2020 Top Fuel Official Post- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 218
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post

    New Top Fuel pics have finally dropped in the 2020 MY thread, so let's start one dedicated to the Top Fuel only.

    Looks like a bike that will suit me. Any links to detailed info yet?
    Whining is not a strategy.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11
    Fotos

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Name:  Top Fuel.jpg
Views: 7592
Size:  70.0 KB

    A pic from the 2020 MY thread.

    Thanks to alias33!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Looks great! Really curious about how much this will weight. Also if you look closely at the headset it appears to have knock block.

    Funny enough this is the exact setup of my current Top Fuel: 34SC, Dropper, XX1 AXS

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by soban View Post
    Looks great! Really curious about how much this will weight. Also if you look closely at the headset it appears to have knock block.

    Funny enough this is the exact setup of my current Top Fuel: 34SC, Dropper, XX1 AXS
    What does your's weigh in that configuration?

    -r

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by oclvframe View Post
    What does your's weigh in that configuration?

    -r
    24.3 lb with dropper and 23.7 without

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    582
    If this new Fuel drops in at under 27lbs with clearance for 2.6" tires I may be moving back to Trek.

    Currently on my first non-Trek in 10 years (Santa Cruz Blur TR) and I swore I'd never look back but now...

  9. #9
    Ruckus99ss
    Reputation: Ruckus99ss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by soban View Post
    24.3 lb with dropper and 23.7 without
    Thatís heavy! My 9.8sl with 34sc

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-a4dfa2f5-3981-44a7-8dcc-1925321d487c.jpg
    Project One Trek Madone 9
    Trek Top Fuel 9.8
    Pivot Les

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    268
    Is it still 100mm in the back, or 120mm? If its 120mm, thats pretty close to the FEX. Makes me wonder if the FEX is going to jump to 140mm this model year.
    Patrick

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,373
    The lack of 2 water bottles is getting old. Makes me want to stick to a HT. If I wanted a FS with 1 bottle. I'd get a Scott.
    Seems they added Knock-block. Fox 34 SC. Rear lower shock mount is like the Slash, remedy, I hear the Fuel is getting the same mount. upside down shock mount was something Scott does. Wonder if the shock will be some odd Trek only size.
    Too Many .

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    856
    According to the trek thread it is 115 mm rear

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    46
    Frame weight is nearly 2500g

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by JTab23 View Post
    Frame weight is nearly 2500g
    Whatís the Ď19 one?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by zgxtreme View Post
    Whatís the Ď19 one?
    Not sure exactly, sorry. I'd suspect right above 2500g with the shock.

    It's not the lightest, but I hope the ride feel makes up for that!

    My 9.7 will arrive in two weeks so we'll see then if i'll end up getting a 9.9 AXS!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    72
    still not on the Trek website

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Thought I might go stupid and get an AXS, but dealer website is showing mid-October availability.

    Excellent. This made me come to my senses, and order just the "regular" 9.9.

    Still, delivery estimate is early July. Damn!

    24.36 pounds for a medium with tubes, per Trek.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by JTab23 View Post
    Not sure exactly, sorry. I'd suspect right above 2500g with the shock.

    It's not the lightest, but I hope the ride feel makes up for that!

    My 9.7 will arrive in two weeks so we'll see then if i'll end up getting a 9.9 AXS!
    What is the spec for the 9.7?
    And other models if you know?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by VERT1 View Post
    What is the spec for the 9.7?
    And other models if you know?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

    Frame- OCLV Mountain Carbon main frame & stays, tapered head tube, Knock Block, Control Freak internal routing, Carbon Armor, magnesium rocker link, Mino Link, ABP, Boost148, 115mm travel
    Front suspension- RockShox Reba RL, Solo Air spring, Motion Control damper, TwistLoc remote, tapered steerer, 46mm offset, Boost110, 15mm Maxle Stealth, 120mm travel
    Rear suspension- Fox Performance Float, 2-postion DPS damper, TwistLoc remote, tuned by Trek Suspension Lab, 190x45mm
    Wheels
    Wheels- Bontrager Kovee Comp 23, Tubeless Ready, 6-bolt, Boost110 front, Boost148 rear
    Tires- Bontrager XR3 Team Issue, Tubeless Ready, Inner Strength sidewall, aramid bead, 120tpi, 29x2.40"
    Drivetrain:
    Shifter -SRAM NX Eagle, 12 speed
    Rear derailleur- SRAM NX Eagle
    Crank- SRAM NX Eagle, DUB, 32T steel ring, Boost
    Bottom bracket- SRAM DUB, 92mm, PressFit
    Cassette- SRAM PG-1230 Eagle, 11-50, 12 speed
    Chain- SRAM NX Eagle, 12 speed
    Components:
    Saddle- Bontrager Montrose Comp, steel rails
    Seatpost- Bontrager Line Dropper, 150mm travel, internal routing, 31.6mm
    Handlebar- Bontrager Comp, alloy, 31.8mm, 15mm rise
    Stem- Bontrager Rhythm Comp, Knock Block, 31.8mm, 0 degree
    Headset- Knock Block Integrated, cartridge bearing, 1-1/8" top, 1.5" bottom
    Brakeset- Shimano hydraulic disc, MT501 lever, MT500 caliper

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Thought I might go stupid and get an AXS, but dealer website is showing mid-October availability.

    Excellent. This made me come to my senses, and order just the "regular" 9.9.

    Still, delivery estimate is early July. Damn!

    24.36 pounds for a medium with tubes, per Trek.
    Honestly i'm not really a fan of the pike on the 2020 9.9 axs... I guess i'd have to change it out for a sid!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by JTab23 View Post
    Frame-OCLV Mountain Carbon main frame & stays, tapered head tube, Knock Block, Control Freak internal routing, Carbon Armor, magnesium rocker link, Mino Link, ABP, Boost148, 115mm travel
    Front suspension-RockShox Reba RL, Solo Air spring, Motion Control damper, TwistLoc remote, tapered steerer, 46mm offset, Boost110, 15mm Maxle Stealth, 120mm travel
    Rear suspension- Fox Performance Float, 2-postion DPS damper, TwistLoc remote, tuned by Trek Suspension Lab, 190x45mm
    Wheels
    Wheels-Bontrager Kovee Comp 23, Tubeless Ready, 6-bolt, Boost110 front, Boost148 rear
    Tires-Bontrager XR3 Team Issue, Tubeless Ready, Inner Strength sidewall, aramid bead, 120tpi, 29x2.40"
    Drivetrain:
    Shifter -SRAM NX Eagle, 12 speed
    Rear derailleur-SRAM NX Eagle
    Crank-SRAM NX Eagle, DUB, 32T steel ring, Boost
    Bottom bracket-SRAM DUB, 92mm, PressFit
    Cassette-SRAM PG-1230 Eagle, 11-50, 12 speed
    Chain-SRAM NX Eagle, 12 speed
    Components:
    Saddle-Bontrager Montrose Comp, steel rails
    Seatpost-Bontrager Line Dropper, 150mm travel, internal routing, 31.6mm
    Handlebar-Bontrager Comp, alloy, 31.8mm, 15mm rise
    Stem-Bontrager Rhythm Comp, Knock Block, 31.8mm, 0 degree
    Headset-Knock Block Integrated, cartridge bearing, 1-1/8" top, 1.5" bottom
    Brakeset-Shimano hydraulic disc, MT501 lever, MT500 caliper
    Thanks, 150mm dropper nice! What frame size? And do you know if it's a twist to lock or twist to unlock lockout?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Quote Originally Posted by JTab23 View Post
    Honestly i'm not really a fan of the pike on the 2020 9.9 axs... I guess i'd have to change it out for a sid!
    Yikes! Missed that. Pike is another deal-killer for me, in addition to near-Halloween delivery.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by VERT1 View Post
    Thanks, 150mm dropper nice! What frame size? And do you know if it's a twist to lock or twist to unlock lockout?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
    Seems to be a 150mm dropper for all sizes (S, M, ML, L, XL) Not sure which it is, but i'll let you know which it is when i get mine (unless someone can answer your question before I can)

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 04 F2000SL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    575
    So they arent offering a 100mm xc bike?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by 04 F2000SL View Post
    So they arent offering a 100mm xc bike?
    That's a negative...

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by JTab23 View Post
    That's a negative...
    I think he meant a 100/100 FS XC

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    420
    -DC, just some XC Bum in Sfla...

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Quote Originally Posted by 04 F2000SL View Post
    So they arent offering a 100mm xc bike?
    I strongly suspect that there is a shorter travel "pure" xc race bike coming.

    But I don't really care. This bike ticks so many boxes for me. Dislikes? Well, I'd probably prefer non-remote controlled suspension, and like everybody in the universe, capacity for TWO water bottles would have been sweet.

    But every bike compromises somewhere. No real complaints.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    Love the colour of the alloy 8

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by VERT1 View Post
    Love the colour of the alloy 8

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
    So what's the geo on this?

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by jpec29 View Post
    So what's the geo on this?

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    I downloaded a side view and used an online protractor so the following is not exact.

