It isn't a XC racer anymore, if it ever was. It is a bike you buy because you don't want to be over biked 98% of the time, but want a proper functional modern FS XC bike. I'd rather hear about how guys like that got along with it than another story from another Enduro Bro, that compares it to a raft of "it climbs great for its travel" bikes.

    I bought one because they moved the geo away from "racer wanna be", and made it more "ride it every day".

    Th stem complaint was legit. It is a knock block stem so you can't just swap it. You either buy what Trek has to offer, or you have to buy an clamp on adapter. Yes it can be swapped, but it is more annoying than a typical setup. I'm still struggling to get mine setup perfectly.

  61. #861
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slimphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    807
    Is anybody thinking of putting a fox 36 fork and decreasing travel to 130mm?

  62. #862
    Lover
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    36
    Iím thinking of that. That half degree steeper SA and HTA would make it a great(er) riders-bike ... Just the numbers that I want.

  63. #863
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    IIRC, for any given travel a 36 has a 10 mm greater AC height than a 34, so going to a 36 fork AND 130 travel would lift the front of the bike ~20 mm.

    That wouldn't work for me. I've already got my bars nearly as low as they go.

    Plus, Pink Bike commenters would shame you for slackening the seat tube!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  64. #864
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,082
    10mm of travel isn't going to change the bike, and lifting the front will shorten the reach.

  65. #865
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slimphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    807
    It'd be more for stiffness and charging rock gardens than just 10mm more of travel.

  66. #866
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    And damper quality. The Grip2 36 is definitely superior to the SC 34.

    A noble, selfless experiment. Try it and report back!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  67. #867
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,377
    Quote Originally Posted by richde View Post
    10mm of travel isn't going to change the bike, and lifting the front will shorten the reach.
    I think you missed Kosmo's post, it isn't just the 10mm of travel you're adding, the overall axle to crown height of the 36 is 20mm taller, so putting a 36 130mm would be the same as putting on a 34 140mm.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  68. #868
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    474
    im considering getting a pike @ 130 and then switching to high mode.

  69. #869
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,082
    Quote Originally Posted by slimphatty View Post
    It'd be more for stiffness and charging rock gardens than just 10mm more of travel.
    You find the 34SC and 34s in general lacking in stiffness?

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    I think you missed Kosmo's post, it isn't just the 10mm of travel you're adding, the overall axle to crown height of the 36 is 20mm taller, so putting a 36 130mm would be the same as putting on a 34 140mm.
    That's true too, but it also shortens the reach.

  70. #870
    Lover
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    36

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post

    36 taller than a 34? Did not know that. Interesting.

  71. #871
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by PaneVino View Post
    36 taller than a 34? .
    Surely not.. compare here 34 140mm and 36 150mm..... 10mm dif
    547mm and 557mm
    https://www.ridefox.com/fox17/help.p...all=specsheets

  72. #872
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by slimphatty View Post
    Is anybody thinking of putting a fox 36 fork and decreasing travel to 130mm?
    I think Pike is better option... about 150-200g lighter than 36 and stiffer than 34... that would be my preference.
    Going to Fox 36... I feel it would make you wish for more robust frame... and than more travel... etc... you end up with AM bike/ enduro... bike which is EX

  73. #873
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slimphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride_2_Fast View Post
    I think Pike is better option... about 150-200g lighter than 36 and stiffer than 34... that would be my preference.
    Going to Fox 36... I feel it would make you wish for more robust frame... and than more travel... etc... you end up with AM bike/ enduro... bike which is EX
    True. I guess I was just thinking of slapping on a more robust fork regardless of brand.

    Thanks for all your guys' input. I'd love to see someone post a pic of one. It's probably just a matter of time before someone does it.

    Anybody looking for a XL 2019 Slash 9.9? PM

  74. #874
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,377
    Quote Originally Posted by PaneVino View Post
    36 taller than a 34? Did not know that. Interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride_2_Fast View Post
    Surely not.. compare here 34 140mm and 36 150mm..... 10mm dif
    547mm and 557mm
    https://www.ridefox.com/fox17/help.p...all=specsheets
    That's what I get for not checking a posters numbers
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  75. #875
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    Huh, that will teach me to rely on a secondary source. First thing that popped up on Google.

    In any event, I just dragged myself off the couch and actually measured AC on my 140 mm 36 and my 120 mm SC34 and they are 20 mm different.

    Great news. Now somebody throw a 36 on this bike and report back.

    In the name of science!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  76. #876
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by adaycj View Post
    For me, I felt like those guys actually spent time on the bike and gave it a fair shake. The TF is in a strange place in the market. It isn't a XC racer anymore, if it ever was. It is a bike you buy because you don't want to be over biked 98% of the time, but want a proper functional modern FS XC bike. I'd rather hear about how guys like that got along with it than another story from another Enduro Bro, that compares it to a raft of "it climbs great for its travel" bikes.

