2020 Top Fuel Official Post - Page 7- Mtbr.com
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 1,201 to 1,303 of 1303
  1. #1201
    Pizzaiolo Americano
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernatns View Post
    Hello, I want to buy a Trek Top Fuel and I have doubts about the size, M or M / L, I measure 172 and 78 leg! What size would you recommend?
    I like to take short stem and have fun on the bike
    Thank you


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    Absolutely get the M/L. I was in the same position as you and, If I had it over to do again, I would have moved up a size.

  2. #1202
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    So I got my top fuel frame only and have tried to install two different 30mm BB's on it.

    On both BB's when I install the drive side bearing it binds up and feels very draggy.The non-drive bearing spins smooth when installed. I repeated the installation twice with a cane creek BB and a hope BB. Same result every time. Anyone have this problem? I'm wondering if my BB shell is ovalized or otherwise out of spec.

    I don't typically have problems with press fit BB's but this is making me wish they'd go threaded.
    If that's the case, I'd get another frame from Trek, as the bb shell is clearly out of spec, or you got two bottom brackets from different manufactures that are both out of spec, and both on the positive side.

    Occam's razor and all...
    Scarlett Johansson loves my hummus.

  3. #1203
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    611
    So about 5'6" What about a 30-in inseam. Sorry I can't get away from the ignorant imperial measurement systems I grew up with. I agree M/L ... Not L. I'm 5 cm taller than you with a 2 cm longer inseam. It's not so much that I couldn't put a short stem on a large and ride it, it's that I can't drop the seatpost far enough.

  4. #1204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    3
    Determined: after much research, comparing “geos” with my other bikes and other models that I was considering to buy, I consulted Trek USA, “screwed up” many foreros here from YouTube insta mtbr, ... look at my measurements with a magnifying glass (172.8, 79 leg) and called my store and changed the M to an M / L !!
    60 days of waiting is the worst !!
    Now I have a doubt about the seatpost (this is a non-stop), will the seatpost 440 x 150 that fit with the bike be worth it (I take the seatpost to 70.5) or will I have to change it?
    Thanks for putting up with me !!


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

  5. #1205
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    So I got my top fuel frame only and have tried to install two different 30mm BB's on it.

    On both BB's when I install the drive side bearing it binds up and feels very draggy.The non-drive bearing spins smooth when installed. I repeated the installation twice with a cane creek BB and a hope BB. Same result every time. Anyone have this problem? I'm wondering if my BB shell is ovalized or otherwise out of spec.

    I don't typically have problems with press fit BB's but this is making me wish they'd go threaded.
    How draggy? Can you post a video?

    I too am running a 30mm BB with RF Next SL cranks and I'm having a similar issue. The crank spins about 1.5 revolutions when given a good throw but doesn't spin 5+ like my other bikes.

    Given the extremely tight tolerances btwn a PF92 shell and a 30mm spindle, you can probably expect a little tightness, or at least that's what my Trek dealer told me. Was told moving to a smaller diameter spindle will help.

  6. #1206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernatns View Post
    Determined: after much research, comparing “geos” with my other bikes and other models that I was considering to buy, I consulted Trek USA, “screwed up” many foreros here from YouTube insta mtbr, ... look at my measurements with a magnifying glass (172.8, 79 leg) and called my store and changed the M to an M / L !!
    60 days of waiting is the worst !!
    Now I have a doubt about the seatpost (this is a non-stop), will the seatpost 440 x 150 that fit with the bike be worth it (I take the seatpost to 70.5) or will I have to change it?
    Thanks for putting up with me !!


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    You can put a spacer that reduces travel by 30mm, easy fix, someone uploaded a video in this thread

    Inviato dal mio ONEPLUS A6013 utilizzando Tapatalk

  7. #1207
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    3

    Thread locker, creaks, and 2020 Top Fuel exploded parts diagram.

    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    The steel bolt is factory installed. Came out on the 3rd ride ever. It is reverse threaded. Could it be possible that someone at Trek can’t torque anything that is reverse threaded? The reverse threaded mino link in the previous Top fuel also fell out when new in my first race on the brand new frame.


    Periodically for this bike is every 3 rides. That’s how often the rocker bolt is loosening. I’m living with it currently and will apply new thread lock this week.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Hey guys. New to the forums so hello!

    I'm about two months and 18 or so rides into my 2020 Top Fuel 9.9 With SRAM XX1 Fox Factory rear and Fox 34 up front. I pulled the dropper out and I'm running Conti Race Kings and Crank Bro's Ti eggbeaters. I previously had a 2017 TF When they were crazy light.

    Question #1. Does anyone have a 2020 Service manual and suspension parts list that they can send me? The one that Mitch Posted and has been kicking around only covers TF's up to 2019.

    The first 4 rides on the 2020 TF were pretty awesome. Solid and very improved over the 2017 version I had. Things have gone downhill into Trek creakland over the past few weeks. I've pretty much done everything except removing all the pivots and re- applying thread locker and then re torque back to spec. My main pivot bolt seemed to be a possible creak source when I discovered that the flange on the drive side where it is recessed into the rocker was completely dry. Has anyone else found dry surfaces of pivots up against Carbon that when lubed, solved the creak problem?

    Thanks guys.. ride and live safe

    J

  8. #1208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    3

    2020 Top Fuel Parts Quick Reference

    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post


    A pic from the 2020 MY thread.

    Thanks to alias33!

    Good Morning from California guys.

    I'm attaching some 2020 TF exploded view PDF's that Mitch kindly sent me. They are going here since Kosmo started this thread and he posted the color of my TF!!

    diagram_2020_topfuel_enus (2).pdf Part 1.pdfdiagram_2020_topfuel_enus (2).pdf Part 2.pdfdiagram_2020_topfuel_enus (2).pdf Part 3.pdf

  9. #1209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,159
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    How draggy? Can you post a video?

    I too am running a 30mm BB with RF Next SL cranks and I'm having a similar issue. The crank spins about 1.5 revolutions when given a good throw but doesn't spin 5+ like my other bikes.

    Given the extremely tight tolerances btwn a PF92 shell and a 30mm spindle, you can probably expect a little tightness, or at least that's what my Trek dealer told me. Was told moving to a smaller diameter spindle will help.
    Pretty draggy but the strange part is it's only on the drive side and only when the bearing is installed in the frame. Non drive is buttery smooth. Tried two different brands of BB and both feel the same upon install and after a couple rides of break in. It's almost as if the BB shell is slightly ovalized or something.