    HA 67.8 degrees or maybe 68 degrees
    Effective Seat Angle BB to where saddle meets the top of seatpost 76 degrees

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    268
    Wish they were making an alloy model with 34SC and GX eagle. This bike looks perfect for my local trails. Although I do appreciate the extra squish my FEX offers me when I take a dumb line.
    Patrick

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    179
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-39397f15-214f-4bd2-b8a8-551aef909165.jpg

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by alias33 View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	39397F15-214F-4BD2-B8A8-551AEF909165.jpg 
Views:	695 
Size:	237.7 KB 
ID:	1251491
    That's very progressive for the likes Trek! I'm liking the geo numbers for the Top Fuel. It's now in downcountry/marathon bike territory! Put on a shorter stem and 20-25mm rise bars and you'll have an all-round trail slayer! Not a big fan of lockouts since I keep my suspension in open all the time, but that stuff can always be removed. SC's Tallboy 4 should be announced soon too. There has never been a better time for short travel trail bikes!
    I no longer like to party. But I like the idea of it.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    420
    Bringing back a true XXL should make the tall guys happy. I'm 6'1" on the current Top fuel in XL and I'd hate to see how much post someone who was 6'4" or taller would have exposed. I know of at least one local rider who's 6'8" on a XXL Superfly FS, time for an upgrade!
    -DC, just some XC Bum in Sfla...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    856
    Still not seeing these anywhere... just get them on the website already!

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkpowa View Post
    Bringing back a true XXL should make the tall guys happy. I'm 6'1" on the current Top fuel in XL and I'd hate to see how much post someone who was 6'4" or taller would have exposed. I know of at least one local rider who's 6'8" on a XXL Superfly FS, time for an upgrade!
    Hope that is a typo on the XXL seattube length: I'll assume it should be 55 and not 75...

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    27
    Beyond Bikes confirmed that below are the weights for the new Top Fuel:

    9.9 = 24.36 lb
    9.8 = 26.11 lb
    9.7 = 27.85 lb
    8 = 30.45 lb

    Gotta say that is pretty heavy considering the current 9.9 is listed at 22 lb. Sure it is a more capable bike but the might need to market it as Trail/XC instead of XC race. Looking forward to seeing this new supercaliber now.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,373
    My son and I will be demo'ing one in Oct. for a 6 hours race. really want to see how the geo changes will feel
    Too Many .

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkpowa View Post
    Bringing back a true XXL should make the tall guys happy. I'm 6'1" on the current Top fuel in XL and I'd hate to see how much post someone who was 6'4" or taller would have exposed. I know of at least one local rider who's 6'8" on a XXL Superfly FS, time for an upgrade!
    Looks like the extended the reach quite a bit though, a Large in the 2020 looks like it will fit more like an XL in the current generation Top Fuel (reach 457mm in a 19.5" 2019 / 475mm in size Large for 2020)

    Overall I agree though, it looks very good on paper. Any way to fit an angleset in the current gen top fuel? That way with an SC 34 fork, I can convince myself there is no reason to upgrade... Im also sure with a metric shock in the back you can squeeze out another 10mm of rear travel in the current gen.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by soban View Post
    Beyond Bikes confirmed that below are the weights for the new Top Fuel:

    9.9 = 24.36 lb
    9.8 = 26.11 lb
    9.7 = 27.85 lb
    8 = 30.45 lb

    Gotta say that is pretty heavy considering the current 9.9 is listed at 22 lb. Sure it is a more capable bike but the might need to market it as Trail/XC instead of XC race. Looking forward to seeing this new supercaliber now.
    These numbers are pretty consistent with most other downcountry bikes: Scott Spark (not RC), Kona Hei Hei, etc.

    For people wanting pure bred racers, it might be time to look elsewhere.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by hesitationpoint View Post
    For people wanting pure bred racers, it might be time to look elsewhere.
    Agreed, really need to see the the SuperCal specs confirmed.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    582
    Like it, the weights and builds mean that now we will have two Trail bikes to choose from with Trek, the XC/Trail or the All Mountain/Trail one.

    No doubt though they aren't going to let those shopping for a pure breed xc FS shop elsewhere so I am going to place money on the bet that the SC fills that niche.

    A FS with somehow an adjustable 25/100 of rear travel would be nice.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by soban View Post
    Beyond Bikes confirmed that below are the weights for the new Top Fuel:

    9.9 = 24.36 lb
    9.8 = 26.11 lb
    9.7 = 27.85 lb
    8 = 30.45 lb

    Gotta say that is pretty heavy considering the current 9.9 is listed at 22 lb. Sure it is a more capable bike but the might need to market it as Trail/XC instead of XC race. Looking forward to seeing this new supercaliber now.
    These also all include dropper posts now.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23
    So, FULL FLOATER is gone! There are going to be a lot less poo related jokes at the trail head in future

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    The purple one above is an alloy model. But NX eagle if that matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by pjames12 View Post
    Wish they were making an alloy model with 34SC and GX eagle. This bike looks perfect for my local trails. Although I do appreciate the extra squish my FEX offers me when I take a dumb line.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBRT View Post
    The purple one above is an alloy model. But NX eagle if that matters.
    Right, but its got a Reba too instead of a 34SC.
    Patrick

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    Love the comments, ďitís not XC race any moreĒ or ď Down country bikeĒ . What the **** is down country anyways? Itís a short travel mountain bike! Stop giving bikes dumbass labels.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBRT View Post
    Love the comments, ďitís not XC race any moreĒ or ď Down country bikeĒ . What the **** is down country anyways? Itís a short travel mountain bike! Stop giving bikes dumbass labels.
    Trail Country

    Don't tell me what to do!

    EDIT - Ohhhh or Cross Trail <3

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    203
    I'll be interested to see if Cooper, Neff and Batty race the 120mm TF.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by hesitationpoint View Post
    I'll be interested to see if Cooper, Neff and Batty race the 120mm TF.
    They will use the new xc bike, the TF is heavy unless they make a Top Fuel 100/100

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    47
    Seems like this new Top Fuel is pretty similar to the 2016 Fuel Ex.

    The new bike is about 10mm longer and 1 degree slacker than the 2016 FEx, but it seems pretty close to me no?

    The reason I say this, I own a 2016 Fuel Ex and this geometry chart kind of makes me want to just sit tight with my bike.

    On a side note, it's pretty sweet that they went back to 29" wheels on the small bikes.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    28

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post

    Quote Originally Posted by hesitationpoint View Post
    I'll be interested to see if Cooper, Neff and Batty race the 120mm TF.
    Neff already used the new frame for the Heubach XC race... She won the race!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Matte X.0 View Post
    Neff already used the new frame for the Heubach XC race... She won the race!
    All the pics I saw she was on the old Top Fuel. Which was was the shock oriented?
    -DC, just some XC Bum in Sfla...

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    218
    I like back-country. What about Cross-Hill? Countryduro? All-mountain country?

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by thisisbenji View Post
    On a side note, it's pretty sweet that they went back to 29" wheels on the small bikes.
    This! My wife is on a team that rides Trek now and I really didn't like having to get her a 27.5" XC bike. As well as my belief that 29" is better for XC, it means it's harder to share wheels/tires/parts with my XC bike.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,557
    XC bike like the spark


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

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    Yikes! Missed that. Pike is another deal-killer for me, in addition to near-Halloween delivery.
    Pike with Pushís new HC97 damper control would rock, especially with 120mm


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by hesitationpoint View Post
    I'll be interested to see if Cooper, Neff and Batty race the 120mm TF.
    There was a spy shot of Batty on the Supercaliber.
    my LBS had some info that it may be a 100/25 or 80/25 travel bike. shock mounted like the Superfly FS/Rumblefish.
    Only time will tell.
    Too Many .

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Somebody on another thread said their LBS had one in stock already?

    Anybody actually seen one in the flesh?

    Mine shows early-ish July delivery, dang it!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    596
    Yes, I saw one this weekend (an 8). Nice looking bike. Paint fade job looks slick.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,557
    Posts been removed from Instagram haha


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

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    https://youtu.be/73O6fHZKY34 I know this isnít a trek itís just neat hearing about a suspension design and had me a little worried about the new treks. Would be nice to hear some quality feedback on how theyíre riding. Surely reviews will be out soon enough. Just hope these guys get their hands on it sooner than later

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    https://youtu.be/73O6fHZKY34 I know this isnít a trek itís just neat hearing about a suspension design and had me a little worried about the new treks. Would be nice to hear some quality feedback on how theyíre riding. Surely reviews will be out soon enough. Just hope these guys get their hands on it sooner than later
    This Top Fuel still has ABP, which has been on Treks for a long time now. Plenty of reviews out there on the ABP design. Its more or less the same thing as split-pivot (which is a Dave Weagle design that Devinci, Salsa, and some others use). Its a solid suspension platform.
    Patrick

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Abp has nothing to do with the suspension characteristics. Itís just a pivotable chainstay to seat stay junction that allows the wheel to travel while under braking. Itís common in plenty of bikes but isnít really a suspension characteristic. Itís beautiful to have as my 50101 didnít and first time riding my single track on it my back wheel hit a large branch and almost bucked me over the bars instead of Justinís soaking it up like all my previous trees had done but it only aids the suspension in particular when youíre braking

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    Abp has nothing to do with the suspension characteristics. Itís just a pivotable chainstay to seat stay junction that allows the wheel to travel while under braking. Itís common in plenty of bikes but isnít really a suspension characteristic. Itís beautiful to have as my 50101 didnít and first time riding my single track on it my back wheel hit a large branch and almost bucked me over the bars instead of Justinís soaking it up like all my previous trees had done but it only aids the suspension in particular when youíre braking
    I know what ABP is. My point is that the suspension will likely be similar to other Trek ABP bikes that have been in this category before. Unless you aren't a fan of previous Trek ABP bikes, I don't see any reason to be "worried" about how the bike will ride because its the same design thats been on all of their FS bikes for awhile.
    Patrick

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Itís not the same design itís not full floater. Itís the most basic suspension design there is.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    A way to look at it, though I dont know the answer but how does the 2018 Remedy pedal compared to the 2019?
    Reviews are always biased towards the latest and greatest model but in the real world does the Full floater pedal better than the non Full floater?

