You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Looks to be a good frame with lots of adjustability. Can be bought in ex / lx or mx guise, all based on the same frame. Must admit, I like the idea of one bike with lots of potential for changing its purpose as I can’t afford 2 or 3 full susses, so something like this will probably be my next bike. Only sticking point for me is the jump between alloy and carbon frames seems very high - but at least both can run mechanical drive trains. Guessing reviews etc must be out soon as it’s now on the Trek website.
Can’t get the link to work, but it’s on the Trek website anyway.
Quick look suggests switching between MX / LX / EX requires a change of rocker and lower shock mount.
Still, seems like a pretty good machine. I daresay if it had worked like this a few months ago I would probably have bought one.
Yeah think you’re right, but suggests you can buy the appropriate parts to do so whichever version you start from. Does kind of depend how much a new shock and those parts would cost I guess, but surely a lot cheaper than owning a trail bike and an enduro bike.
Well they've certainly made it a bit less visually challenging, and I love seeing this kind of adaptability in bikes.
Personally I want to have a trail bike and an enduro bike and ride both regularly, but I can see the appeal for someone who rides a trail bike 50 weeks of the year with the odd trip away.
To be honest @cha****ng me too, but I can’t afford a third bike nor have space for one (wife’s bikes, kids bikes plus my current 2 bikes maxes out the bike space in the garage), so for me it’d be perfect. 140-150 mode for local trails then 160-170 mode for holidays etc a few times a year.
One of my favourite things about my Stumpjumper Evo is the adjustability that allows me to essentially make it into a different bike for different circumstances.
This seems to have it on steroids.
Crikey, weights of bikes of gone up haven't they? They trying to compete with eBikes? 35lb /16kg for an XT spec bike seems bonkers to me
The longest travel is a 29er, so that's me and my short legs out.
Going to presume it’s a great review from Guy K?
Having said that, the TQ version looks great.
Haha I predicted the same - and you’re right! The weights aren’t great on the alloy versions, and the carbon ones are too expensive so I’ve cooled after looking in more detail. Like the premise though!
Pinkbike reckoned the alu model they had in for review was 39lbs.
I think that was the longer-travel variant, but still...
@doomanic , check out the PinkBike review, they run it long travel and mullet.
Crikey, weights of bikes of gone up haven't they? They trying to compete with eBikes? 35lb /16kg for an XT spec bike seems bonkers to me
I did start a thread about this the other day - in my head bikes should be aroud 30lbs to be rideable, then 25lb if it's a nice spec XT bike, then 20-22lbs if you are racing.
Anything over 30lbs is OK for downhill or free ride, but you don't want to spend any time pedalling it.
in my head bikes should be aroud 30lbs to be rideable, then 25lb if it's a nice spec XT bike, then 20-22lbs if you are racing.
Anything over 30lbs is OK for downhill or free ride, but you don't want to spend any time pedalling it.
Well 30lbs is light for a long-ish travel full sus these days (this genre of bike).
Up to 35lbs is generally acceptable, depending on use case and frame material.
Many bikes go beyond that, and can still be pedalled for a full day. But I've just gone from a circa-36lbs enduro bike to one that weighs closer to 32lbs and I'm loving it.
The weights you mention may be accurate for racey XC bikes though. Which is what we were all on BITD when 25lbs was the benchmark weight.
I hear that said on here, but I would touch anything nearing 35lb (unless it had the obvious, or was a cheapo pub bike).
Everyone’s different, but I do think once you get above 35-36ib it’d be a bit much for a bike meant to do it all. My current full suss (last gen Stumpjumper non evo) weighs probs 32-33ib but it’s an s5 (Xl) and just the comp model (heavy rhythm forks, cheap ish shimano wheels, full slx gear). The fancier builds on mtbr got down to 26-27ib. Guess I want something in the middle - lighter frame weight with the flexibility of this new Trek. Or sell a kidney and get the carbon version.
Crikey, weights of bikes of gone up haven't they? They trying to compete with eBikes? 35lb /16kg for an XT spec bike seems bonkers to me
I did start a thread about this the other day - in my head bikes should be aroud 30lbs to be rideable, then 25lb if it's a nice spec XT bike, then 20-22lbs if you are racing.
Anything over 30lbs is OK for downhill or free ride, but you don't want to spend any time pedalling it.
If depends on what your definition of rideable is & the type of trails you would ride it on.
There is a reason why most Enduro race bikes weigh nearly 10lbs more than that, because people who actually use Enduro bikes for Enduro racing (rather than those who slog them round trail centres or equivalent) want something reliable.
My ‘trail’ bike is just over 35lbs (16kg in new money for a 160/140 travel bike which is reliable. An XT spec bike at 25lbs with a modern XC FS frame simply isn’t happening.
