I was a pretty big fan of Trek's aluminum Remedy 29er
when I reviewed it back in September of last year, with the bike surprising me with just how capable it is. Such was the chrome machine's adeptness that I didn't hesitate to put in 70km death marches with 9,000ft of climbing on a Saturday before heading to Whistler on Sunday. Sure, it wasn't the best at either task, and it isn't intended to be, but I can honestly say that it might have been the most fun for both jobs. You can't say that about many bikes, can you?
I just wished it was a bit lighter, and the unrepentant tech nerd in me pined for a carbon fiber version that, due to there already being a carbon 27.5'' wheeled Remedy at that time, was surely coming soon. Fast forward a bit further than I expected and I find myself in Brevard, North Carolina, to learn about exactly that. It might have taken longer than I expected, but there are all sorts of things to talk about here beyond the bike's new carbon frame that Trek says is over a full pound lighter, including an exciting partnership with auto racing legend Penske, and a new rear hub spacing that is sure to be controversial.
While the frame is entirely new, anyone familiar with Trek's suspension system will surely recognize the bike's rear end. It's all there: ABP Convert allows the dropout pivot to rotate concentrically around the axle, limiting the amount of rotation between the caliper and rotor. Want to run a 135mm QR wheel? No problem, just swap out the pivot hardware. Full Floater - the shock is attached to the rocker link at the top and an extension off of the front of the chain stay at the bottom - is also employed, and you'll find Trek's proprietary DRCV air spring system on its Float CTD shock. Those four letters stand for 'Dual Rate Control Valve', with two air chambers providing two different rates depending on where the shock is at in its stroke. Connecting the two chambers is a plunger, or valve, that opens the airway between the two at a predetermined point in the travel. The plunger is referred to as the control valve, or the 'CV' in DRCV. Trek's tapered E2 head tube, down tube protector, and G2 geometry are also utilized.
A New Axle SizeHere's one that's likely to get people talking, although it might not be in the manner that Trek is hoping for. Boost 148 refers to, as you might have guessed, 148mm spacing of the rear axle. Trek says that this wider spacing has allowed them to move the hub's spoke flanges out farther, which then gives the spokes a better bracing angle to make for a laterally stiffer wheel. How much stiffer? They told us that it's enough to bring the average priced 29er wheel into the same range as a 26'' or 27.5'' wheel, although exact figures on specific wheel model comparisons weren't presented to us. Moving the cassette outwards by a few millimeters does upset the bike's chain line, though, so all Boost 148 equipped bikes will come with a slightly different crank spider that compensates by also moving the 'ring outwards slightly to match the change at the rear of the bike - note that Q-factor is not affected, and the crank arms and chain ring haven't changed, only the spider. Why couldn't they just move the flanges out on a standard 142mm hub? It comes down to clearance issues, with the position of the spokes being limited by brake and drivetrain components.
If there's one topic that gets riders shaking their heads, it's when a company introduces a new size that's different than the current norm. Bottom bracket, head tube, or axle related changes seem to bring out the haters in a way that maybe only Donald Sterling or Octomom are able to, and while I can certainly see where the frustration comes from, it's important to also remember that we're not running 1'' threaded headsets and road bike axle spacing due to companies pushing forward with their ideas. Having said that, there also comes a point when the advantages begin to diminish and it starts to go from asset to pain in the ass. What would you rather have: all bikes sporting a single seat post size, or all bikes sporting Giant's OverDrive 2 tapered fork steerer that goes from 1 1/2" at the bottom to 1 1/4" at the top? I know what I'd like to see, and it's likely the same as you, but where does Trek's Boost 148 slot into on that scale? Is it worth it?