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    It just seems the full floater was a reason to go to trek. I remember a video when the slash first came out where they straight up said theyíd only bother doing it on the longer travel bikes because it allowed the more demanding bikes to be stiffer and the longer shocks were easier to work with to get the desired curve. So maybe the smaller shocks are capable of getting the curve they want now but now they donít have full floater and on the top fuel they donít have re:aktiv anymore so aside from the warranty, why go to trek and not giant where they have better part specs. Considering a transition now just because Iíll at least get a part spec I can live with even if I end up not liking the frame a ton

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    I guess the reason to go with Trek over other brands is the frame geometry and they are offering a full carbon frame now.

    Components can always be upgraded.

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    Considering a transition now just because Iíll at least get a part spec I can live with even if I end up not liking the frame a ton
    Really? A frame, geo, and suspension performance is way more important than a certain level ďpart specĒ. Who gives a crap about parts level if you have a frame you donít like ďa tonĒ? Weird way to look at it.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    why go to trek and not giant where they have better part specs
    because they dont have better specs

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    179
    Iím trying to decide between the Scott spark Rc pro and the 9.8 with an upgrade to sram xx1 or axs.

    Scott benefits: less pivots at the dropout
    100mm and more racey?
    Xtr vs gx out of the box, but oem alloy junk wheels

    2020 top fuel benefits: brand new not dated like the Scott
    115 in the rear for 15 extra mm of rowdiness, I race with a 120r/140mm front setup currently so itíll feel similar with 120 up front on the fuel
    Gx eagle on a $5500 bike with junk slx brakes is discouraging

    Thoughts? Or should I just get the 9.9?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-58265980-b63e-4bd6-80aa-42487427d59e.jpg  


  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Haymarket View Post
    Really? A frame, geo, and suspension performance is way more important than a certain level ďpart specĒ. Who gives a crap about parts level if you have a frame you donít like ďa tonĒ? Weird way to look at it.
    I donít know what you mean. If I buy a complete with a good part spec I can always just buy a different frame instead of a complete bike. If I buy a complete with nice frame and crap parts then I paid for parts I didnít plan on keeping and upgrading in the first place

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9

    Cool-blue Rhythm Greetings one and all. I just tripped over this website...

    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    New Top Fuel pics have finally dropped in the 2020 MY thread, so let's start one dedicated to the Top Fuel only.

    Looks like a bike that will suit me. Any links to detailed info yet?
    In the last few days I've decided I need a Trek 9.8, and then felt a bit annoyed that most places didn't have the 2019's in stock. So, on finding this forum I then found this site, so I thought I'd register and share:

    https://www.blazingbikes.co.uk/index...tain-bike.html

    Seems like for 2020, the rear triangle is carbon, and SRAM AXS is mentioned in the description. Enjoy

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9

    Just in case, here's the spec

    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-opera-snapshot_2019-05-22_040745_www.blazingbikes.co.uk.jpg

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    443
    disappointing there's no reactiv shock or 3 position shock. either fully open or fully locked.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11
    The 9.9 is on that site as well:
    https://www.blazingbikes.co.uk/index...tain-bike.html

    So there are models priced at £4795 and 8695. Huge gap. I want something in the middle.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    60
    They have just removed 2020 Top Fuels from their website. Although I have seen TF 8 specs and Recon in is really disappointing... I hope it is a typo or something.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafu View Post
    They have just removed 2020 Top Fuels from their website. Although I have seen TF 8 specs and Recon in is really disappointing... I hope it is a typo or something.
    The 2019 TF8 had a Recon as well, I agree disappointing. My 2017 TF8 has the Reaktiv shock and Fox 32 SC fork. It's noticeably lighter than my buddies 2019 TF8.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowTiger View Post
    IMAGE
    Looks solid to me, I agree that this looks more like the spec sheet for a sub 5000.00 and not a 5500.00 bike but it could be worse like Yeti or some other brands. I feel like the 500ish extra is paying for the uniqueness of the bike, not much competition for a bike with similar geo, tire clearance, travel, full carbon frame/bar/wheels. Perfect bike for people like me, Cat 2 racer who uses their race bike as a trail rig for all kinds of trails.

    Happy to see it doesn't have SRAM garbage brakes. Not sure why so many people crap on GX Eagle, I rode it for a little over a year with absolutely no issues until I kicked up a branch into the rear derailluer that bent the hell out of it. Either way, I look at it as lower level components just means ride it till it degrades and then upgrade time.

    Wish that all these crosstrail bike makers would stop with the dual front and rear lockouts though. If it needs two modes, that's fine but make it OPEN/OPEN to LOCKED/FIRM not OPEN/OPEN to LOCKED/LOCKED. There are rarely ever times that a fully locked fork is better than one that is just firm in trail situations.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    Itís not the same design itís not full floater. Itís the most basic suspension design there is.
    Yeah, its not full floater, but its not the "most basic" suspension design either. Its still a linkage driven single pivot with the concentric ABP pivot at the axle. The "most basic" would be a regular single pivot (a la Orange bikes), and a regular linkage driven single pivot (without ABP) would also be more basic.

    I guess it depends on how much full floater actually helped with pedaling performance. I'm guessing it wasn't that significant of a factor, since the Slash and Remedy have already moved away from the full floater design. If I'm not mistaken, I think if I remember correctly I read on here somewhere that full floater helped Trek's ABP patent get around Weagle's split pivot patent, because otherwise they're basically the same. I think there was a lawsuit over this at one point.

    Either way. I've ridden split-pivot/ABP bikes with both full floater and non-full floater and they all pedal fine IMO.
    Patrick

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by alias33 View Post
    Iím trying to decide between the Scott spark Rc pro and the 9.8 with an upgrade to sram xx1 or axs.

    Scott benefits: less pivots at the dropout
    100mm and more racey?
    Xtr vs gx out of the box, but oem alloy junk wheels

    2020 top fuel benefits: brand new not dated like the Scott
    115 in the rear for 15 extra mm of rowdiness, I race with a 120r/140mm front setup currently so itíll feel similar with 120 up front on the fuel
    Gx eagle on a $5500 bike with junk slx brakes is discouraging

    Thoughts? Or should I just get the 9.9?
    If I could swing the 9.9 that is what I would do. I haven't had any first hand experience with Scott but I have heard mixed things about the Spark.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by pjames12 View Post
    Yeah, its not full floater, but its not the "most basic" suspension design either. Its still a linkage driven single pivot with the concentric ABP pivot at the axle. The "most basic" would be a regular single pivot (a la Orange bikes), and a regular linkage driven single pivot (without ABP) would also be more basic.

    I guess it depends on how much full floater actually helped with pedaling performance. I'm guessing it wasn't that significant of a factor, since the Slash and Remedy have already moved away from the full floater design. If I'm not mistaken, I think if I remember correctly I read on here somewhere that full floater helped Trek's ABP patent get around Weagle's split pivot patent, because otherwise they're basically the same. I think there was a lawsuit over this at one point.

    Either way. I've ridden split-pivot/ABP bikes with both full floater and non-full floater and they all pedal fine IMO.
    Maybe my Trek rep explained it poorly to me but I was introduced to full floater in 2016 and told that it helps the rear suspension progression feel more "bottomless" so I just assumed that full floater was a slight engineering crutch to help with the feel of a rear shock when it reaches the upper limits of it's travel and that it didn't really change much about how the bike or shock performed pedaling. I am probably wrong though and I probably just misunderstood the Trek rep.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by drdocta View Post
    Maybe my Trek rep explained it poorly to me but I was introduced to full floater in 2016 and told that it helps the rear suspension progression feel more "bottomless" so I just assumed that full floater was a slight engineering crutch to help with the feel of a rear shock when it reaches the upper limits of it's travel and that it didn't really change much about how the bike or shock performed pedaling. I am probably wrong though and I probably just misunderstood the Trek rep.
    No, that appears to be correct. Thats what the Trek website claims full floater does:

    https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/i.../full_floater/

    Whats likely is in the years since they introduced full floater, they've found a way to get a similar feel with either better shock technology or modifying the linkage in some other way. Wouldn't make sense to just remove it from all of their most recent bike releases if they weren't able to design a platform that works just as well.
    Patrick

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    6,084
    What matters is the leverage curve, not where the ends of the shock are attached. If you arrange it to get substantially the same curve when attaching the end of the shock to a forward extension of the chainstays (full floater), or the down tube, or the top tube, or anywhere else, it'll work the same. Full-floater is pure marketing BS IMO.
    Do the math.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3

    New BB??

    Quote Originally Posted by RUBIO View Post
    Fotos
    No one is commenting on the BB. Doesn't look like a press fit BB. I heard a rumor Trek is moving back to threaded BBs.

    Or am I missing something in the image?

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by mwbyrd View Post
    No one is commenting on the BB. Doesn't look like a press fit BB. I heard a rumor Trek is moving back to threaded BBs.