  10. #1210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    3
    is there an angle set for the trek top fuel?


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

  11. #1211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    Pretty draggy but the strange part is it's only on the drive side and only when the bearing is installed in the frame. Non drive is buttery smooth. Tried two different brands of BB and both feel the same upon install and after a couple rides of break in. It's almost as if the BB shell is slightly ovalized or something.
    How many times will the crank spin freely if you spin it?

    Have you tried putting the crankspindle in from the DS to see if it works fine half installed from that side?

  12. #1212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernatns View Post
    is there an angle set for the trek top fuel?


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    I believe this will work. Should slack you out to about 66.2 in high mode. I'm thinking of trying it!

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/9point...e-adapter.html

  13. #1213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    I believe this will work. Should slack you out to about 66.2 in high mode. I'm thinking of trying it!

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/9point...e-adapter.html
    That thing’ll also raise the front of the bike by ~10mm. Personally, I’d rather use that 10mm to get a 130mm fork, but to each their own.
    whatever...

  14. #1214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    3

    2020 Top Fuel Rear Thru Axel Float.



    Hey Mitch. Thanks again for sending the PDF of the exploded TF bearings etc. So here's my question. Based on the assembly order shown in the Exploded parts list you sent. Each rear wheel spacer is first followed by the bearing and then the nut. It appears that the the design is for there to be a 'float' where the chain stay can move away from the seat stay as you can see in the stills I posted. I just wanted to confirm with you that I'm not missing something here as I didn't expect to see so much chain stay 'float' over the spacer on each side of the rear wheel. is this a design thing?

    10/10/20

    I wanted to update my question in the title of this post. I probably should also start a new thread.

    Stopping by my LBS after my morning ride to ask about the 'axel/spacer float I was seeing in my 2020 9.9 Top Fuel gave me an answer..."It's not supposed to be like that'. They wouldn't say anything about a Service Bulletin about this other than to say that they 'know' about this issue but have never seen it until I walked in. They want pics and my serial # to send to TREK. Have any of you rolling on a 2020 TF experienced this or heard about this particular problem?

    BTW..I'm in Los Angeles and bought this from what may be the largest Trek Dealer in the country. I was surprised that they knew about this issue but had never seen it in the flesh. LA has a huge rider base so that surprises me even more that I seem to be the lucky loser with this problem. YIKES!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2753.jpg  

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2752.jpg  

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2751.jpg  

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-img_2750.jpg  

    Last edited by Calicamera; 10-10-2020 at 03:51 PM. Reason: New Information Regarding my Post

  15. #1215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    628
    My pivot bolt worked itself out on a short easy ride yesterday afternoon, and is completely destroyed. I even torqued it right before the ride. Here I go again...

  16. #1216
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    How draggy? Can you post a video?

    I too am running a 30mm BB with RF Next SL cranks and I'm having a similar issue. The crank spins about 1.5 revolutions when given a good throw but doesn't spin 5+ like my other bikes.

    Given the extremely tight tolerances btwn a PF92 shell and a 30mm spindle, you can probably expect a little tightness, or at least that's what my Trek dealer told me. Was told moving to a smaller diameter spindle will help.
    I just installed a Kogel 30mm and a raceface next SL g5 crankset with xpedo cxpro pedals.

    Amazing. I have never pedaled a platform that felt this solid and smooth in any bike.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #1217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    Pretty draggy but the strange part is it's only on the drive side and only when the bearing is installed in the frame. Non drive is buttery smooth. Tried two different brands of BB and both feel the same upon install and after a couple rides of break in. It's almost as if the BB shell is slightly ovalized or something.
    Can't seem to get the multi-quote feature to work (another glitch on this site now?) to include Lindsor in this.

    I'm having the same issue and I've installed an XTR BB94. So it has nothing to do with the 'tolerances' involved in the smaller bearings used with the 30mm spindles, and that sounds like a can getting kicked down the road. Man it's ridiculous what we pay premium money for these days.

    Same here, drag and slight notchiness with both sides, but worse on the drive side. Putting the spindle into one side at a time results in what would be at the base line of reasonable free-spinning. Putting the crank all the way through results in substantial bind, and same here, giving the cranks a spin like I'm trying to start an early 1900's prop plane results in 1.5 revolutions. Which points to misalignment of the two sides. Most likely in concert with slightly undersized and or ovalized bores, the worse side being the drive side.

    When I installed the headset the lower bearing was sloppy to say the least.

    I think it might be time to reverse course since I haven't finished this build at this point and have a talk with Trek. This is just ridiculous.

  18. #1218
    Pizzaiolo Americano
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodninja View Post
    My pivot bolt worked itself out on a short easy ride yesterday afternoon, and is completely destroyed. I even torqued it right before the ride. Here I go again...
    What type of thread locker are you using? If it is Loctite, you can't re-torque that once it has set. If you haven't tried it, I have heard good things about Vibratite.

  19. #1219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    9
    Bike is arrived, but the bike shop just gave me bad news, the bike arrived damaged, a little chip of paint has gone off from downtube...

    The dealer told me I have two options, order another bike or accept a sort of refund from trek, what would you do?

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-photo_2020-09-19_16-24-10.jpg  

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-photo_2020-09-19_19-06-16.jpg  


  20. #1220
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by edgar83 View Post
    Bike is arrived, but the bike shop just gave me bad news, the bike arrived damaged, a little chip of paint has gone off from downtube...

    The dealer told me I have two options, order another bike or accept a sort of refund from trek, what would you do?

    Take option B. If you ever fall or if something hits it, you're just going to add a cosmetic mark anyways. Bikes are so limited due to availability, so you may be waiting for a bit for another depending on the model and size.
    Mitchell Mathews | Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation

    Instagram | Twitter

  21. #1221
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,649
    Def option B. It's a tool, not a jewel. Ridden right (IMO), it'll get lots of dings.
    What, me worry?

  22. #1222
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,786

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post

    That’s a carbon chip, not just a paint chip. I would want full written confirmation from Trek that they would replace that bike if it developed a crack there.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #1223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    Take option B. If you ever fall or if something hits it, you're just going to add a cosmetic mark anyways. Bikes are so limited due to availability, so you may be waiting for a bit for another depending on the model and size.
    Depends of whether option B completely offsets the decreased resale value (unless you plan on keeping it forever). Will be much harder to sell with damage to the carbon.