| Bottom bracket, head tube, or axle related changes seem to bring out the haters in a way that maybe only Donald Sterling or Octomom are able to, and while I can certainly see where the frustration comes from, it's important to also remember that we're not running 1'' threaded headsets and road bike axle spacing due to companies pushing forward with their ideas. |
''We wanted to have a wheel that's as stiff as what we were experiencing on a small-wheeled bike because that allows for better cornering, traction, and everything else,'' John Riley, Trek Mountain Bike Product Manager, explained to us. ''And we challenged our wheel team to come up with ways that would work with this style of wheel for mountain bike use. Boost 148 is a new direction for looking at the integration of the bike, the stiffness of the wheel, and how it interfaces with the frame.'' Are there other benefits besides the claim of added rigidity? Riley explained to us that it could also lead to far better tire clearance, allowing bikes to come stock from the factory with wider rubber, and also shorter chain stays and better clearance for large 'rings on a 1x drivetrain. The design of the Boost 148 hub was co-developed with SRAM, which makes sense given how axle spacing and drivetrain design are intertwined, and the layout is free for other manufacturers in the industry to use. It will be interesting to see whether or not that happens, and it's likely that the public response to Boost 148 will be the determining factor. For now, all Remedy 29ers will come with Boost 148 rear ends, but I expect it to pop up elsewhere in Trek's lineup as well. However, there is no sign of the entire industry adopting the same seat post size.
RE:aktiv DamperThe Remedy's FOX Float DRCV shock appears to be the same as last year, except for that small RE:aktiv decal stuck to it. What's that all about? You may have seen the
press release a few days ago from Trek that talked about them working on new-to-mountain bike shock technology with the legendary Penske Racing, and while that blurb was heavy on the marketing, there is a real connection here between what Penske are putting inside the dampers that they provide for all sorts of auto racing applications and what is being used to control compression forces within the FOX shocks found on the new Fuel EX and Remedy platforms. And yes, the very same principles are being applied to the dampers that Penske builds for multiple Formula One teams, although a single one of those can cost more than what a Session 9.9 goes for. A lot more.
The RE:aktiv design is essentially Penske's regressive compression damper shrunk down and stuffed into the FOX Float CTD shock. It consists of a completely different main piston design that, in very simple terms, employs a spring loaded valve that can open to allow a lot of oil flow through the compression shim assembly. However, when the valve is closed the damper provides added low-speed compression for more efficient pedalling and, more importantly in my mind, more low-speed control that helps to keep the shock from pitching through its stroke when you're on the brakes or throwing your bodyweight around. This idea is to preserve the bike's handling.
The valve stays closed when the bike is stable, restricting oil flow and giving you a more stable chassis, until a pressure spike begins to open it. This typically happens when an impact of roughly three inches per second or faster occurs, which is actually a very minor hit. Penske worked quite hard at making sure that the system absolutely doesn't behave like a typical pressure release valve, though, and it was made very clear to me that one of the main goals of the RE:aktiv project was to create something that didn't behave anything like an on/off switch, but rather offered a more open and variable feel on the trail. Valve spring rate, valve plate design, and orifice size all came into play in the search for zero breakaway feel, and both FOX and Penske feel that they've absolutely nailed it. Part of this is also down to the velocity sensitive nature of the system: "
When the valve starts opening you'll get very quick relief because there's a lot of flow area exposed extremely quickly before it regains control. That's the regressive element that you're feeling,'' Jose Gonzalez, Trek Suspension Engineer, explained to Pinkbike. ''
As the velocity increases, the spring tries to work against that force, but at some point the force overcomes the spring to allow for a lot of flow, so there's no harshness. At the same time, because you've got the flow area constantly varying depending on the force that's pushing on the spring, as well as the ports that the oil has to then flow through, you get high-speed resistance as the velocity increases.''