    Or am I missing something in the image?
    Rumor is Trek is moving to threaded BBs yes, but it looks like at least this bike will not be gifted with one. All spec lists currently released have SRAM DUB Pressfit.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by drdocta View Post
    Rumor is Trek is moving to threaded BBs yes, but it looks like at least this bike will not be gifted with one. All spec lists currently released have SRAM DUB Pressfit.
    The TF will be Pressfit, the Supercaliber or other bikes I don't know.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9

    The internet strikes again

    Quote Originally Posted by drdocta View Post
    Rumor is Trek is moving to threaded BBs yes, but it looks like at least this bike will not be gifted with one. All spec lists currently released have SRAM DUB Pressfit.
    Google's cache agrees with you...although Trek's website doesn't seem to show it anymore...This seems to state 2019 though, with SRAM AXS

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...k&client=opera

    I thought SRAM AXS was new on top fuel for 2020...well that's what I read on that site.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9

    Which is better???

    Both the bikes I'm looking at are not in stock...

    A Top Fuel 9.8 or this:

    https://www.canyon.com/en-gb/mountai...race/2059.html

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by alias33 View Post
    Iím trying to decide between the Scott spark Rc pro and the 9.8 with an upgrade to sram xx1 or axs.

    Scott benefits: less pivots at the dropout
    100mm and more racey?
    Xtr vs gx out of the box, but oem alloy junk wheels

    2020 top fuel benefits: brand new not dated like the Scott
    115 in the rear for 15 extra mm of rowdiness, I race with a 120r/140mm front setup currently so itíll feel similar with 120 up front on the fuel
    Gx eagle on a $5500 bike with junk slx brakes is discouraging

    Thoughts? Or should I just get the 9.9?
    I am working on this exact choice and am leaning towards the Scott. My local has both in stock. The Top Fuel has lower line specs and costs more...The carbon wheels on the Trek also weigh the same or even more that the DT Swiss on the Scott. I am super disappointed in the spec for the money after waiting a long time for the new Top Fuel...

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafu View Post
    They have just removed 2020 Top Fuels from their website. Although I have seen TF 8 specs and Recon in is really disappointing... I hope it is a typo or something.
    Not a typo. I saw all the specs on the dealer computer today and a few of the bikes in person. All are spec'd below the price of the bikes...The only way I would be interested in a TF is as a frame only option. Trek missed the mark on value per dollar by a mile...As of today, I am looking at other options...It's a shame after riding Trek so long and waiting on this particular bike for the past few years...

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    Maybe Trek are factoring in the price increases due to the bikes now having a full carbon frame and a dropper post

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zgxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowTiger View Post
    Both the bikes I'm looking at are not in stock...

    A Top Fuel 9.8 or this:

    https://www.canyon.com/en-gb/mountai...race/2059.html
    That is the exact model Iím considering if I donít feel the SuperCal checks all the boxes at a value that is reasonable.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by drdocta View Post
    Rumor is Trek is moving to threaded BBs yes, but it looks like at least this bike will not be gifted with one. All spec lists currently released have SRAM DUB Pressfit.
    Just saw the new Top Fuels at the Trek Store in Charlotte, NC. It's the SRAM DUB pressfit. I wasn't familiar with the BB. Jasen explained it to me and it seem like a fix...but whatever.

    The manager didn't know about the rumor about BB going back to threaded.

    Bikes looked good. The 8 series in black and red looked better than 9 from a color perspective.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    The Canyon Lux looks like a great bike and well speced I'm just not happy with the reach on a size medium 430mm reach would be too short. The reach on my existing 2018 18.5 TF feels a bit short and its longer on paper than the Lux.

    I think I reach on the M/L 2020 looks good however

    Ps I'm just a tad under 5 foot 8

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Iím 5 7 and the 18.5 top fuel was a hair long. But thatís only because of preference I suppose. I mountain bike because I enjoy the woods too and found myself having to try too hard to look up and see the woods. I put a shorter stem and it helped me out a little bit. If I was just racing it would have been just right probably. I tried a 17.5 fuel ex and seemed like little kids bike. Crazy how 1 inch can make such a difference

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    Iím 5 7 and the 18.5 top fuel was a hair long. But thatís only because of preference I suppose. I mountain bike because I enjoy the woods too and found myself having to try too hard to look up and see the woods. I put a shorter stem and it helped me out a little bit. If I was just racing it would have been just right probably. I tried a 17.5 fuel ex and seemed like little kids bike. Crazy how 1 inch can make such a difference
    5'6" here, I'm currently on a 15.5 Fuel Ex w/ 90mm stem and a 17.5 Top Fuel w/ 70mm stem. Both feel about right, I tried riding the Top Fuel with a longer stem and it felt too stretched out for me. I think I would have to use a 50mm stem on the 18.5 Top Fuel and I'm not convinced that would climb very well.

    It's too bad that we can't rent these bikes in a variety of sizes and really dial in the handlebar and stem length for the rental period. It's hard for me to really judge how a bike is going to fit me without messing with the stem.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Having that step cast fork is why itís not a performance elite. Makes sense now. The 9.8 is pretty freaking legit actually lol. I was so worried trek was hugely downgrading the bikes but that 9.8 is super capable to work with.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    179
    Has anyone seen the new pivot Mach 4 sl, looks like a great direct competitor to the top fuel in the brappy xc catigory

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    New Top Fuel specs and geo are on Treks U.S. website.

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBRT View Post
    New Top Fuel specs and geo are on Treks U.S. website.
    Canada too.

    As already discussed, the pricing vs component spec is shameful. The Top Fuel 8 at $4K with a Recon fork...

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    39
    But that purple paint though...

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    Having that step cast fork is why itís not a performance elite. Makes sense now. The 9.8 is pretty freaking legit actually lol. I was so worried trek was hugely downgrading the bikes but that 9.8 is super capable to work with.
    That's not entirely accurate. OEMs can order the 34 step-cast in performance elite. The Scott Spark 910 comes with a 34SC performance elite and so does the Blur TR. Even Fezzari has the 34 SC PE version. Trek decided to cheap out and go for higher margin.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by alias33 View Post
    Has anyone seen the new pivot Mach 4 sl, looks like a great direct competitor to the top fuel in the brappy xc catigory
    Thatís going to me mtb bike vocabulary word of the year lol. Braaappy XC

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    9.7 with all NX, Shimano basic brakes and Reba .....4K 💩

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    9.7 with all NX, Shimano basic brakes and Reba .....4K 💩
    Haha wait til next year. 2021 will come with SX instead of NX for same price if not a little more.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Well I guess when you compare it to the 8 you get almost full carbon frame and upgraded fork

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    523
    Man...the way you guys are posting, I was expecting a GIANT shit sandwich...but the 9.8 is a full carbon frame, GX, and carbon wheels.

    Sure it's not as cheap as direct brands...and I'd like performance elite too, but it's not outrageous...comparatively speaking. New Ripley is $4800 with AL wheels, new Pivot is $5000 for XT(11) and AL wheels, Blur with GX and SC carbon is $5600 (w/ SC32 and no dropper), SC100 /w AL wheels is $5000.

    Spot 115 is $4599 with AL wheels...so quite a bit cheaper, but you'd spend $1000 or more getting carbon wheels (assuming you wanted them).

    It's seems right in range of other similarly spec'd bikes.

  111. #111
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    87
    Last edited by [email protected]; 4 Weeks Ago at 11:25 AM.
    Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    Frustrated with Trek NZ colour choices they are bringing into our country (New Zealand) yet again. Whoever works in marketing has no idea. We are only getting the black and red version of the 8 and only the boring grey version of the 9.7. If we want some colour we have to opt for the 9.8 which is just too expensive for most people.

    Currently my garage in made up of a boring grey TF 9.7 and a boring grey Fex 9.8 .Boring grey or black is all we ever seem to get here

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Man...the way you guys are posting, I was expecting a GIANT shit sandwich...but the 9.8 is a full carbon frame, GX, and carbon wheels.

    Sure it's not as cheap as direct brands...and I'd like performance elite too, but it's not outrageous...comparatively speaking. New Ripley is $4800 with AL wheels, new Pivot is $5000 for XT(11) and AL wheels, Blur with GX and SC carbon is $5600 (w/ SC32 and no dropper), SC100 /w AL wheels is $5000.

    Spot 115 is $4599 with AL wheels...so quite a bit cheaper, but you'd spend $1000 or more getting carbon wheels (assuming you wanted them).

    It's seems right in range of other similarly spec'd bikes.
    Right? And almost none of those suckers come with 2.4inch wheels on i30 rims, meaning that this may be one of the only bikes in this category with real tire clearance. You also get all the Trek warranty junk and they have dealers around every corner so lots of support. Also unique geo considering 120/115 and not too porky. Consider the markup a payment for all of that jazz.

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    Mitch, c'mon! When is the new Fuel EX going to drop?

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    You guys are missing the point. Look at the 2019 top fuel 9.8. LOADED carbon everything even cranks and X01. 2020 top fuel 9.8 has gx, Slx brakes and a performance series fork....

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    And just for comparisons since you guys are, https://www.bikemag.com/gear/mountai...vot-mach-4-sl/ hereís rides review they post alongside the new top fuel where they mentioned you can get the new Mach 4 sl with a full XT build and fox elite suspension for $5k

  117. #117
    Trail Rider
    Reputation: mlx john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    869

    Pivot race xt.....TF 9.8

    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    And just for comparisons since you guys are, https://www.bikemag.com/gear/mountai...vot-mach-4-sl/ hereís rides review they post alongside the new top fuel where they mentioned you can get the new Mach 4 sl with a full XT build and fox elite suspension for $5k

    That Pivot is not full XT, only the shifter and derailleur. SLX cassette.
    Pivot and TF SLX brakeset.
    Same Fox Performance as the TF (not elite), the TF has the lockout version. Pivot-alloy handlebar, TF-carbon
    Pivot-alloy rims, TF-carbon.
    Pivot does have the nicer dropper, transfer vs dropline.
    The Pivot is $500 cheaper.