  24. #1224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    That’s a carbon chip, not just a paint chip. I would want full written confirmation from Trek that they would replace that bike if it developed a crack there.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I dunno if it’s the picture or my screen, but that looks pretty deep for just being paint. I’d wants new frame...or what FJS wrote.


    ...unless it is just paint.

  25. #1225
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Forgive me for not combing through 1200+ posts to find the answer to this question:

    Can a real 29 x 2.8" tire (think: Rekon) be run on a 35mm rim in the 2020 Top Fuel?

    I've been running a real 2.6" (Mezcal) on a SuperCal and as the tire has grown it has stretched enough that when climbing out of the saddle on steep/off cambers I'm starting to get chainstay rub.

    I've since swapped to a smaller tire but I'd rather be on a frame that can handle 2.8's.

    Any help appreciated.

  26. #1226
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Can a real 29 x 2.8" tire (think: Rekon) be run on a 35mm rim in the 2020 Top Fuel?

    I've been running a real 2.6" (Mezcal) on a SuperCal and as the tire has grown it has stretched enough that when climbing out of the saddle on steep/off cambers I'm starting to get chainstay rub.

    I've since swapped to a smaller tire but I'd rather be on a frame that can handle 2.8's.
    Attached are photos of my 2.5 ehline tire (on the normal trek carbon 30mm rim) that measures 2.4” actual width with my dial calipers. I measure more than 3/8” all around the tire, about 3.2” width between seat stays at the fat part of the tire. Chainstays are exactly same.

    I can detect no kind of rear end flex at all on this bike; the rear end of this frame is stiff...I wouldn’t think frame flex will be a big problem. I’m 190lb.

    I’d guess you’d be ok with 2.8 altho some schlocky mud or rocks could make for a bad day.

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-d2d7bb37-e0db-409a-9604-62fd286f7a3f.jpeg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-48218548-9b85-4f23-92c6-6ae483269ca8.jpeg2020 Top Fuel Official Post-456232cf-ffd9-4ef3-a958-54a4f2ae5015.jpeg
    whatever...

  27. #1227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,293
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Can a real 29 x 2.8" tire (think: Rekon) be run on a 35mm rim in the 2020 Top Fuel?

    I've been running a real 2.6" (Mezcal) on a SuperCal and as the tire has grown it has stretched enough that when climbing out of the saddle on steep/off cambers I'm starting to get chainstay rub.
    Maybe you need to have somebody build you some less-flexy, higher quality wheels?

    Seriously, I put 2.6 XR4s on mine, and there was ample clearance.

    Sorry, that's all I've got.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  28. #1228
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    30
    I think 2.4 is more than enough for rear on top fuel.
    If you go with bigger tire, problem is with frame clearance.
    For example if one spoke snaps wheel goes out of center and tire is rubbing to frame...

  29. #1229
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Seriously, I put 2.6 XR4s on mine, and there was ample clearance.

    On which rims?

  30. #1230
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by edgar83 View Post
    Bike is arrived, but the bike shop just gave me bad news, the bike arrived damaged, a little chip of paint has gone off from downtube...

    The dealer told me I have two options, order another bike or accept a sort of refund from trek, what would you do?

    Personally I'd want a new bike, if I'm spending that kind of money on a carbon bike, the only acceptable carbon damage better be from me. I also put invisiframe on my bike so yeah it might get scratches but not a deep gouge like that.

    My previous bike a Fuel EX came with scratches on the paint and I did take the credit on that because it was in areas that didn't bother me that much; but that chip is in a conspicuous spot.

  31. #1231
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Quote Originally Posted by maddchase View Post
    put invisiframe on my bike so yeah it might get scratches


    I'd rather see scratches, dirt, dust and gouges than clear tape on my frames.
    Last edited by mikesee; 09-30-2020 at 08:34 AM.

  32. #1232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,786
    [QUOTE=mikesee;15007989]
    Quote Originally Posted by maddchase View Post
    put invisiframe on my bike so yeah it might get scratches/QUOTE]



    I'd rather see scratches, dirt, dust and gouges than clear tape on my frames.
    You say that until Trek denies a warranty claim based upon a picture of their carbon layup failure. Then when you offer to send the part in for inspection they tell your shop “go ahead, we will just throw it in a box on the shelve”

    Ask me how I Know.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  33. #1233
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Quote Originally Posted by steadite View Post
    Attached are photos of my 2.5 ehline tire (on the normal trek carbon 30mm rim) that measures 2.4” actual width with my dial calipers. I measure more than 3/8” all around the tire, about 3.2” width between seat stays at the fat part of the tire. Chainstays are exactly same.

    I can detect no kind of rear end flex at all on this bike; the rear end of this frame is stiff...I wouldn’t think frame flex will be a big problem. I’m 190lb.

    I’d guess you’d be ok with 2.8 altho some schlocky mud or rocks could make for a bad day.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D2D7BB37-E0DB-409A-9604-62FD286F7A3F.jpeg 
Views:	45 
Size:	105.5 KB 
ID:	1366429Click image for larger version. 

Name:	48218548-9B85-4F23-92C6-6AE483269CA8.jpeg 
Views:	35 
Size:	73.2 KB 
ID:	1366431Click image for larger version. 

Name:	456232CF-FFD9-4EF3-A958-54A4F2AE5015.jpeg 
Views:	36 
Size:	109.5 KB 
ID:	1366433


    Thanks for that. Looks like 2.8" will fit easily.

    Ruminating on whether to trade my month-old SuperCal for a TF. I like the SC but don't love it. Seems like the TF is more in line with my needs and wants.

  34. #1234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Thanks for that. Looks like 2.8" will fit easily.

    Ruminating on whether to trade my month-old SuperCal for a TF. I like the SC but don't love it. Seems like the TF is more in line with my needs and wants.
    I’d guess 2.8 will “fit”, but no more.

    TF just seems like a normal mtb to me...I’m just an over-the-hill recreational guy...I live in the Midwest and don’t want a ten foot long slacked out bro sled like so much of the industry has gone to, nor do I want something racy and uncomfortable. TF feels just about right...if I changed anything beyond the tires, I might have put 130 fork on it.
    whatever...

  35. #1235
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Quote Originally Posted by steadite View Post
    I’d guess 2.8 will “fit”, but no more.

    TF just seems like a normal mtb to me...I’m just an over-the-hill recreational guy...I live in the Midwest and don’t want a ten foot long slacked out bro sled like so much of the industry has gone to, nor do I want something racy and uncomfortable. TF feels just about right...if I changed anything beyond the tires, I might have put 130 fork on it.


