Trek has three new bikes on the way, two of them aimed squarely at the cross-country race crowd, and one that's for the trail riders out there. From a distance, all three resemble models that are already in Trek's lineup, but each one has received a number of refinements that keep them on the cutting edge of modern mountain bike technology.
Procaliber SL Trek's new Procaliber SL carbon hardtail takes technology originally developed for the company's Domane road bike and adopts it for use in the mountain bike world. It's called IsoSpeed, and it involves detaching the top tube from the seat tube and then joining the two together with a pivot that allows for up to 11mm of 'compliance'. Trek is careful not to use the word 'travel' in their description of the technology – after all, this is still very much a hardtail, and the rear end doesn't move in the way a traditional full suspension bike would.
The technical difficulty of World Cup XC courses has increased over the last few seasons, causing riders and manufactures to seek out new designs that improve handling with a minimal weight penalty. Weighing in at a claimed 1012 grams, the 17.5” Procaliber SL frame is around 100 grams heavier than the Superfly SL, but according to Trek their racers were willing to take the minor weight increase for the performance benefits.
Designed to be run with a 100mm fork, the Procaliber SL has 29” wheels in the 21.5", 19.5", 18.5" and 17.5”, frame sizes, and drops down to 27.5” wheels for the 15.5” frame size, which Trek says is to maintain a similar riding position throughout all frame sizes. All of the bikes use a Boost 148 rear end and Boost 110 front, standards that will become increasingly common over the next few seasons.
Geometry
Top Fuel
The Top Fuel is the successor to the Superfly SL, and will be taking its place in the hierarchy as Trek's elite 100mm full-suspension XC race bike. The suspension layout has been changed to use the Full Floater design, the same basic configuration that's used on Trek's longer travel models. Adjustable geometry is also in place via the Mino Link chip on the seatstays, which allows the head angle to be changed by .5° and the bottom bracket height to be changed by 8mm. That might not seem like a lot, but when races are won or lost by milliseconds, the ability to make sure a bike is as well suited to a course as possible can be immensely beneficial.
The 17.5” frame reportedly weighs only 1900 grams, and is said to be stiffer than the Superfly SL it replaces. The highest end model, the Top Fuel 9.9, is constructed with a full carbon frame, chainstays included, while the next model down uses aluminum chainstays Boost 148 and 110 spacing are in place, as is Trek's new Control Freak internal cable routing design that has housing entering on either side of the down tube before exiting just below the bike's water bottle mounts.
Geometry Fuel EX The Procaliber and the Top Fuel may be cross-country specialists, but the Fuel EX is more of an all-rounder. Sure, it could probably toe the line at an XC race and do just fine, but it's designed more for trail riding, with 120mm of travel and less pointy geometry than its shorter travel siblings. For 2016 the Fuel EX's chainstays shrink to 436mm down from 452mm, thanks in part to the use of Boost 148 spacing. This made it possible to tighten up the rear end while still leaving enough room to run a 36 tooth front chain ring, along with clearance for a 29 x 2.4” tire.
The bike's overall frame stiffness is claimed to have increased as well, and according to Trek a 30 gram weight penalty resulted in 11% more stiffness in the bottom bracket area and a 14% increase in overall frame stiffness. To go along with the carbon fiber Fuel EX 9.9 and 9.8 models, Trek will also be producing an aluminum Fuel EX 9 model that gets a 130mm Fox 34 up front to relax the head angle even further, as well as a SRAM X1 1x11 drivetrain.
Geometry
Check out more images here.www.trek.com,
@trek
Even though treks look like on first glance they are single pivots as there is one solid piece of rear frame connecting the main pivot and rear axle with no other pivots altering the wheel path in between. The whole seat stay and rocker arm on top is only to actuate the shock and have no influence what soever on the path of the rear wheel like they have in a four-bar design (you can take them off the bike and the wheel path is the same) with the extra pivot like a specialized demo a norco aurum or the new transition patrol.
other than that you are right, the slightest change can change everything...
sure there where more, it's pretty much impossible to come up with original ideas for simple mechanical systems these days...