    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    Well I guess when you compare it to the 8 you get almost full carbon frame and upgraded fork
    It is actually a full carbon frame.
    Trek FEX 9.8
    Trek Checkpoint SL 6

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 04 F2000SL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    575
    The tariffs had all of them scared. Reps were talking 25% price increases. The Canyon Lux has had two price increases and it's not even available in the XTR trim

    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    You guys are missing the point. Look at the 2019 top fuel 9.8. LOADED carbon everything even cranks and X01. 2020 top fuel 9.8 has gx, Slx brakes and a performance series fork....

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11
    Wanted a black 9.8, but Aussies only get the green/black fade in 9.8. Have to go with 9.9 for black frame. Decisions.

    On the plus side, in the states the 9.9 is US$9k+tax, over here it works out to US$7.5k (incl. tax) at current exchange rates.

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    Thatís going to me mtb bike vocabulary word of the year lol. Braaappy XC
    Brappy.

    alias33 has got to be a dirt biker!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Hadnít looked into it just was going off the article. Nice seeing they have a $6200 option that is all xt and full factory suspension.

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    You guys are missing the point. Look at the 2019 top fuel 9.8. LOADED carbon everything even cranks and X01. 2020 top fuel 9.8 has gx, Slx brakes and a performance series fork....
    no X01 on '19 tf 9.8

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Youíre right I meant to put the 2018. The 19 at least has Carbon crank and xt brakes

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23
    years ago, I bought a 2014 FEX 8 with 120/120mm travel. Retailed for $2999 AUD
    -Alloy frame, 573% range 3x10 SLX drivetrain, SLX brakes, DRCV shock, Fox32 fork, no dropper.

    New Top Fuel 8 with 115/120mm travel. Retails for $4500 AUD!
    -Alloy frame, 455% range NX(!) 1x12 drivetrain, Deore brakes, stock shock, Rockshox Recon fork, 150mm dropper.

    I feel that the new top fuel 8 is the true successor to my 14 FEX8 . most spec is worse, some spec is better. But it costs 50% more than its predecessor. That is a lot.

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    102
    Scott Spark 910 is a much better value proposition which is crazy because Scott's don't tend to be cheap.

    Spark 910 ($4600)
    carbon cranks
    XO1 rear derailleur
    34 sc performance elite
    XT brakes
    fox transfer dropper

    add a pair of $1000 we are one carbon wheels and you are at the same price as the Trek with lifetime warranty rims with solid quality hubs (i9 101)

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23
    My 14 FEX was my first serious bike. I got $500 off by buying an ex-demo for $2500AUD which was a lot but worth it to me. I've used it on everything from marathon racing to downhill at Thredbo ski resort in Australia.

    I'm sure they have done their research but I do wonder if Trek is right having no model priced between $2000 and $3000. This bike seems an obvious everyman bike for someone getting in to trail riding.

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by dave_rh View Post
    My 14 FEX was my first serious bike. I got $500 off by buying an ex-demo for $2500AUD which was a lot but worth it to me. I've used it on everything from marathon racing to downhill at Thredbo ski resort in Australia.

    I'm sure they have done their research but I do wonder if Trek is right having no model priced between $2000 and $3000. This bike seems an obvious everyman bike for someone getting in to trail riding.
    The Top Fuel 8 will come out in that price range. My dealer quoted me 2600.00.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by yarbrough462 View Post
    The Top Fuel 8 will come out in that price range. My dealer quoted me 2600.00.
    Price on Aussie Trek website for Top Fuel 8 is $4,499.99

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by gus6464 View Post
    Scott Spark 910 is a much better value proposition which is crazy because Scott's don't tend to be cheap.

    Spark 910 ($4600)
    carbon cranks
    XO1 rear derailleur
    34 sc performance elite
    XT brakes
    fox transfer dropper

    add a pair of $1000 we are one carbon wheels and you are at the same price as the Trek with lifetime warranty rims with solid quality hubs (i9 101)
    Dont forget to mention alloy swing arm and flexpoint rear suspension

    Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by dave_rh View Post
    Price on Aussie Trek website for Top Fuel 8 is $4,499.99
    Most of the difference you are seeing is due to the rather severe weakening of the AUD to the USD over the span you are comparing...so yes, it takes a lot more Australian Dollars to buy something that is the same today in US dollars as it was 5 years ago when buying from a US company. The AUD gets you less today in import value....not a Trek problem.

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    152
    Back to the bikeóI donít get the 13 degree. Seems a bit extreme either way you flip it.

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    218
    All this complaining about the price is a little hard to understand for me. It seems that everyone here was expecting awesome engineering and world cup level components at Wal-Mart prices. I thought the 9.7 (and all the models actually) was an awesome value for full carbon frame and wheels, dropper post, and pretty decent spec all the way around. Sure NX is not top of the line but it's not like the components are garbage.

    It seems like everyone gets all hyped up about a new design and then once they see a price tag, they'll lose their mind. And it seems like it's from people who always have a fleet of bikes that they update every few years so they have "the latest and greatest." No one is forcing you to buy a new bike. The one you have will work just fine until you're ready to buy a new one. Mountain biking is an expensive sport, stop being surprised when you realize in order to buy things you need to spend money. #rantover

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinShoes View Post
    All this complaining about the price is a little hard to understand for me. It seems that everyone here was expecting awesome engineering and world cup level components at Wal-Mart prices. I thought the 9.7 (and all the models actually) was an awesome value for full carbon frame and wheels, dropper post, and pretty decent spec all the way around. Sure NX is not top of the line but it's not like the components are garbage.

    It seems like everyone gets all hyped up about a new design and then once they see a price tag, they'll lose their mind. And it seems like it's from people who always have a fleet of bikes that they update every few years so they have "the latest and greatest." No one is forcing you to buy a new bike. The one you have will work just fine until you're ready to buy a new one. Mountain biking is an expensive sport, stop being surprised when you realize in order to buy things you need to spend money. #rantover
    I do not understand how you justify the rise in brand prices when Orbea or Canyon offers as much or more than Trek without those prices. Is shameful


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    Youíre right I meant to put the 2018. The 19 at least has Carbon crank and xt brakes
    I can't believe they couldn't have at least put XT brakes on the 9.8.

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    218
    Just looked at Orbea and Canyon prices and by my judgement Orbea is comparable to Trek. Canyon slightly cheaper because of consumer direct. If you think Orbea/Canyon are better, then buy those.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinShoes View Post
    Just looked at Orbea and Canyon prices and by my judgement Orbea is comparable to Trek. Canyon slightly cheaper because of consumer direct. If you think Orbea/Canyon are better, then buy those.
    I did the same. Taking a quick peek at the Oiz M10, it is appears to be a whopping $100 less than the TF 9.8. It has an X01 bit or two, and crap wheels with IIRC 22 mm inner width.

    Nothing against the Oiz at all. I've ridden it kind of briefly. It's a rocket.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinShoes View Post
    Just looked at Orbea and Canyon prices and by my judgement Orbea is comparable to Trek. Canyon slightly cheaper because of consumer direct. If you think Orbea/Canyon are better, then buy those.
    Orbea m10 for 4200Ä has better equipment and weight than 9.8 for 800Ä less


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    218
    Alloy wheels, no dropper explains that.

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11
    Has anyone crunched the numbers on the 9.8 versus 9.9 and worked out how the 9.9 is so much more expensive?

    The difference in suspension, wheels, drivetrain and brakes comes to a $2700 difference based on retail prices. But the bikes are priced $4000 apart. That's in Australian dollars. Don't know what I am missing.

    US website already has the new models on sale, $400 off the opening price.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    218
    Did you take into account the AXS dropper/bits and carbon cranks? The xx1 cranks are a fairly big jump in MSRP compared to the descendant cranks. Same thing with Bontrager's dropper compared to the AXS one. Those two things should just about cover the 1300 (doing the math in USD).

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    US website already has the new models on sale, $400 off the opening price.
    Just saw that. Do all the naysayers now jump for joy at this fantastic deal? I was already on board with the 9.8, but I can certainly use $500!

    Gotta figure out what size. At 6'4", I feel like I'm in between XL and XXL.

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfonz View Post
    Has anyone crunched the numbers on the 9.8 versus 9.9 and worked out how the 9.9 is so much more expensive?

    The difference in suspension, wheels, drivetrain and brakes comes to a $2700 difference based on retail prices. But the bikes are priced $4000 apart. That's in Australian dollars. Don't know what I am missing.

    US website already has the new models on sale, $400 off the opening price.
    9.8 vs 9.9

    Fox performance vs factory f/r suspension
    Gx vs xx1 (alloy crank vs carbon along with heavier gx parts all round)
    Kovee elite wheels vs kovee pro (pro rims are actually lighter and based around the same hubs just with the extra pawls installed for 108pt)
    Slx Shimano brakes vs sram level ultimate brakes
    Same cockpit carbon bars alloy stem and dropper post on both though.

    26.11 lbs vs 24.36lbs

    I too am curious if buying the 9.8 with base level fox bits and upgrading the brakes and cassette and crank would be worth it?