So, with Trek touting the F1 connection, it bears explaining why this type of damper is used on a race car, and why they feel it makes a lot of sense on a mountain bike. After all, the two couldn't be more different, right? Sort of. Sure, one weighs under 14kg and the other nearly 700kg and with twice as many wheels, but both depend on mechanical grip while also being very sensitive to abrupt changes in the pitch of their respective chassis. Grab a handful of brake on your bike and watch how its suspension compresses, something that can cause its handling to go from predictable to pointy in the blink of an eye, and the same goes for race cars but with the added complication of having to deal with downforce being affected. Both require suspension that "stands up" in its stroke until it needs to allow the wheel to get out of the way of a bump in a hurry, but both also need their suspension to be supple enough to provide that all important grip that keeps you pointing in the right direction. Sure, our requirements might be a little less demanding than what Lewis Hamilton asks of his Mercedes through Suzuka's 130R at 300kph, but that doesn't mean that the same basic principles don't apply.
The yellow line on the graph on the left represents the added low-speed compression damping that the regressive system provides, but the important bit is how the line dips down after its high point, showing more oil flow through the compression assembly as the damper's shaft speed increases. Trek says that this is what causes the RE:aktiv shock to feel more natural and active than something with a blowoff valve that is intended to solely improve pedalling characteristics. The graph on the right shows how the system behaves in each of the three CTD modes - Climb, Trail, and Descend - with the yellow line representing the shock in Climb mode. Note how it dips down once shaft speed increases, but at a much higher force as required when in the firmest setting. This means that the bike should be much more useable when its shock is set to Climb mode, and that you won't get your teeth rattled out if you forget to flip it to the open setting before rolling into a rough downhill section. Last year's CTD shock without regressive valving would see the same yellow line continue to extend up and off of the page, meaning that it stays firm and less responsive.
FOX shouldn't be left out of the discussion, with the shock clearly still one of their Float CTD models despite the involvement of Penske. In fact, the whole project couldn't have happened without FOX due to Penske being a race oriented outfit that designs and manufactures components in relatively small quantities. You need four shocks for your F1 car by next week? Sure, just put your life savings on the counter, please. Looking for a few thousand for a run of production mountain bikes? Not so much. FOX, on the other hand, is able to manufacturer the shocks for the new Fuel EX 27.5 and Remedy 29 Carbon platforms while dropping in the regressive damper assembly that originated at Penske.
It's a lot to take in, especially when there's also a new 27.5'' wheeled Fuel EX to talk about, but those who want to learn more about the collaboration between Trek, FOX, and Penske can expect an in-depth analysis of the system and how it came to be within the next few days. I ended up spending quite a bit of time riding the new RE:aktiv unit, including doing some back-to-back testing against last year's standard shock on the new Fuel EX in order to decipher exactly how the system could benefit riders, and you'll be able to read my impressions on the new technology soon.
I actually just want every bike. Ever. N+1
And actually this new hub standard has necessitated a new crank standard too - I shit you not!!!! It's a f*cking joke.
However, i'm no fan of those new standarts as well. Why not just stuck with the 142mm rear end, for Batman's sake???
fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/specialized/593702d1295971866-142-explained-graphically-142plusexplained.jpg
they dont want to go to 83mm bb because of the q-factor (horizontal distance from pedal to pedal). the smaller the q-factor, the more efficient gets the pedaling. and because efficiency is a important thing for this bike ( stiffness and strength to weight is more important to dh bikes than pedaling) and because they are a huuuuuge company..... they invented "148mm"
its surely a clever invention
but u have to buy all the stuff.... and noone forces u to do so. people are free to buy good ol stuff ( dirtmountainbike.com/featured/hard-tales-3-2014-cotic-soul-27-5.html ) ..... u can use ur old parts to build bikes like this and i would say the fun is the same
not to forget our environment.....
-new bought, fancy and cheap to produce shit: nay!
-durable, quality stuff that can be used for jears: yay!
To have a 83mm BB and to be after a really light crank you gotta invest in a ridiculously expensive set! And not everyone would do that!