    I bought one because they moved the geo away from "racer wanna be", and made it more "ride it every day".
    The current Top Fuel geometry is almost identical to the famous Kona Process 111 from 2015, just lighter and can fit a water bottle. Same style handling in a short travel package that freaked people out years ago. Kona has always been ahead of the curve.

    https://dirtragmag.com/articles/trai...process-111-dl

  77. #877
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,487
    ^^^. It's also virtually identical to the '16 Fuel EX, which perhaps wasn't as famous or freaky as the Kona was.
    Do the math.

  78. #878
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    ^^^. It's also virtually identical to the '16 Fuel EX, which perhaps wasn't as famous or freaky as the Kona was.
    Thanks to the new Top Fuel, my LBS no longer has to listen to me pining for my old 16 FEX!

    And it's still going strong, under a buddy in the Rocky Mountains.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  79. #879
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    ^^^. It's also virtually identical to the '16 Fuel EX, which perhaps wasn't as famous or freaky as the Kona was.
    See, I would totally disagree.

    The EX 2016 was a great bike, but it had a 68.8 head angle, and a 452 reach in a 19.5", and came with a 70 mm stem.
    The Process 111 had a 67.5 head angle and a 475 reach, 40 mm stem.
    2019 Top Fuel has a 67.5 head angle and a 470 reach, 70 mm stem. (edit)

    The 2016 EX was still a steep head angled XC bike compared to the Process in that era. The next year the Fuel slackened to 67, but also jumped the travel to 130.

    I wish the 2016 was the same as the modern Top Fuel, that would be some easy used bike shopping.
    Last edited by Mdlman; 1 Week Ago at 05:34 PM. Reason: stem length accuracy

  80. #880
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by Mdlman View Post
    See, I would totally disagree.

    The EX 2016 was a great bike, but it had a 68.8 head angle, and a 452 reach in a 19.5", and came with a 70 mm stem.
    The Process 111 had a 67.5 head angle and a 475 reach, 40 mm stem.
    2019 Top Fuel has a 67.5 head angle and a 470 reach, 35 mm stem.

    The 2016 EX was still a steep head angled XC bike compared to the Process in that era. The next year the Fuel slackened to 67, but also jumped the travel to 130.

    I wish the 2016 was the same as the modern Top Fuel, that would be some easy used bike shopping.
    i believe the 35mm you're reading for the stem is the clamp, not the length

  81. #881
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by fishywishy View Post
    i believe the 35mm you're reading for the stem is the clamp, not the length
    Duh. Yeah, looks like 2019 Top Fuel comes with a 70mm or 80mm.

  82. #882
    Professional Slacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Mdlman View Post
    Duh. Yeah, looks like 2019 Top Fuel comes with a 70mm or 80mm.
    Depends on the size, a M/L comes with a 60mm. The dealer P1 configurator will tell you the stock stem length for each size iirc.

  83. #883
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    7,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Mdlman View Post
    See, I would totally disagree...
    I totally agree they're different, but for me, those differences aren't huge and something I can pretty easily adapt to...(maybe like changing out a stem for one.) The '20 Top Fuel is the bike closest to the '16 FEX 9 that I've found.

    That said, some riders are very sensitive to small changes and others are not. I think I fall into the latter category. It kinda reminds me of the fairly tail about the princess and the pea.
    Do the math.

  84. #884
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    207
    Hi
    I've just finished to build a new frame M/L.
    There is a squared hole on the down tube, I've found a rubber plug but if you put on, it is moving inside. No possibility to screw.
    Should I use glue?

    Thanks for any suggestion

    Ernesto

  85. #885
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by edibetta View Post
    Hi
    I've just finished to build a new frame M/L.
    There is a squared hole on the down tube, I've found a rubber plug but if you put on, it is moving inside. No possibility to screw.
    Should I use glue?

    Thanks for any suggestion

    Ernesto
    I'm a fan of hot glue as long as there is already a plug. The clear glue holds good, and is mostly invisible if you are careful. It can also be completely removed without damage if needed. Warm the mating surfaces with a hair dryer if you need a little extra working time.

  86. #886
    Super Moderator SuperModerator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,001
    Quote Originally Posted by edibetta View Post
    Hi
    I've just finished to build a new frame M/L.
    There is a squared hole on the down tube, I've found a rubber plug but if you put on, it is moving inside. No possibility to screw.
    Should I use glue?

    Thanks for any suggestion

    Ernesto
    Do you mean the control freak port on the underside of the downtube on the alloy frame?

  87. #887
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by edibetta View Post
    Hi
    I've just finished to build a new frame M/L.
    There is a squared hole on the down tube, I've found a rubber plug but if you put on, it is moving inside. No possibility to screw.
    Should I use glue?