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinShoes View Post
    Did you take into account the AXS dropper/bits and carbon cranks? The xx1 cranks are a fairly big jump in MSRP compared to the descendant cranks. Same thing with Bontrager's dropper compared to the AXS one. Those two things should just about cover the 1300 (doing the math in USD).
    I was including the cranks. Not the AXS because I was only using the 9.9. We don't have the AXS available in Australia. I'm going through all the bits, and the 9.8 is much cheaper than frame-only plus parts separately. I've got it around US$6800 using current $3100 frame price. But the 9.9 build as frame-only plus parts I have around US$8800.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18pf_oLkSN4YrI70HpLfcQphqkUE-vHTTz9UbwHJD94c/

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9
    OK, so it seems the Teal to Black fade is in stock...I would have picked the black carbon one, but I can't be bothered to wait a month. I don't have a bike to ride atm. Has anyone seen one in the *'real' life?

    *Blah, blah, I know, what is real

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post

    Gotta figure out what size. At 6'4", I feel like I'm in between XL and XXL.
    Same, (6'4" here.. I like the XXL reach but that is a darn long seat tube on it.)

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    599
    Big jump in price from the 9.8 $5500 to 9.9 $9000. About $3500 to save two lbs. But you are getting a Factory Stepcast Fork and lighter wheels.

    I would probably take the 9.8 and do a couple upgrades and pocket the difference.

    I would take the 9.9 over the 9.9 AXS as it's 2 lbs lighter and less money and has Fox Fork. Wireless looks cool on paper, but don't see immediate need for it in my daily riding.

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Quote Originally Posted by kriedel View Post
    Same, (6'4" here.. I like the XXL reach but that is a darn long seat tube on it.)
    At 6'4" I'd certainly go XXL. I'm 6'2" and Trek XL bikes are JUST long enough for my short-legged tastes.

    As far as seat tube length, I thought it was shortened up to the point that the XL and XXLs are shipping with 170 droppers?
    Whining is not a strategy.

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Quote Originally Posted by newking View Post
    Big jump in price from the 9.8 $5500 to 9.9 $9000. About $3500 to save two lbs. But you are getting a Factory Stepcast Fork and lighter wheels.

    I would probably take the 9.8 and do a couple upgrades and pocket the difference.

    I would take the 9.9 over the 9.9 AXS as it's 2 lbs lighter and less money and has Fox Fork. Wireless looks cool on paper, but don't see immediate need for it in my daily riding.
    Hard logic to argue with. Also, the crank on the 9.8 is a boat anchor.

    I'm a bike whore, so will likely go 9.9, but am I the only one that wouldn't mind a "tweener" model (9.8.5?!) with X01?

    I've got an XX1 bike and an X01 bike. Now way I could pass the blindfold test between the two.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    At 6'4" I'd certainly go XXL. I'm 6'2" and Trek XL bikes are JUST long enough for my short-legged tastes.

    As far as seat tube length, I thought it was shortened up to the point that the XL and XXLs are shipping with 170 droppers?
    Well last years Top Fuel XL had a 49.5 seat tube while 2020 XXL has 56, so that 6.5cm is pretty substantial. I think the frames taking 170mm droppers is also about insertion depth, which the longer tube helps.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Quote Originally Posted by kriedel View Post
    Well last years Top Fuel XL had a 49.5 seat tube while 2020 XXL has 56, so that 6.5cm is pretty substantial. I think the frames taking 170mm droppers is also about insertion depth, which the longer tube helps.
    49 cm seat tube for 2019 and 52 for 2020 on the XLs, so yup, a little seat tube growth appears evident on the new model. Good catch.

    And good news for me, because it means my carbon post will be long enough.

    Rigid and rowdy, baby!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  151. #151
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    11,896
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    49 cm seat tube for 2019 and 52 for 2020 on the XLs, so yup, a little seat tube growth appears evident on the new model. Good catch.

    And good news for me, because it means my carbon post will be long enough.

    Rigid and rowdy, baby!
    150 posts?!? Looks like alot of interest in the new TF besides you! 😎👍
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DethWshBkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,233
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    There was a spy shot of Batty on the Supercaliber.
    my LBS had some info that it may be a 100/25 or 80/25 travel bike. shock mounted like the Superfly FS/Rumblefish.
    Only time will tell.
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    I strongly suspect that there is a shorter travel "pure" xc race bike coming.

    But I don't really care. This bike ticks so many boxes for me. Dislikes? Well, I'd probably prefer non-remote controlled suspension, and like everybody in the universe, capacity for TWO water bottles would have been sweet.

    But every bike compromises somewhere. No real complaints.
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-screenshot_20190525-000618.png
    "Go soothingly in the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon"

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    443
    did a parking lot test of the top fuel 8 today. i ride a xl remedy and the large top fuel didnt feel that much smaller. i believe the top 8 is stock in low position and i ride my remedy in high so maybe that accounted for it. oh and the purple looks great im tempted to get the 8 and then possibly upgrade to a 130 fork and line pro wheels in the future.

    negatives on the 8 version: no 13 deg stem, "only" 150mm dropper, 160mm rear rotor (forgot to ask if it could be a 180), no iscg mounts, very little chainstay protection

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9
    I'm just over 6' but have long legs. I'm wondering if I should go for an L. On the size chart, my height matches L, but my leg length matches XL. I haven't bought a mountain bike in a long while, so any help appreciated. It works be nice to go and test one, but I don't think there are many around.

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    420
    I bet Payson would still have the FKT on White Rim if he rode the 2019 Top Fuel instead of the 2020 Top Fuel. 1-2# difference going to matter on a 100 mile effort with all that climbing, guy that beat him was on a SWORKS Epic (~21#).

    Looks like I'll be sticking with my 2018 Top Fuel 9.9, new one looks fun but not for XC racing.
    -DC, just some XC Bum in Sfla...

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkpowa View Post
    I bet Payson would still have the FKT on White Rim if he rode the 2019 Top Fuel instead of the 2020 Top Fuel. 1-2# difference going to matter on a 100 mile effort with all that climbing, guy that beat him was on a SWORKS Epic (~21#).

    Looks like I'll be sticking with my 2018 Top Fuel 9.9, new one looks fun but not for XC racing.
    I am curious that on all those promo photos from that ride, his 2020 Top Fuel has a SID fork, while the same frame is only offered with heavier forks on production bikes. Yet.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by anden View Post
    I am curious that on all those promo photos from that ride, his 2020 Top Fuel has a SID fork, while the same frame is only offered with heavier forks on production bikes. Yet.
    Pro riders use what their sponsors are. Each sponsor provides a part not the whole bike. Trek sponsors the frame only. Then you have sponsors for every other part of the bike. Pro rider bike specs are irrelevant when it comes to public production bikes.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by gus6464 View Post
    Pro riders use what their sponsors are. Each sponsor provides a part not the whole bike. Trek sponsors the frame only. Then you have sponsors for every other part of the bike. Pro rider bike specs are irrelevant when it comes to public production bikes.
    You want to show what you are selling, unless you have very strong reasons not to. Otherwise you are creating an unclear message and unneccesary speculation - just like we are busy with right now. I can't imagine Trek letting sponsorship be such a strong reason.

    My speculation is that Payson thought a lighter bike makes sense for a marathon race. But if that's true, and the new Top Fuel is two pounds heavier than the old one and promoted for something between XC races and "singletrack with your buds" and "hopping around in the woods" (according to Trek website), then why was he on that bike to begin with? Is it because the real Top Fuel successor (Supercal?) wasn't ready yet? Or is a ligher Top Fuel, with a 32 mm fork in the works? Or is Payson's preference exceptional? Or did Trek change from SID to 34 mm based on Payson's feedback? Or something completely else.

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by anden View Post
    You want to show what you are selling, unless you have very strong reasons not to. Otherwise you are creating an unclear message and unneccesary speculation - just like we are busy with right now. I can't imagine Trek letting sponsorship be such a strong reason.

    My speculation is that Payson thought a lighter bike makes sense for a marathon race. But if that's true, and the new Top Fuel is two pounds heavier than the old one and promoted for something between XC races and "singletrack with your buds" and "hopping around in the woods" (according to Trek website), then why was he on that bike to begin with? Is it because the real Top Fuel successor (Supercal?) wasn't ready yet? Or is a ligher Top Fuel, with a 32 mm fork in the works? Or is Payson's preference exceptional? Or did Trek change from SID to 34 mm based on Payson's feedback? Or something completely else.
    I don't think you understand how sponsorships work. Bike manufacturers sponsor the frame and only the frame. The rest are someone else. That is why for example you see DT Swiss forks all over the XCO circuit but yet none of those brands offer a bike that you can purchase with DT Swiss forks.

    You will see bikes in the circuit with XTR and SIDs but that frame manufacturer will offer bikes for sale with all SRAM and Fox throughout the entire line.

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by gus6464 View Post
    I don't think you understand how sponsorships work. Bike manufacturers sponsor the frame and only the frame. The rest are someone else. That is why for example you see DT Swiss forks all over the XCO circuit but yet none of those brands offer a bike that you can purchase with DT Swiss forks.

    You will see bikes in the circuit with XTR and SIDs but that frame manufacturer will offer bikes for sale with all SRAM and Fox throughout the entire line.
    This is about formal promotion showing another category of equipment than what is offered - not about different brands or bits showing up on circuits.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: solarplex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,557
    9.8 is $7k cnd.