Also "anyone" who thinks is feet don't move around more than 5mm side to side when climbing or that 5mm will make a difference in their power on a mountain bike is full of shit... that whole Q-factor thing is just hype this isn't a WC XC bike. Onto my second point : my last two bike had 150mm rear ends with 73mm BB and I never had a SINGLE problem so it looks like the tech at my LBS are better engineers than the those at trek because everything runs perfectly fine on my bike....
Cant take this overrated marketing bullshit of inventing a new standards for everything anymore, not only is it a bed excuse for making more money its also driving the those small LBS nuts with thousands of dollars in inventory they have to had each year just to stay afloat....
@Brakesnotincluded
Q-factor is for clearance from the chainstays. Trek geometry runs wider so they mention it for riders to buy the compatible crank.
Feet don't move more than a millimeter or so when clipped in, and the geometry is designed for riders that have tested the limits using that system. Also, a good bike fit will effectively adjust saddle/cleats that will affect a rider's power (and overuse injury prevention), so geometry modifications would seem to follow the same pattern.
There is such thing as too much bike for a rider/trail. I also believe in being content with your current bike and appreciating the engineering craft of newer bikes.
what's next? maybe 81.5 mm BB shell or 1 3/4 headtube
29er evolution still going on, with the Enduro 29 not too long ago, Cannondale's F-Si just recently, and now Trek's Remedy 29.
None of these should affect the Q factor. The only thing that might affect the Q factor would be the shape of the seat and chain stays needing to clear the crank arms and connect to the wider axle, although this potential could be designed away.
Also, if the 29ers are going to get wider rear axles so that stiffer wheelsets can be created at a lower cost, shouldn't this be passed on to 650b/27.5?
But then that would make the 650b wheel's stiffer relative to this new 29 standard and a new standard would then need to be invented that would make the 29 wheel stiffer only to have that new standard get passed off onto the 650b wheelsize and the cycle (no pun intended) would never end.
Seriously though, of all the numbers for this thing, Trek needed to publish just how much more effective that hub spacing was in terms of relative stiffness to a "regular" 135/142 hub. If it's truly significant (which I'm skeptical of) then it is a good idea, new standard or not.
Me? Yeah not buying it. They're making a new standard for a new standard's sake. An offset rear end, as annoying as it can be for wheel builders, at least means you can adapt parts over. As this has a set wider freehub to disc flange width, you also can't toss an adapter in and run it in a 142mm frame. Trek really shot themselves in the foot on this.
Also, bare in mind you can get wide flange 142mm hubs. The problem was never actually there.
Both are wrong, in my opinion. Marin has done 72mm/150mm bikes, with no issues, and 83mm BBs have been used on many FR bikes that people had no issues pedalling all day. The fact of the matter is; 29er is inherently less stiff than 26. It just is. It's a larger diameter. If you want a stiff wheel, you're either spending big bucks on carbon, or stick with a 650/26 wheel. This is a great example of "reinventing the wheel" if you'll excuse the pun.
Both Trek's 148 and Cannondale 's offset rear on the new F-Si address this. One by widening the hub and the other by offsetting the hub to the drive side. I'm glad to see manufactures moving in this direction, although new standards are sometimes a pain.
Of the two I like Cannondale's approach better. You can use existing hubs and you can build a dishless wheel. Win win.
To address the proprietary issue, this spacing option-and that's what it is, an OPTION; we hate the new 'standards' thing as much as anyone-is something we are opening up to everyone, as evidenced by the other 6 working with it now. This was a development that we came up with that solves an INDUSTRY WIDE problem with 29er wheel stiffness. That wasn't an issue limted to just Trek bikes, but to anyone making 29ers. Wheel stiffness is a common criticism of that wheel size for bikes like the Remedy, which are being ridden over technical terrain, and in enduro races. Previously, the only way to achieve a stiff 29er wheel was to make it out of carbon, which instantly makes them cost prohibitive.
As mentioned previously, 150 spacing as used in DH bikes presents other issues when you try to adapt that for trail bikes, namely Q-Factor and BB spacing.