    Same -- I just ride. Not gnarly. Nothing to prove, and not in a hurry.

    I'm still fiddling with the sus on my SC and it's improving, but I can also see where the TF is going to give me more latitude in the direction I need to go.

  36. #1236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by jochribs View Post
    Can't seem to get the multi-quote feature to work (another glitch on this site now?) to include Lindsor in this.

    I'm having the same issue and I've installed an XTR BB94. So it has nothing to do with the 'tolerances' involved in the smaller bearings used with the 30mm spindles, and that sounds like a can getting kicked down the road. Man it's ridiculous what we pay premium money for these days.

    Same here, drag and slight notchiness with both sides, but worse on the drive side. Putting the spindle into one side at a time results in what would be at the base line of reasonable free-spinning. Putting the crank all the way through results in substantial bind, and same here, giving the cranks a spin like I'm trying to start an early 1900's prop plane results in 1.5 revolutions. Which points to misalignment of the two sides. Most likely in concert with slightly undersized and or ovalized bores, the worse side being the drive side.

    When I installed the headset the lower bearing was sloppy to say the least.

    I think it might be time to reverse course since I haven't finished this build at this point and have a talk with Trek. This is just ridiculous.
    Were you able to warranty the frame? What help did you get from Trek?

  37. #1237
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,293
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    On which rims?
    Kovee Pro. 30 mm IW IIRC.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  38. #1238
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Kovee Pro. 30 mm IW IIRC.

    OK, good to know -- even if those tires run a bit smaller than advertised.

    I can easily fit them on my Supercal, but if I run the Vittoria Mezcal's in 2.6" (both on 30mm rims) I get rub. The Mezcal's are a true 2.6" when stretched.

  39. #1239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    9
    In the end I choose to keep the bike, Trek offered a consistent bonus to spend on bontrager stuff so I accepteded.

    Here's the bike in it's natural habitat: Etna lavic rocks!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-photo_2020-09-30_16-19-28.jpg  


  40. #1240
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Forgive me for not combing through 1200+ posts to find the answer to this question:

    Can a real 29 x 2.8" tire (think: Rekon) be run on a 35mm rim in the 2020 Top Fuel?

    I've been running a real 2.6" (Mezcal) on a SuperCal and as the tire has grown it has stretched enough that when climbing out of the saddle on steep/off cambers I'm starting to get chainstay rub.

    I've since swapped to a smaller tire but I'd rather be on a frame that can handle 2.8's.

    Any help appreciated.
    I own this bike and posted a few pictures very early on regarding tire clearance using my stock 2.4's on the stock rims. I would bet $100 against the combo you posted fitting the rear.

  41. #1241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    OK, good to know -- even if those tires run a bit smaller than advertised.

    I can easily fit them on my Supercal, but if I run the Vittoria Mezcal's in 2.6" (both on 30mm rims) I get rub. The Mezcal's are a true 2.6" when stretched.

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-1.jpg

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-2.jpg

    Not sure this helps, but I just snapped these

  42. #1242
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Quote Originally Posted by kdiddy View Post
    ~120 kgF NDS
    ~185 kgF DS
    The spokes are DT Aerolite bladed, 0.9 x 2.3.

    If you really have 185kgf you're going to have some excitement in your life in the very near future.

  43. #1243
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	251.7 KB 
ID:	1367357

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	204.6 KB 
ID:	1367359

    Not sure this helps, but I just snapped these


    XR2 2.6's, on 30mm internal rims? At what @ pressures?

  44. #1244
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    XR2 2.6's, on 30mm internal rims? At what @ pressures?
    Those are XR3 2.4's ...and PSI is 21.0 even in that pic

  45. #1245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    997
    My brain is a little scattered this morning, and I missed the part about internal width. I do not know to be honest but they are the stock Kovee carbon rims that say 30 on them but do not know if that is internal or externa.. 2.4 XR3

    Like I said, I cannot imagine increasing the rim and tire that much is going to work. 2.6 looks max in the rear to me.

  46. #1246
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    15,190
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    My brain is a little scattered this morning, and I missed the part about internal width. I do not know to be honest but they are the stock Kovee carbon rims that say 30 on them but do not know if that is internal or externa.. 2.4 XR3

    Like I said, I cannot imagine increasing the rim and tire that much is going to work. 2.6 looks max in the rear to me.


    OK, thx.

    Someone posted pics of 2.6 Mezcal's on 32mm rims on page 3 or 4 of this thread. 5mm clearance at the tightest spot. Those are true 2.6's -- taller and wider than any others by a significant margin.

    A 2.8 Rekon (for example) will have zero mud clearance, but should fit fine.

  47. #1247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    Were you able to warranty the frame? What help did you get from Trek?
    I did not attempt warranty yet. Spoke with Trek and about this, and other issue on another frame and was told that I could keep riding them, but door is open. And I definitely appreciate the being receptive. I don't have much time left before the snow starts flying, so I just want to ride. I finished the TF build on Sunday.

  48. #1248
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    If you really have 185kgf you're going to have some excitement in your life in the very near future.
    That's the kgf conversion from the Park tool tensiometer. What do you predict will happen? The wheels creaked under power with lower tensions and even creak from time to time now.

  49. #1249
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,213
    Are you sure you used the right diameter for the conversion? 185 kgf will crack eyelets on most rims and maybe some hubs.

    If you're measuring right the creaking has nothing to do with low spoke tension
    I brake for stinkbugs

  50. #1250
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,916
    An exploded wheel is a bigger problem than a few creaking spokes.

    That’s insanely high tension.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  51. #1251
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by kdiddy View Post
    That's the kgf conversion from the Park tool tensiometer. What do you predict will happen? The wheels creaked under power with lower tensions and even creak from time to time now.
    The actual numbers from the Park tensiometer are 18 DS and 14 NDS. It's possible the conversion to kgf is off. The wheels started with DS tensions in the 17 to 15 range and the NDS between 10 to 12. They were definitely under and unevenly tensioned to start.

  52. #1252
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,213
    Quote Originally Posted by kdiddy View Post
    The actual numbers from the Park tensiometer are 18 DS and 14 NDS. It's possible the conversion to kgf is off. The wheels started with DS tensions in the 17 to 15 range and the NDS between 10 to 12. They were definitely under and unevenly tensioned to start.



    18 on the Park meter is 58 kgf for 2.0 round spokes or 77 kgf for 1.8.