They were (for the folks not around back then) called Mac-struts because the shock was incorporated as part of the seat strut assembly and formed part of the structural member before anchoring to the main frame (much like Macpherson Strut shocks do on cars). This basically made the bikes VERY high single-pivots, because the wheel was attached to the seat strut, and pivoted off whatever anchor point on the main frame that the shock was mounted to, but because of the horst-link dropout connecting the chainstay to the frame behind the BB, the bike didn't pedal like your typical single-pivot would have with such a high pivot location. Also because the shock stroke was in-line with the strut, the wheel took a sort of diminishing radius arc path as the shock compressed. By the time most designers started looking into the interacting kinetics of suspensions and drivetrains, the industry had largely moved on from macstruts.
As to the GT LTS/STS, yes they were floating shock 4-bars with horst-dropouts. They were discontinued because GT had refused to pay Amp to license the horst-link patent and then when Specialized bought the patent, they actually had the money for lawyers to force GT to abandon the usage of the pivot.
That design was like having an auto-bleed feature for the shock, 3 bumps in a turn and all the oil was gone.
You never had to bleed anything when rebuilding one of these shocks, just fill up with fresh oil... Good reason for elastomers... talking about elastomer's, Marin FS with a pair of manitou forks in the back anybody?
Anyway, my points where:
1)Trek no four-bar
2)Trek not the first floating shocks on bicycles.
Another thought... A few years back stumble across a Binachi WW1 military bicycle built for the Mountaineering Corps of the Italian Army. It was full suspension with a Harley-Springer style fork and a split pivot to a leave spring in the back.
It came in a folding and non folding version and the split pivot allowd to fold away the rear triangle after taking out the rear wheel. I did not know back then but the best was It did not use the usual 700C rims like the Germans did but a smaller diameter.... something more like 650B but thats just guessing... Oh, it also was a one by setup one by one... History repeating...
sadly the owner did not want to sell even thou i offered something like 50 million Italian lire...
the whole thing blew up when Dartmore bikes did a 'name that frame' competition. with over 4000 entries, - it looked like a session and there was a huge number of entries saying 'Dartmore Session'
I have no idea what the bike is called, some meh name won out.... but look for the one that looks like a session if your interested ;D
But they've been on Trek's Staches for a couple years...seeing how Trek's relationship evolves with Shimano, Fox/RF and with SRAM/Rockshox is going to get more interesting
My guess, RF is making custom OE stuff in the BB95 for Trek?!?!?!?!
Thoughts? Questions? IDeas?
www.bikemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/MG_3285.jpg
Well, I guess that in the end it's a tie. Treks are probably going to be better (stiffer) when climbing out of the saddle while the BMCs will be the better descenders.
Is it Boost 110? (if it were, couldn't you run a 27.5+ tire?)
What about a Talas 130/110? That might make it the ultimate Midwest weapon. Run 110 for my local stuff, and 130 for my trips to Copper Harbor. Dreamin'.
Handling obviously but wouldn't it be better to have a more vertical seat tube (so efficient pedalling) and then just stand for descents?
www.pinkbike.com/photo/12401178
My only complaint....ugly& uninspired paint jobs\graphics. Spending several K on anything should get you something that looks awesome. I guess that's where project one comes in?
On the plus side, Trek Factory red is literally the coolest paint jobs there is and we all know red has been scientifically proved as the fastest colour
Please could you make a 180mm freeride bike?
Something like the Scott voltage or the Cube Fritzz???
Ps, you would earn lots of money.
Canefield has 414 mm chainstays on their last 29er without boost hubs...
How?
Why??!! Why do we need another freakin' "standard"?? This is so ridiculous! Should I wait for Boost Plus 149 rear and 111 front in 2016?
Enough! Just give me better suspension front and rear, better pedaling characteristics without (or while improving) sacrificing downhill plushness, and lighter and cheaper bikes period. No more new "standards"!