    Thanks for any suggestion

    Ernesto
    If youíre referring to the hole underneath the down tube, youíre supposed to zip tie the plug to the housing (rear brake & rear der & dropper if youíre using one) that is running internally. It prevents the housing from rattling inside the down tube.

  88. #888
    Let'er Buck
    Reputation: kdimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    238

    What is this

    This piece came in the bag containing the reflectors and such from the shop.

    I cant find a use for it but it looks important Does anyone know what this is for?

    Thanks ahead of time. So far really enjoying the top fuel.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_1340.jpg  

    "Powder River, Let 'er Buck"

  89. #889
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by kdimon View Post
    This piece came in the bag containing the reflectors and such from the shop.

    I cant find a use for it but it looks important Does anyone know what this is for?

    Thanks ahead of time. So far really enjoying the top fuel.
    Looks like a wheel end cap for when the front wheel is placed in the box

  90. #890
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    207
    What the other Mitch said. (forgot I had made another account.. whoops!)

    I reached out to the product team to confirm my suspicion.

    *update* doesn't look like a part we throw in there. Is it threaded? Wondering if it is crank or fork related.
    Mitchell Mathews | Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

    Need help? Send me a message!

  91. #891
    Let'er Buck
    Reputation: kdimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    238
    hmm yes its threaded. I can grab a pick of the other side tonight.
    "Powder River, Let 'er Buck"

  92. #892
    Let'er Buck
    Reputation: kdimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    238
    What started my concern is the axle nut that holds everything together on the derailer side has come loose twice. First time I tightened it trail side so it may not have been properly tightened.
    "Powder River, Let 'er Buck"

  93. #893
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    207
    Hi everybody!
    Unfortunatly I've already passed all cables inside the downtube!
    So I'think 2 possibilities:
    1. re-do all cable (dropper post, rear der and rear brake
    2. glue (wich type?attack?) and leaving cable inside
    Thanks for any suggestion!
    E.

  94. #894
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by edibetta View Post
    Hi everybody!
    Unfortunatly I've already passed all cables inside the downtube!
    So I'think 2 possibilities:
    1. re-do all cable (dropper post, rear der and rear brake
    2. glue (wich type?attack?) and leaving cable inside
    Thanks for any suggestion!
    E.
    Could you upload a picture of the area you were talking about?

    Also, do not use glue.
    Mitchell Mathews | Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

    Need help? Send me a message!

  95. #895
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    207
    Hi MItch
    This hole:
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-20200104_191924.jpg

    thanks!
    Ernesto

  96. #896
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by edibetta View Post
    Hi MItch
    This hole:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20200104_191924.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	152.1 KB 
ID:	1305353

    thanks!
    Ernesto
    You don't use glue and you don't have to re-do any housing. You use a zip tie. It's not the easiest process, but you gather the 3 housings from dropper/brake/der running in the downtube (I've had good luck using a bent spoke to gather them all), pull a zip tie through one end of the rubber frame plug, wrap it around the 3 housings, then pull the zip tie through the other end and zip tie it together. This prevents the housing from rattling in the downtube and keeps them tight.

  97. #897
    Super Moderator SuperModerator
    Reputation: driver bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,001
    Quote Originally Posted by tswp View Post
    You don't use glue and you don't have to re-do any housing. You use a zip tie. It's not the easiest process, but you gather the 3 housings from dropper/brake/der running in the downtube (I've had good luck using a bent spoke to gather them all), pull a zip tie through one end of the rubber frame plug, wrap it around the 3 housings, then pull the zip tie through the other end and zip tie it together. This prevents the housing from rattling in the downtube and keeps them tight.
    Bend an old spoke or coat hanger into a hook and then fish all the cables together. Zip tie through the plug and around the cables then tighten down.

    Without it your cables will rattle around in the frame and drive everyone crazy.

    It's a bit frustrating to do but once it's done you don't have to worry about it again.

  98. #898
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by edibetta View Post
    Hi MItch
    This hole:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20200104_191924.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	152.1 KB 
ID:	1305353

    thanks!
    Ernesto
    You need the downtube cable cinch plug, part number W513977 which would have came with your bike. You run the zip tie through it, put a nice bend or two in the zip tie and loop it around your housings and back through the plug. The trick is to use a hook tool or a bent spoke (like what Driver Bob mentioned) to gather the housings together. This will prevent your housings from rattling in the frame during a ride.

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-cablecinch-plug.png
    Mitchell Mathews | Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

    Need help? Send me a message!

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Similar Threads

  1. What will the future of bike technology bring us in 2020?
    By AC/BC in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 1 Week Ago, 05:26 PM
  2. Post Your FUEL EX official post
    By efecto 0 in forum Trek
    Replies: 1159
    Last Post: 10-13-2017, 01:50 PM
  3. 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
  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: 521

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.