I think most people are happy to trade a few extra lbs for reliability, compared to a past era.
As far as a bike goes though, it looks like something I could be into, if I was interested in pedalling anything more than an XC bike without a battery & motor attached to it, which I’m not.
Making 30ib ish 29er trail bikes can be done, but as people have said I think it was costing companies too much money - either in warranty claims or having to build multiple versions of similar bikes. For example, the MY21 Stumpy was built reliably but is still a really light frame (there arent many known frame failures) but to do it you have to lose some travel and ultimate capability (it’s a flex stay design) - that’s why at that time Spesh had the Evo on sale as a separate bike. If you want both in the same platform like this new Trek or the newer Stumpy you have to build it to meet the needs of the most aggro version (in this case the fuel lx) which means the trail version ends up being heavier than ideal.
What a bonkers product. If you want a 140mm trail bike you have to lug round a massively over weight enduro frame because treks lawyers said the frame has to minimise warranty claims when it’s built up with 170mm zebs and a coil shock. Surely if you want an enduro bike you buy a slash. If you want a short travel trail bike then you have the top fuel. But if you want a trail bike then you have to buy an enduro frame.
Going to presume it’s a great review from Guy K?
Having said that, the TQ version looks great.
Im sure you’re right. Got to keep his place on the gravy train
I suppose expecting a bike magazine, say like singletrack might have got one and done a review ahead of the YouTube paid for reviews
because treks lawyers said the frame has to minimise warranty claims
I'd imagine it has a lot more to do with Trek's efforts to streamline their model ranges so that they don't have the huge overlap between models that they did a few years ago.
The bike weights are not helped by the continued insistence on putting massive holes in down tubes and all of the extra material that entails to retain structural strength.
If depends on what your definition of rideable is & the type of trails you would ride it on.
I've typed stuff 3 times now to try to explain why I still think 35lb is ridiculous for a trail bike, but I've done myself in knots. I think it's all hype tbh. I mean, last time at BPW I rode a Slash and no way was that 35lbs. Though it wasn't much better than my 140mm carbon Rocky Mountain which is 28lbs max... argh I'm doing it again. Ah well, I'll never be in the market for one of these bikes, so it don't really matter do it. Still too heavy though 😀
regarding the weights of “do it all” bikes nowadays, I too come from a history of thinking 30lbs is the proper target weight. But when I think about it, a couple of things come to mind:
1. There is no way around it, 29 inch wheels and tyres weight a lot more than 26”.
2. I can hardly remember the last time I had a pinch flat. Tyres are much stronger than in the past, but also heavier, by definition.
3. My “do it all” bike is 150/160mm. Back when I thought about 28-30lb bikes, they were 26” with 100-130mm travel.
So all in all, I don’t think it’s realistic to have a 28lb bike which has 29” wheels, strong tyres and 150mm at both ends. Unless you either pay a fortune, or compromise on the robustness.
Edit: but I totally agree that I’d rather be pedalling a long climb on a 29lb bike than a 36lb one. But it’s probably not worth it to me if I have to compromise the experience on the descents. I’d still aim for 32-33lbs than 36!
Maybe it's not ideal for Trek to use the same chassis for different niches, but there have always been sturdy trail bikes and light enduro bikes. And buyers who want a lighter long-travel trail bike can happily look elsewhere.
The bike weights are not helped by the continued insistence on putting massive holes in down tubes and all of the extra material that entails to retain structural strength.
Agreed. If the metal one could have saved weight by losing the cubbyhole, that should have been an easy decision.
The extra weight purely due to the metal cubby hole is largely why I didn't pick up the last one. I don't mind a bit of weight but this one is now another kilo on top of the last one for seemingly no good reason.
Did they poach Privateer's designer, I wonder?
I remember when 27/28 lbs was a target weight for trail bikes and I got my Orange 5 around that. It had 26" wheels, tyres that weighed half what mine do now, noodly 32 mm forks, no dropper, narrow bars, etc, etc. My current Stage 5 is more like 33/34 lbs but you can see where the extra weight is and I know which I'd rather be riding!
Reckon my Spur is probably 26 lbs-ish and it absolutely flies on the xc routes I ride it on. The frame has a reputation for being a capable trail bike but if I used it for that I'd want to change the wheels and tyres + probably the forks which would put it 30 lbs + without trying hard.
The weight is insane. I've got a 160mm bike now that's just a smidge under 30lb and it's a revelation compared to the 33lb bike it replaced.
Bike weights going up is a sign of laziness on the part of the designers or greediness on the part of the finance department. Over time, almost everything involving engineering gets better. So we should be at the point now where a 30lb trail bike is enormously reliable. Instead we just have bloated, overweight chod. No way would I consider this bike because of its weight. I'd already discounted the current Top Fuel for its weight but this is a whole other ballgame.