  53. #1253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    18 on the Park meter is 58 kgf for 2.0 round spokes or 77 kgf for 1.8.
    According to Bontrager, the spokes are DT Swiss Aerolite BLADED spokes (0.9 x 2.3). They are definitely bladed, not round spokes
    I'm not sure about the accuracy of the Park Tension Meter, but according to their site, 18 on their gage = 187 kgf. I imagine as the spokes get thinner, the gage is less accurate.
    Bottom line is that I evened out the spoke tension and increased it on the drive side from a range of 15-17 to a more uniform 18 (around 6% increase), but more importantly the non drive side went from a range of 10 -12 to a more uniform 14 (17% increase) and it largely solved the spoke noise. It will occasionally still make noise, but nothing like before.
    Bontrager tech documents list the max tension as 148 kgf for the wheel. I imagine they use something better than a Park Tool tension meter to measure tension. I can only go by relative differences, since I don't think my gage is calibrated and absolute readings are at the mercy of the gage component's manufacturing tolerances.

  54. #1254
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,204
    Quote Originally Posted by kdiddy View Post
    According to Bontrager, the spokes are DT Swiss Aerolite BLADED spokes (0.9 x 2.3). They are definitely bladed, not round spokes
    I'm not sure about the accuracy of the Park Tension Meter, but according to their site, 18 on their gage = 187 kgf. I imagine as the spokes get thinner, the gage is less accurate.
    Bottom line is that I evened out the spoke tension and increased it on the drive side from a range of 15-17 to a more uniform 18 (around 6% increase), but more importantly the non drive side went from a range of 10 -12 to a more uniform 14 (17% increase) and it largely solved the spoke noise. It will occasionally still make noise, but nothing like before.
    Bontrager tech documents list the max tension as 148 kgf for the wheel. I imagine they use something better than a Park Tool tension meter to measure tension. I can only go by relative differences, since I don't think my gage is calibrated and absolute readings are at the mercy of the gage component's manufacturing tolerances.
    is your wheel still dished correctly?

  55. #1255
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by litespeedaddict View Post
    Those are XR3 2.4's ...and PSI is 21.0 even in that pic
    Xr3 2.4s are a tiny undersized first. They also have a raindrop shape to them which moves the corner knobs out of any sort of range of usability. I bought a pair gave them a go and returned them.

    They measured just barely larger than 2.25 on a 25mm ID rim. I was shocked. I used a caliper.

    If you want a tire like this, just get a rekon Race 2.25. It’s lighter and corners better. And you can get Tan.

    The only thing they had going for them was straight line traction and that 30 day money back guarantee while riding in Bentonville.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  56. #1256
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by ElwoodT View Post
    is your wheel still dished correctly?
    Yes. The new NDS spoke tensions were a result of dishing the wheel with the slightly higher DS spoke tension.

  57. #1257
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by FJSnoozer View Post
    Xr3 2.4s are a tiny undersized first. They also have a raindrop shape to them which moves the corner knobs out of any sort of range of usability. I bought a pair gave them a go and returned them.

    They measured just barely larger than 2.25 on a 25mm ID rim. I was shocked. I used a caliper.

    If you want a tire like this, just get a rekon Race 2.25. It’s lighter and corners better. And you can get Tan.

    The only thing they had going for them was straight line traction and that 30 day money back guarantee while riding in Bentonville.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I disagree with this. The 2.4 XR3s that came on my bike measure 2.37 with my calipers on my stock Bontrager wheels. They are surprisingly fast and the corners hook up super well. You just lean the bike. I've been really happy with the XR3 front XR2 rear combo.

  58. #1258
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,293
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    I disagree with this. The 2.4 XR3s that came on my bike measure 2.37 with my calipers on my stock Bontrager wheels. They are surprisingly fast and the corners hook up super well. You just lean the bike. I've been really happy with the XR3 front XR2 rear combo.
    Also a fan of the new XR3.

    Saw them, knew I'd HATE them.

    Rode them, and had to admit that I loved them.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  59. #1259
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    30
    Do you aluminium TF owners get strange metal clapping sound when hitting rocky trails downhill?
    Can’t get the source of it and its imposible to replicate it at home...
    Maybe internal cables hitting the frame - seams to loud for it
    or Recon fork strange topping up sound...
    It gets louder with trail geting rough.

  60. #1260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    9
    Had a very similar problem, it was the headset that needed to be tightened

  61. #1261
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    689
    Anyone ride one with the SID LUX rear shock yet? I'm really not happy with the Fox and wouldn't mind kicking the lockout to the side.

  62. #1262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by edgar83 View Post
    Had a very similar problem, it was the headset that needed to be tightened
    solved it - the source of my mystery sound is water bottle (top cap) hitting bottom part of top tube when trail gets rough downhill.
    I have a large 950ml bottle.

  63. #1263
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,786
    Anyone else having an issue with the Bottle Cage Rivnuts coming loose?

    Mine are coming loose every few weeks now. This is becoming a major issue.

    Also, that constant squeaking, it’s the rubber wiper on the shock, not the bushing on the pivot. So freaking annoying...

    I wish this bike would just function properly.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  64. #1264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,293
    Quote Originally Posted by dturcic View Post
    solved it - the source of my mystery sound is water bottle (top cap) hitting bottom part of top tube when trail gets rough downhill.
    I have a large 950ml bottle.
    1" diameter, self stick felt pads do wonders for this.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  65. #1265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Anyone ride one with the SID LUX rear shock yet? I'm really not happy with the Fox and wouldn't mind kicking the lockout to the side.
    I installed a regular Fox 3-position DPS on mine. I really like the middle position for general trail riding. On the OEM 2-position shock, I felt like I had to run higher than optimal pressure to get the pedaling feel I wanted.

    It took a few rides to get used to reaching down there for the lever, though -- but I mostly leave it in the middle position.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  66. #1266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    689
    Thanks, that's pretty much exactly what I am looking to accomplish. I am running jackass pressure right now to achieve the pedal feel i want. Was wondering if the Super Deluxe or the DPS is the way to go. Good to hear some feedback!

  67. #1267
    AKA Mr.Habanero
    Reputation: panzer103's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    245
    Speaking purely hypothetically. How progressive is the Top Fuel? Cane Creek has their Inline Coil that fits. For the record l don't own a Top Fuel but it is my dream bike and l love coil shocks. Just a fun idea to think about 🙂

  68. #1268
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Projectnortheast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,232
    Anyone tried their top fuel with a 130mm fork? 44mm offset or 51mm offset? I currently have a FOX 34 with 51mm offset set to 140 I could just airshaft it down to 130. I'm thinking of building up a custom one with 130mm FOx 34 and reverse components crown spacer to achieve a 66.5 ish HA in LOW. Currently have a stumpy ST with 120 rear 140 front which comes in at 66 HA and like it alot. But moving to trek for shop support reasons.