    Element 70 is $7K cnd.

    9.8 with gx eagle slx brakes has:
    Cons

    -1 bottle
    -bontrager dropper
    -performance suspension
    -truvativ 7k ugly crank

    Pros:
    30mm carbon wheels.

    70 with gx eagle xt brakes:
    Cons:

    Race face ar 25 aluminum rims

    Pros:
    -2 bottles
    -transfer post
    -elite suspension
    -xo shifter
    - sram nicer 7k crank

    I do have some i27 boost carbon wheels on 240 hubs so wheels are not a problem.

    Still leaning at the element 70 for my next ride... getting so popular here tho. I have the only top fuel i know of and there is 6-7 people i know with the element.



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

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by solarplex View Post
    9.8 is $7k cnd.

    Element 70 is $7K cnd.

    9.8 with gx eagle slx brakes has:
    Cons

    -1 bottle
    -bontrager dropper
    -performance suspension
    -truvativ 7k ugly crank

    Pros:
    30mm carbon wheels.

    70 with gx eagle xt brakes:
    Cons:

    Race face ar 25 aluminum rims

    Pros:
    -2 bottles
    -transfer post
    -elite suspension
    -xo shifter
    - sram nicer 7k crank

    I do have some i27 boost carbon wheels on 240 hubs so wheels are not a problem.

    Still leaning at the element 70 for my next ride... getting so popular here tho. I have the only top fuel i know of and there is 6-7 people i know with the element.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You know, I really don't understand why Trek insists on speccing the 9.8 bike with a Performance shock instead of Performance Elite. For the price of the bike, I'd kinda expect XT brakes, too, instead of SLX. I'm not in the market for this bike (yet), so it doesn't really matter to me, but still, I do wonder about some of Trek's component choices.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by bjeast View Post
    You know, I really don't understand why Trek insists on speccing the 9.8 bike with a Performance shock instead of Performance Elite. For the price of the bike, I'd kinda expect XT brakes, too, instead of SLX. I'm not in the market for this bike (yet), so it doesn't really matter to me, but still, I do wonder about some of Trek's component choices.
    Because manufacturers are racing to offer the absolute least in component spec for the highest price.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Considering just buying a YT complete and then a frame and selling the YT frame. Canít beat a complete with maxed out parts for $5000.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by gus6464 View Post
    Because manufacturers are racing to offer the absolute least in component spec for the highest price.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
    No, it's because Trek decided that $5500 is a price point they wanted to hit and then they spec'd to hit that price point. You are looking at some parts of the build and ignoring others. You are also looking at how little difference there actually is between some parts.

    The frame isn't cheap. It's full carbon including stays with a magnesium rocker. That's going to be more expensive then aluminum chainstays and rocker and they have to make that up somewhere.

    The fork is only 'performance' which means it comes with the grip damper instead of the fit- but that's about the only difference. The fit has more adjustment but it's more finicky too. The fork (and shock) also come with a twistloc remote and a kabolt axle which are extra expenses and nice spec touches which probably get you close to the cost of the elite.

    The SLX vs XT brakes are basically meaningless. IIRC, the difference is the design of the reach adjustment and a screw instead of a cotter pin for pad retention.

    Assuming you don't have a set of carbon wheels in your garage, the wheels are a big difference between the Rocky Mountain 70 and the 9.8. The 9.8 uses the Kovee Elite with the 54 rapid drive (which is upgradable to 108) with carbon rims and a 2 year no cost/no question replacement policy. These are about 1700 grams with the trek rimstrip and 1600 with tape- so not the lightest but great for this price point.

    The 70 uses dt swiss 370s mated to RF AR 25s which I'd guess are around 1850g give or take.

    You can't pick and choose the parts that annoy you and then ignore the smart spec you get in return. For non-direct bikes, this seems to be very competitive with some nice bonuses that really make you think vs some lower part spec that doesn't effect performance significantly.

    Of course the direct market bikes will likely get you some better spec/value- that's a differenct conversation though IMHO.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by MrIcky View Post
    No, it's because Trek decided that $5500 is a price point they wanted to hit and then they spec'd to hit that price point. You are looking at some parts of the build and ignoring others. You are also looking at how little difference there actually is between some parts.

    The frame isn't cheap. It's full carbon including stays with a magnesium rocker. That's going to be more expensive then aluminum chainstays and rocker and they have to make that up somewhere.

    The fork is only 'performance' which means it comes with the grip damper instead of the fit- but that's about the only difference. The fit has more adjustment but it's more finicky too. The fork (and shock) also come with a twistloc remote and a kabolt axle which are extra expenses and nice spec touches which probably get you close to the cost of the elite.

    The SLX vs XT brakes are basically meaningless. IIRC, the difference is the design of the reach adjustment and a screw instead of a cotter pin for pad retention.

    Assuming you don't have a set of carbon wheels in your garage, the wheels are a big difference between the Rocky Mountain 70 and the 9.8. The 9.8 uses the Kovee Elite with the 54 rapid drive (which is upgradable to 108) with carbon rims and a 2 year no cost/no question replacement policy. These are about 1700 grams with the trek rimstrip and 1600 with tape- so not the lightest but great for this price point.

    The 70 uses dt swiss 370s mated to RF AR 25s which I'd guess are around 1850g give or take.

    You can't pick and choose the parts that annoy you and then ignore the smart spec you get in return. For non-direct bikes, this seems to be very competitive with some nice bonuses that really make you think vs some lower part spec that doesn't effect performance significantly.

    Of course the direct market bikes will likely get you some better spec/value- that's a differenct conversation though IMHO.
    I can see what you're saying - I guess. I suppose the carbon wheels would make a difference, but I can't help feeling that Trek could still go performance elite on a bike that expensive. But not being privy to Trek internal discussions about this, I guess I'll never know! :-) But I do appreciate your perspective. Oh, I forgot to add, that in terms of looks, the Trek beats the Rocky (IMHO). But I'm really not a fan of what Rocky Mountain has been doing with their bikes in terms of the paint schemes. :-)

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by MrIcky View Post
    No, it's because Trek decided that $5500 is a price point they wanted to hit and then they spec'd to hit that price point. You are looking at some parts of the build and ignoring others. You are also looking at how little difference there actually is between some parts.

    The frame isn't cheap. It's full carbon including stays with a magnesium rocker. That's going to be more expensive then aluminum chainstays and rocker and they have to make that up somewhere.

    The fork is only 'performance' which means it comes with the grip damper instead of the fit- but that's about the only difference. The fit has more adjustment but it's more finicky too. The fork (and shock) also come with a twistloc remote and a kabolt axle which are extra expenses and nice spec touches which probably get you close to the cost of the elite.

    The SLX vs XT brakes are basically meaningless. IIRC, the difference is the design of the reach adjustment and a screw instead of a cotter pin for pad retention.

    Assuming you don't have a set of carbon wheels in your garage, the wheels are a big difference between the Rocky Mountain 70 and the 9.8. The 9.8 uses the Kovee Elite with the 54 rapid drive (which is upgradable to 108) with carbon rims and a 2 year no cost/no question replacement policy. These are about 1700 grams with the trek rimstrip and 1600 with tape- so not the lightest but great for this price point.

    The 70 uses dt swiss 370s mated to RF AR 25s which I'd guess are around 1850g give or take.

    You can't pick and choose the parts that annoy you and then ignore the smart spec you get in return. For non-direct bikes, this seems to be very competitive with some nice bonuses that really make you think vs some lower part spec that doesn't effect performance significantly.

    Of course the direct market bikes will likely get you some better spec/value- that's a differenct conversation though IMHO.
    All good points, and I was happily reading, until you mentioned a cotter pin!!! From then all I could think about is fixing my bike as kid, and having to buy cotter pins (sometimes a hammer was needed).

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/4-COTTERED-...-/192668052201

    Modern bikes are amazing. My last Trek was a Trek 990 Single Track, stolen from my garage, (the only suspension fork bike in town, so was obviously rescued from my garage and worshipped as part of a cult...).
    So, I'm looking forward to getting a 9.8; I'll be the first bike I ever rode with full suspension, to complete my mtb-road-mtb journey, just before my discs pack up.
    What I wouldn't give to upgrade my discs...(that's the ones in my back!).

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    The performance fork isnít that bad I suppose. Just knowing that itís the lowest of better fox forks makes it seem like itís lacking. It is however a factory series chassis just without the Kashima. Itís nothing more than a different damper. The damper is still actually quite good. The upgrade to the grip 2 damper, if really needed, is possible for like $300. The grip damper is about as good of a set your sag and leave it kind of fork as there is. I hope the new fuel ex will come with a 36 grip. Gives me the opportunity to have the more favored fox platform but still be able to alter if necessary without having to buy new fork.
    I am curious what the differences between a performance rear shock and performance elite are. Might be nothing, might be a big difference. Also, I see people swapping out shocks on bikes like the fuel ex but donít the shocks come tuned from trek to match their suspension?

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by doctacosmos View Post
    ...I am curious what the differences between a performance rear shock and performance elite are. Might be nothing, might be a big difference. Also, I see people swapping out shocks on bikes like the fuel ex but donít the shocks come tuned from trek to match their suspension?
    The Fox site doesn't show elite- it just shows basically factory vs performance and there are some options for how many lever positions there are. From the site:

    "Performance Series FLOAT DPS shocks have fewer adjustments than Factory Series (no Open mode adjust tuning range), and have black anodized air sleeve and body instead of Genuine Kashima Coat. A Performance graphics package ties in the black-on-black look."