While it's true that in order to benefit from this development, a new bike is required, no one is suggesting that your existing bike is suddenly not fun any longer. Like any other industry, the bike biz is constantly looking at new ways to move products forward. It's not a conspiracy. It's development. It happens with phones, tvs, computers, shoes, technical apparel, all of it.
2- Foes has used regressive damping for over a decade, it's not new to bikes.
3- you won't find Lewis Hamilton at Suzuka running Penske. Mercedes F1 use Koni dampers.
Also, I'm not quite a fan of the "RE:aktiv" branding. fi'zi:k isn't explained either, but at least it doesn't make any sense. THIS, however looks like the heading for a memo. I imagine it's not. I think that if a marketing department is going to get freaky with nomenclature, they at least have to have some cutesy little explanation for it. Otherwise it's just bad art.
Regardless, the whole sales pitch of using "F1 technology lifted from an F1 car" is pretty laughable. Now, design and sell some banned active suspension from the Williams 14B, and you've got my interest...
But we all wish they would.
Having said that, it is a beautiful looking bicycle, pointless hub width and all!
I sure love your bikes Trek, I even own one but seriously because of these specific parts I won't buy Trek again. I can't stand having to fight with everyone each time I need to change some specific parts that are no longer in production.
Really...3D excel charts?
This is even worse when you compare it against the simple, effective and stylish Damping 101 and CTD Behaviour charts below.
You guys could start reviewing e-bikes and I wouldn't mind. Hell mandate that I have to wear a fanny-pack, goggles and a half shell just to read the site and I'll gladly enduro-up before I read. But I swear to good if I see another needlessly "fancy"chart on this site, I'm leaving and never coming back.
I wouldn't mind so much if they just disclosed it but they take the piss some times.
You can't have all these site sponsors and then expect an honest review.
Only issue I could see is if you brake caliper will slide over 3mm or not. Maybe open the holes on the caliper a little........
I have one of these coming so I think I will at least try it.
That being said, I'm glad it's not the norm. Everyone has some preference on fit, and many of us want a smaller or more playful bike (short stay, 26, for example) with a larger sized frame, and many smaller riders want to hop on the wagon wheels and be able to roll over everything, as their smaller frames can't muscle the bike around, so the rollover helps.
So to be the most wishy washy mother f*cker I can be, I agree and I disagree. I feel more companies should involve geometry and wheel size in their sizing, but I hope it never becomes anything more than a handful of companies.
Can't see 148 becoming a new standard
I'd love to see this set up for aggressive park/freeriding. (Normal seat post stomped and a different cockpit with some risers).
So Trek said we: we need our 29 wheels to be as stiff as 650b wheels. Let's make a 650b remedy..ohh no we did that already. Let's make a new standard!!!???
So Trek said: Let's make it look amazing!! Acomplished!
As for proprietary parts I guess none of you own a car or motorcycle? Ford doesn't design cars to use Chevy parts. You can't put a Yamaha exhaust on a KTM. Proprietary parts are a pain for us in the bike shops but sometimes progress means change. Will 148 be the next big thing? Who knows. .
trololololo
To me the angle and width is moot if the undersized spoke issue hasn't been addressed?
Thoughts?
This RE:activ setup really is just a speed sensitive blow-off valve. Maybe it's a more controlled and variable blow-off valve than more simple designs, but that's all it is. I'm not trying to say it's a bad thing. The more ways to control the flow of fluid in the damper, the better the damper is able to work.
On the compression side, this is why you see a separate a low and high speed circuit, mid-valve (mid-speed) circuit, hydraulic bottom-out and a blow-off valve in some forks. They all have a job to do and can extend the range of operation of the damper.
It looks like there is a single high speed compression shim above the "green piston". So, it has propedal (low speed), high speed and variable blow-off controlling compression damping.
Good luck to Fox. They could use a boost. Err, except inside their shock.