  69. #1269
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by panzer103 View Post
    Speaking purely hypothetically. How progressive is the Top Fuel? Cane Creek has their Inline Coil that fits. For the record l don't own a Top Fuel but it is my dream bike and l love coil shocks. Just a fun idea to think about 
    Funny, had that same thought. A IL Coil with a ti coil would be pretty rad. I dont think it's all that progressive, at least it doesn't feel that way. If I put in enough air and volume spacers not to bottom out, it is remarkably stiff pedally, which makes me wonder if a better shock would help control it.

  70. #1270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Projectnortheast View Post
    Anyone tried their top fuel with a 130mm fork? 44mm offset or 51mm offset? I currently have a FOX 34 with 51mm offset set to 140 I could just airshaft it down to 130. I'm thinking of building up a custom one with 130mm FOx 34 and reverse components crown spacer to achieve a 66.5 ish HA in LOW. Currently have a stumpy ST with 120 rear 140 front which comes in at 66 HA and like it alot. But moving to trek for shop support reasons.
    Somewhat along these lines, I was just toying with the idea of installing a taller crown race (Cane Creek makes them, as well as others I'm sure) to get a bit more room between the fork crown and the down tube. Might even being able to forego the knockblock if the clearance is good enough.

  71. #1271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    880
    I ordered a 130mm pike to go on mine, shorter offset. We will see when they both get here... eventually.

  72. #1272
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Projectnortheast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by jochribs View Post
    Somewhat along these lines, I was just toying with the idea of installing a taller crown race (Cane Creek makes them, as well as others I'm sure) to get a bit more room between the fork crown and the down tube. Might even being able to forego the knockblock if the clearance is good enough.
    Yes reverse components makes them as well. Yes, that spaces it enough so you don't need knock block. My plan is 130mm fork with spacer. No knockblock and one heck of a short travel ripper... I will probably slap my 130mm 51mm offset fork on just because I have it and don't feel like buying another one quite yet. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has used that spacer along with a 130mm fork. Would give the TF a 66.5 ish HA in low

  73. #1273
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Projectnortheast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by panzer103 View Post
    Speaking purely hypothetically. How progressive is the Top Fuel? Cane Creek has their Inline Coil that fits. For the record l don't own a Top Fuel but it is my dream bike and l love coil shocks. Just a fun idea to think about 
    They make a 190x45 coil?

  74. #1274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Projectnortheast View Post
    They make a 190x45 coil?
    Yes, Cane Creek does.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  75. #1275
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SleepeRst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Projectnortheast View Post
    Anyone tried their top fuel with a 130mm fork? 44mm offset or 51mm offset? I currently have a FOX 34 with 51mm offset set to 140 I could just airshaft it down to 130. I'm thinking of building up a custom one with 130mm FOx 34 and reverse components crown spacer to achieve a 66.5 ish HA in LOW. Currently have a stumpy ST with 120 rear 140 front which comes in at 66 HA and like it alot. But moving to trek for shop support reasons.
    I have the pike ultimate at 130 with the 42mm offset, stock fork was 46. I like it, didn't take long to get used to. You might feel some wandering on techy climbing with that HTA at 44mm offset though.

  76. #1276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by jochribs View Post
    Somewhat along these lines, I was just toying with the idea of installing a taller crown race (Cane Creek makes them, as well as others I'm sure) to get a bit more room between the fork crown and the down tube. Might even being able to forego the knockblock if the clearance is good enough.
    9.8 makes this which slacks the Top Fuel out to about 66.2 degrees in high mode: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/9point...e-adapter.html

  77. #1277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by linds0r View Post
    9.8 makes this which slacks the Top Fuel out to about 66.2 degrees in high mode: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/9point...e-adapter.html
    Hmmm, interesting. Based on general averages of 1 degree to every 20mm, I'm not sure how the HA is changing that much with that. Looks like the lower stack can't be more than 10mm. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

    *maybe it's due to the HA already being 'somewhat' slack, so that old theory of 20mm/1 degree doesn't doesn't equate so much as it did with steeper HA's?

  78. #1278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by jochribs View Post
    Hmmm, interesting. Based on general averages of 1 degree to every 20mm, I'm not sure how the HA is changing that much with that. Looks like the lower stack can't be more than 10mm. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

    *maybe it's due to the HA already being 'somewhat' slack, so that old theory of 20mm/1 degree doesn't doesn't equate so much as it did with steeper HA's?

    The thing itself is an angleset which slackens the head angle far more than the minor amount you get from having the spacer between the crown race and the head tube



    And regarding the other poster considering up-forking and slackening out the bike with other means: I'd personally use the Slack-R and stay at 120mm out front... I think you lose a lot of options moving from 120 to 130mm. The new SID 35 is brilliant and its nice to have the weight savings from the 120mm 34SC if fox is your jam on a top fuel. If weight isn't as much your concern and you just want a good platform, I'd personally look at a different bike. For me, a big selling point of the top fuel is the weights I've seen some of my friends achieve on this bike while still being really capable. That said, a Slack-R kit might be more weight than a regular 34 at 130mm.

  79. #1279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by j-t-g View Post
    The thing itself is an angleset which slackens the head angle far more than the minor amount you get from having the spacer between the crown race and the head tube



    And regarding the other poster considering up-forking and slackening out the bike with other means: I'd personally use the Slack-R and stay at 120mm out front... I think you lose a lot of options moving from 120 to 130mm. The new SID 35 is brilliant and its nice to have the weight savings from the 120mm 34SC if fox is your jam on a top fuel. If weight isn't as much your concern and you just want a good platform, I'd personally look at a different bike. For me, a big selling point of the top fuel is the weights I've seen some of my friends achieve on this bike while still being really capable. That said, a Slack-R kit might be more weight than a regular 34 at 130mm.
    Ah, I didn't see that it was also an angle set. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Agreed on the SID Ultimate. I have it on mine and it's a great fork for my riding style. Definitely a firmer platform and I've got the rear running at around 20% sag, so it's a bit firmer too. But, I come from a hardtail so this is just fine for me.

  80. #1280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by panzer103 View Post
    Speaking purely hypothetically. How progressive is the Top Fuel? Cane Creek has their Inline Coil that fits. For the record l don't own a Top Fuel but it is my dream bike and l love coil shocks. Just a fun idea to think about
    I looked at that coil shock for you.