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-53fb92ba-26d2-4c89-9e56-f31c87538122.jpgwell that clears that up lol. There is no performance elite doís shock from what I gather

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    510
    Trek, why the hell is the Carbon Frame only specced with a Performance Shock? You're charging full Kashima Factory price at $3300 for a frame with a lesser shock.

    Trek, you still make excellent bikes. But I hoped you would stop nickle and diming customers for the new model year. At this rate, you'll be like Santa Cruz in no time.

    It boggles my mind that Trek offers even less value than Specialized now.
    I no longer like to party. But I like the idea of it.

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    39
    Rode a 2020 Top Fuel 8 at a demo day last night. Great geo and the bike fit me very well in a large size frame. Love the Purple Phaze paint as well, wish it was an option on the higher spec models.

    As suspected, the Recon fork on the 8 really has no business being on a bike of this calibre. Didn't take much to overwhelm it, and I am not a heavy rider.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9
    @ThirtyOne, can I ask how tall you are?
    From the size guide on Trek's site would you have picked L ?
    Trying to choose between L and XL - my height points to an L, my leg length an XL. There isn't anywhere near me that even has one in stock for me to look at.

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowTiger View Post
    @ThirtyOne, can I ask how tall you are?
    From the size guide on Trek's site would you have picked L ?
    Trying to choose between L and XL - my height points to an L, my leg length an XL. There isn't anywhere near me that even has one in stock for me to look at.
    Hey there, I am 6'0 on the nose. As per the Trek size guide, I would fall in the middle of the L size range. Having ridden the bike now, I think it was the right size for me... nearly perfect at 470mm of reach.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    179
    I just rode a xxl in the 9.8, Iím 6í2Ē with a 34.5 inch inseam. The bike felt long in the top tube, going to wait for the super caliber FSU before I pick up a top fuel. It pedaled ok but was set up for someone heavier than me. The weight was ok, but nothing that surprised me in either direction. Iíd go with an xl given the chance

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowTiger View Post
    @ThirtyOne, can I ask how tall you are?
    From the size guide on Trek's site would you have picked L ?
    Trying to choose between L and XL - my height points to an L, my leg length an XL. There isn't anywhere near me that even has one in stock for me to look at.
    What do you consider long legs?
    I'm 5' 11" with a 36" inseam. ( Used to be 6'...I'm losing a little height with age and injury)
    I rode a large and it fit me fine

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9
    I'm 6' and a half inch, inseam is 36.2" which is an XL or an L on Treks site. Perhaps I'll go for a large as well. Only the XL is in stock atm, L won't be for another 4-5 weeks...seems this steed is a bit popular.

    On a side note, at first the matte carbon looked great from pics, but now the black to teal fade doesn't look so bad. First world problems eh..

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by almazing View Post
    Trek, why the hell is the Carbon Frame only specced with a Performance Shock? You're charging full Kashima Factory price at $3300 for a frame with a lesser shock.

    Trek, you still make excellent bikes. But I hoped you would stop nickle and diming customers for the new model year. At this rate, you'll be like Santa Cruz in no time.

    It boggles my mind that Trek offers even less value than Specialized now.
    That disappointed me too... same price of my actual topfuel frameset but without factory shock...


    Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    38
    Does anyone know the maximum fork length the Top Fuel can take?

    I think I read the old one could take upto 120mm.

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by Imagesforsegways View Post
    Does anyone know the maximum fork length the Top Fuel can take?

    I think I read the old one could take upto 120mm.
    ive read 130mm

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smartyiak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    523
    Stopped by the local Trek dealer today. I can only add:

    - I think thereís a delay. I say this bc the dealer thought they were getting some demos, but I was told to come back in 30-60 days. Either theyíre sold out OR didnít make enough;

    - the purple one is gorgeous... I wouldnít buy it bc I donít want purple, but itís a great color.

    - itís ďclean.Ē Just a fantastic looking bike.

    Note: as noted above, theyíre waiting on demos, so I didnít get to ride one, but if it rides as good as t looks, Trek will sell appx 10billionty of these things.
    2020 Top Fuel Official Post-b766871e-601a-490e-ab37-7e6c522fd30d.jpg

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    196
    My wife picked up her small 9.8 in black Friday. Raw carbon with "glittery" black decals. Looks really nice. My driveway test gives it a thumbs up! Wish my XC bike handled like that. Thumbs down to the fact it needs a side loading bottle cage to get ANY bottle in there.

    Local trek stores didn't stock the old top fuel as it didn't sell at all. Agree they will sell a LOT of these.

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    139
    Check out the Wolftooth B-Rad Mount for double cage. We have been using them for a while and they are great. Very easy to access bottles. And they donít get in the way at all!!

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4
    FWIW my TF8 AL frame came in and it has a Performance Elite rear shock on it even though it should have just been a Performance. 2020 Top Fuel Official Post-fuel.jpg

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    XL 9.9 delivery just slipped from early July to mid-August.

    Bummed!

    9.8 still showing early July, but wanted to illogically treat myself (milestone birthday this year).
    Whining is not a strategy.

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    35
    As I look through geometry and weights, it seems the new TF is too close to the Fuel EX across the board especially when you compare the aluminum models. And the TF is spec'd with lower components? Even the weight of the TF 8 and FEX 8 is pretty close...Makes me think the new FEX is going to be a lot different...

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by yarbrough462 View Post
    As I look through geometry and weights, it seems the new TF is too close to the Fuel EX across the board especially when you compare the aluminum models. And the TF is spec'd with lower components? Even the weight of the TF 8 and FEX 8 is pretty close...Makes me think the new FEX is going to be a lot different...
    I have a 2014 FEX 29er, 120mm front and rear. I like that its fast in an XC kinda way but also capable across a lot of different terrain. Main issue is the geometry is not great down steep hills.
    Was thinking of a 2017 130mm travel to replace it but this top fuel seems what I want. similar travel with better geometry. I wonder if I'll really notice 5mm less rear travel?

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by dave_rh View Post
    I have a 2014 FEX 29er, 120mm front and rear. I like that its fast in an XC kinda way but also capable across a lot of different terrain. Main issue is the geometry is not great down steep hills.
    Was thinking of a 2017 130mm travel to replace it but this top fuel seems what I want. similar travel with better geometry. I wonder if I'll really notice 5mm less rear travel?
    You will not miss the 5mm less travel.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    16
    Anyone know if XTR will be available on the 9.9 when P1 goes live?

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo the clown View Post
    Anyone know if XTR will be available on the 9.9 when P1 goes live?
    Not sure, but my 9.9 just got kicked back to September, so I'll probably take the 9.8 -- with a few tweaks -- coming in to my LBS in early July.

    Thoughts on what is or is not worth upgrading more than welcome!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    9
    Depends what you are planning to do with it. The factory builds seem to be more trail oriented, so if you want to focus more towards racing there is a lot of weight to be lost with tires, cranks, and seat post if you want to go that far.

    Sent from my ASUS_A006 using Tapatalk

  192. #192
    Community Manager at Trek
    Reputation: Mitch@Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo the clown View Post
    Anyone know if XTR will be available on the 9.9 when P1 goes live?
    No confirmation on that just yet - but we have the new Microspline drivers being stocked this summer, so possibly!
    Community Manager | Trek Bicycle Corporation | www.trekbikes.com

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Imagesforsegways View Post
    Does anyone know the maximum fork length the Top Fuel can take?

    I think I read the old one could take upto 120mm.
    130mm was reported is max travel. At that point you are 15mm short in the rear of a Fuel 29er
    Too Many .

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    102
    BTW for those saying that Shimano wasn't going to save us from overpriced sram crap look at the new Orbea Occam M30. You can either pay $3999 for the same bike with NX or with a mix of XT/SLX both 12-speed.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by gus6464 View Post
    BTW for those saying that Shimano wasn't going to save us from overpriced sram crap look at the new Orbea Occam M30. You can either pay $3999 for the same bike with NX or with a mix of XT/SLX both 12-speed.
    That's awesome! Orbea isn't exactly known to sell their bikes for cheaper than the competition. I don't know why anyone would pick NX over the SLX/XT at this point. But it's weird how Orbea didn't spec that M30 build with a GX instead. It's like they're not even trying to sell that M30 SRAM NX build kit at all.
    I no longer like to party. But I like the idea of it.

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
    No confirmation on that just yet - but we have the new Microspline drivers being stocked this summer, so possibly!
    Thanks Mitch. I'll wait. No hurry. When I drop that kind of money on a bike I get it exactly the way I want it.

  197. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    548
    I'm close to pulling the trigger on a 9.8, but I'm really not sure about the TwistLoc thing. I'm kind of set on the ESI Chunky grips, because my hands tend to go numb with other grips. Can I remove the TwistLoc and just run it open/open?

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodninja View Post
    I'm close to pulling the trigger on a 9.8, but I'm really not sure about the TwistLoc thing. I'm kind of set on the ESI Chunky grips, because my hands tend to go numb with other grips. Can I remove the TwistLoc and just run it open/open?
    Oh, good question..
    Too Many .

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    259
    Might as well just build a fuel ex then

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    9
    You could cut down the left grip, that's how I've seen a few pro bikes with ESI grips and twistloc and how I plan to do it. I think the chunky grips are the same diameter.

    Sent from my ASUS_A006 using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

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

Members who have read this thread: 488

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.