    I am not sure it will fit because of the way the rocker mount protrudes from the seat tube. If you get the diameter on the spring and the perch, I could take measurements, but it seems very close. The current shock only seems to fit due to the reverse nature of the shock.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  81. #1281
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by kdiddy View Post
    According to Bontrager, the spokes are DT Swiss Aerolite BLADED spokes (0.9 x 2.3). They are definitely bladed, not round spokes
    I'm not sure about the accuracy of the Park Tension Meter, but according to their site, 18 on their gage = 187 kgf. I imagine as the spokes get thinner, the gage is less accurate.
    Bottom line is that I evened out the spoke tension and increased it on the drive side from a range of 15-17 to a more uniform 18 (around 6% increase), but more importantly the non drive side went from a range of 10 -12 to a more uniform 14 (17% increase) and it largely solved the spoke noise. It will occasionally still make noise, but nothing like before.
    Bontrager tech documents list the max tension as 148 kgf for the wheel. I imagine they use something better than a Park Tool tension meter to measure tension. I can only go by relative differences, since I don't think my gage is calibrated and absolute readings are at the mercy of the gage component's manufacturing tolerances.
    Sorry for the necro reply but that is REALLY high. I dont like tensioning aerolites over ~15.5 on the park scale. Trek really shouldnt have built these rears on aerolite spokes. Hell even dt swiss does aeroCOMPs on the drive side on many of their builds.

  82. #1282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    So I got my top fuel frame only and have tried to install two different 30mm BB's on it.

    On both BB's when I install the drive side bearing it binds up and feels very draggy.The non-drive bearing spins smooth when installed. I repeated the installation twice with a cane creek BB and a hope BB. Same result every time. Anyone have this problem? I'm wondering if my BB shell is ovalized or otherwise out of spec.

    I don't typically have problems with press fit BB's but this is making me wish they'd go threaded.
    Try a bbinfinite bottom bracket. Precision machined one piece bb and they use slick 40x10x30 bearings.

  83. #1283
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    With ya on that one.
    The new Pivot Mach 4 SL fits everything I wanted the top fuel to be changed to and it didn't happen. Not pulling the trigger till I demo a Top Fuel and see how the P1 comes out.
    Did you ride and compare the new trek top fuel with the Pivot Mach 4sl or trail 429? Compared to any others?
    Also how is the Bont dropper compared to the FOX Transfer in speed and durability...?
    How is the shock and fork on the 9.8? Smooth, durable, adjustability, harsh?
    Any thing I should know about expensive or more often repairing/maintenance, or proprietary parts, etc. compared to others?
    I live between the Appalachian mountains and the Atlantic Ocean so I have access to all kinds of different trails. Not the Rocky Mountains, Utah, Arizona...
    Do have some rocky and tight switchbacks on trails, and some not.
    NOT going to bike parks, or ski resorts.
    NOT looking for a pedal striking bike that needs me to spend more money on a short crankset!
    Any of you have compared?
    I assume I am a Xl being a hair under 6’1” tall and 175-180 geared up rider.
    Thank you

  84. #1284
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,535
    What are the dimensions of the shock mounting hardware for a Fox shock and Top Fuel Frame?

    Thnx
    Scarlett Johansson loves my hummus.

  85. #1285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    I installed a regular Fox 3-position DPS on mine. I really like the middle position for general trail riding. On the OEM 2-position shock, I felt like I had to run higher than optimal pressure to get the pedaling feel I wanted.

    It took a few rides to get used to reaching down there for the lever, though -- but I mostly leave it in the middle position.
    I like the idea of ditching the cable operated simultaneous F + R lockout and going to independent 3 position lockouts for the fork and shock. I imagine this would also save a few grams and clean up the cable routing a lot!

    @kosmo I tried to send you a PM but your mailbox is full.

  86. #1286
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,293
    Quote Originally Posted by R332 View Post
    I like the idea of ditching the cable operated simultaneous F + R lockout and going to independent 3 position lockouts for the fork and shock. I imagine this would also save a few grams and clean up the cable routing a lot!

    @kosmo I tried to send you a PM but your mailbox is full.
    I kept the remote on the fork out of laziness. Happy. Mailbox purged. PM away!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  87. #1287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by steadite View Post
    Also, the new tires are a huge improvement over the XR3’s...I bought Teravail Ehline 2.5 for the rear and Teravail Honcho 2.6 for the front—both in “durable“ casing. They’re not light, but they stick to the trail like Velcro and the extra volume gives more ground clearance, comfort, and float over sand.
    Hello, may I ask how are you liking the Teravail tires? I'm using XR4 F and SE4 R, both 2.4, and yours is one of the combinations I'm considering. I hope they have good grip on steep and hard terrain.

  88. #1288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by bostik View Post
    Hello, may I ask how are you liking the Teravail tires? I'm using XR4 F and SE4 R, both 2.4, and yours is one of the combinations I'm considering. I hope they have good grip on steep and hard terrain.
    Here in WI it’s more sandy & narrow with a lot of short up/down. What I wanted was lots of volume/float and “bite” for the sandy stuff and these have delivered. They are also quite “sturdy” (read: heavy)...I’m 190 lb, so that’s a bonus for me, but I’d also assume the tough sidewalls would be good for rocky terrain.
    whatever...

  89. #1289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SleepeRst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by dturcic View Post
    Do you aluminium TF owners get strange metal clapping sound when hitting rocky trails downhill?
    Can’t get the source of it and its imposible to replicate it at home...
    Maybe internal cables hitting the frame - seams to loud for it
    or Recon fork strange topping up sound...
    It gets louder with trail geting rough.
    Im on a carbon frame but found once I went to Shimano 1x12 with the clutch system, my chain slap basically disappeared. It was VERY noticeable with Sram NX

  90. #1290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    So I got my top fuel frame only and have tried to install two different 30mm BB's on it.

    On both BB's when I install the drive side bearing it binds up and feels very draggy.The non-drive bearing spins smooth when installed. I repeated the installation twice with a cane creek BB and a hope BB. Same result every time. Anyone have this problem? I'm wondering if my BB shell is ovalized or otherwise out of spec.

    I don't typically have problems with press fit BB's but this is making me wish they'd go threaded.

    apparently they all run tight. they told me my 40.8mm ID BB Shell was within spec. Actual spec is 41 +/- 0.05mm. Hambini would have a field day.

    also they don't strip the paint under the seatpost clamp. Even Specialized does this.

    you need to burnish the shell with sandpaper very carefully or visit warranty land. one of the two.

  91. #1291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    2

    Finally back in the mtb saddle with a TF

    Very recently got back into mountain biking after a 6-7 year hiatus coinciding with the birth of our first kid, leaving me no time to do more than one hobby (I'd been a roadie only in the ensuing years because it's easier to do right out our front door. In any case, I went with a Top Fuel 9.9 XO1, but upgraded to AXS and added a Quarq power meter (see roadie). The TF AXS model had a long wait so I just bought the XO1 and upgraded since there was a biking program through work where I got a huge discount (33%) on gear. Been on about a dozen or so rides and love it - big upgrade from my 11 year old alloy Cannondale hardtail! Anything you folks think I should keep in mind?

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-427baa0b-58ad-40db-90c2-046067bbba23.jpg  


  92. #1292
    Pizzaiolo Americano
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by seinberg View Post
    Very recently got back into mountain biking after a 6-7 year hiatus coinciding with the birth of our first kid, leaving me no time to do more than one hobby (I'd been a roadie only in the ensuing years because it's easier to do right out our front door. In any case, I went with a Top Fuel 9.9 XO1, but upgraded to AXS and added a Quarq power meter (see roadie). The TF AXS model had a long wait so I just bought the XO1 and upgraded since there was a biking program through work where I got a huge discount (33%) on gear. Been on about a dozen or so rides and love it - big upgrade from my 11 year old alloy Cannondale hardtail! Anything you folks think I should keep in mind?

    I'd mark all of your pivot bolts with a silver sharpie. That way, if they move at all, you can tell. There have been a few folks on here that have had theirs randomly back out.

  93. #1293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by yarbrough462 View Post
    I'd mark all of your pivot bolts with a silver sharpie. That way, if they move at all, you can tell. There have been a few folks on here that have had theirs randomly back out.
    Interesting - can you ELI5?

  94. #1294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    504
    so has anyone done anything to the rear shock to make it more supple? do i remove a volume spacer?

  95. #1295
    Pizzaiolo Americano
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by seinberg View Post
    Interesting - can you ELI5?
    I took a sharpie and a ruler and made a 90 degree line on the entire bolt and nut (where applicable). If they move, I'll be able to tell because the lines are no longer at 90 degrees. If any of your pivot bolts come out, you are going to be buying an expensive replacement at best and may have frame damage at worst. Your first instinct may be to torque them with a wrench before your ride but, this is a bad idea because you can break the loctite bond (on the bolts from factory) and make the problem worse...

  96. #1296
    Pizzaiolo Americano
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by fishywishy View Post
    so has anyone done anything to the rear shock to make it more supple? do i remove a volume spacer?
    That won't do much to make the bike more supple on the top of the travel. Volume spacers work (mostly) on the end of travel. I'd mess around with the sag to see if you can get it to feel better. The shock tune on these bikes is pretty firm though. I am thinking of changing mine out this winter for the new Rockshox SidLuxe Ultimate to match my new Sid Ultimate fork.

  97. #1297
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    41

    Bonking ... not feelin' well

    What do you think of this? Found it after my ride yesterday on the back of the seat tube. I didn't crash, don't see any evidence of a strike, and it would be a hard place to strike directly anyway. I can tell it is delaminating by the dead sound when tapping on it. Could this be a frame defect? Love this bike and I am hoping there is some path forward.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-2020-11-29-11.57.42-large-.jpg  

    --------------
    2019 Trek Top Fuel 9.8 SL
    1999 Trek 8000 SL

  98. #1298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,293
    Quote Originally Posted by fishywishy View Post
    so has anyone done anything to the rear shock to make it more supple? do i remove a volume spacer?
    Agree with 462 above. Damping is fairly firm, as appropriate for a "sort of race" bike IMO, and smaller VRs are not going to impact off the top feel much.

    I went to a 3 position DPS. Open is valved a bit softer than the stock 2-position shock, and it suits me. Lever is a bit of a PITA to reach, since the shock has to be upside down, but I adjusted, and don't toggle it that much anyway.
    Last edited by kosmo; 19 Hours Ago at 07:11 AM.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  99. #1299
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,649
    Quote Originally Posted by DouglyssRuns View Post
    What do you think of this? Found it after my ride yesterday on the back of the seat tube...
    What frame is that? It doesn't look like a 2020 or 21 Top Fuel. At any rate, you need a new frame one way or another...or if that's not in the cards, a repair.
    What, me worry?

  100. #1300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    What frame is that? It doesn't look like a 2020 or 21 Top Fuel. At any rate, you need a new frame one way or another...or if that's not in the cards, a repair.
    2019 Top Fuel 9.8. Just dropped it off at LBS to see if Trek will warranty. They agree it does not look like a crash.
    --------------
    2019 Trek Top Fuel 9.8 SL
    1999 Trek 8000 SL

  101. #1301
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,649
    Quote Originally Posted by DouglyssRuns View Post
    2019 Top Fuel 9.8. Just dropped it off at LBS to see if Trek will warranty. They agree it does not look like a crash.
    That'd be great if they warranty it. Of course it's up to the Trek factory to make the determination. Anyway, not that it's a big deal, but this is the 2020 thread, which is when the frame design changed from the earlier version like yours.
    What, me worry?

  102. #1302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Agree with 462 above. Damping is fairly firm, as appropriate for a "sort of race" bike IMO, and smaller VRs are not going to impact off the top feel much.

    I went to a 3 position DPS. Open is valved a bit softer than the stock 2-position shock, and it suits me. Lever is a bit of a PITA to reach, since the shock has to be upside down, but I adjusted, and don't toggle it that much anyway.
    Which rear shock did you get? I just brought home a 9.8 and want to eliminate the remote lockouts. Finding a fork is easy, finding a shock not so much.

  103. #1303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by kellyc View Post
    Which rear shock did you get? I just brought home a 9.8 and want to eliminate the remote lockouts.
    I sent mine into fox and they de-remoted them. Cost about 500 (fork & shock) but worth it to get rid of that stuff.
    whatever...

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Similar Threads

  1. What will the future of bike technology bring us in 2020?
    By AC/BC in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 08-28-2020, 09:33 AM
  2. Post Your FUEL EX official post
    By efecto 0 in forum Trek
    Replies: 1159
    Last Post: 10-13-2017, 01:50 PM
  3. 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: 351

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.