PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
2020 Trek Top Fuel
The lightest bike in the Field Test might not be the most comfortable, but it packs a powerful punch.
Review by Sarah Moore & James Huang, Words by Sarah, Photography by Trevor LydenTrek wanted the 2020 version of the Top Fuel to be competitive, fast and lightweight, but more fun and versatile than the previous generation. Trek calls it a downcountry rig in their marketing copy, so we put it to the test in Pemberton, BC.
To accomplish their goals of making the Top Fuel more fun and versatile, Trek increased the rear travel from 100 to 115 millimeters, which is paired with a 120-millimeter fork up front. As for the geometry, the effective seat tube angle got a degree steeper, up to 75-degrees, while the head tube angle went from 70-degrees to 67.5-degrees. The reach is also a few millimeters longer, 440 on the size medium in the low setting.
Top Fuel DetailsIntended use: Downcountry
Travel: 115mm (r) / 120mm (f)
Wheel size: 29''
Frame construction: carbon fiber
Head angle: 67.5° (Low)
Chainstay length: 435mm (Low)
Reach: 440mm (size Medium)
Sizes: S, M, ML, L
Weight: 26.1lbs / 11.8 kg (as pictured)
Price: $9,000 USD
More info:
www.trekbikes.com The Top Fuel continues to use ABP (Active Braking Pivot) suspension design. The design uses a pivot that rotates around the rear axle to keep braking forces from interacting with the suspension. The idea is that it prevents braking forces from affecting the shock. The big difference here is that the shock is now fixed to the frame, rather than sitting between the rocker link and the seatstays. The swingarm pivot has also ben moved forward, which Trek says helps the bike pedal better.
Also worth noting is that there is more room to run a dropper post. The size small frame can handle a 100-millimeter post, the medium can run a 150mm, and large fits a 170mm. Additional details include the Knock Block fork stop and down tube Guard, Control Freak internal cable routing and Trek's 'Mino Link' flip chip that allows the geometry to be changed from a low to a high setting. The Top Fuel is 1x only and will not accept a front derailleur. There are no ISCG mounts on the frame either, but you can run Trek's top-guide if you feel that you need that extra chain retention.
For the complete Top Fuel, the prices range from $3,299 USD for the aluminum Top Fuel 8 to $10,499 USD for the Top Fuel 9.9 AXS XX1 model. As tested, with a Fox Factory 34 Step-Cast fork, a SRAM XX1 Eagle drivetrain, carbon wheels, and SRAM Level Ultimate brakes, the Top Fuel 9.9 is $8,999 USD. It’s a Project One bike, though, so you have the option of customizing the components and colors for an additional cost.
ClimbingBoth James Huang and I found that the Trek Top Fuel had fantastic pedaling efficiency. The bike comes equipped with a lockout, and while it’s one of the best dual lockout systems we’ve used, there’s really no need for it. That efficiency didn't come at the expense of traction on the rough stuff either, and we were able to ride the Top Fuel up some pretty tricky climbs. That being said, while the bike was super efficient, that trait seems to have trumped comfort, and there's not a ton of small bump compliance.
Trek definitely made some compromises in ride quality to gain that efficiency with a digressive compression tune on the rear shock that’s hard to get moving initially. So while the pedaling efficiency is fantastic, we would like to see a
slightly more active setup in the open position, especially since that lockout is available. But as much as the rough ride could be a touch disruptive, the Top Fuel was still a killer climber even on the tech stuff.
The overall climbing position on the bike is good, if a touch short and upright, possibly because we are both on the taller side of the recommended size. As a result of that shortness, it was occasionally difficult to keep the front end on the ground on steeper climbs. The Top Fuel is quite nimble and maneuverable, and it was easy to navigate around tight turns and awkward sections of trail, unless you got stopped suddenly by the Knock Block, as James did on several occasions.
Descending On the descents, the bike bike feels shorter than its 440mm reach number would suggest, which means that extra attention is required to remain centered and in control. That being said, I found it pretty surprising what I could ride the Top Fuel down. It requires precision on every section, but it can manage pretty technical descents. It just feels like you're trying to get through whatever is in front of you piece by piece instead of flowing through the descent as a whole.
Unlike some of the other bikes in the test, the Top Fuel's nimbleness kept it on the more exciting side of nervous. While it was missing some small bump compliance, the mid-stroke was good and there was no harsh bottoming out on bigger hits which was impressive. It wanted to be pushed hard, and in the right hands it's a very capable bike.
Trek had the right idea with the components for this kind of bike. The Bontrager dropper works well and has 150mm of travel, and the Bontrager Kovee Pro wheels feel quite stiff and decently wide at 29mm between the bead hooks. However, the SRAM Level brakes don’t have a lot of power and aren’t very adjustable, the 750mm bars are too narrow. Cutting bars down is easy, so please give us 780mm at least—even on bikes like this.
That said, I've never blown a corner on my Slash because of the Cock Block. My main gripe is that it forces me to take the front wheel off to put in the back of my Subie.
So....is it annoying? Yes. A deal breaker? No. Could Trek Remedy the issue-yes. And I hope they do.
It’s all good to love Trek but they dropped the ball here in a big way and tried to cover themselves by highlighting it.
www.reverse-components.com/en/products/05%C2%B0-angle-spacer-tapered-forks
www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=99681
*on some models.
I think this spot would require trials hopping to accomplish with a Trek bike. To me, it's a total failure for Trek to literally remove turning capability from riders. I was actually enjoying that Remedy, but I had zero interest to purchase one after that experience.
I had a knockblock bike and I routinely had issues turning to the "block" in tight turns, as did the testers.
Gotta agree, no issues here with 3 years on my slash.
If I lived at Chattanooga TN and owned a 2019 Trek Slash like you do...
I’ll be staying away from most of the XC stuff you list and ride downhill trails like Radio Tower and Cotton Tail at WhiteOak Mountain, Bakers Creek Preserve, WindRock, Bailey, etc.
I’m sorry to break this down to you but it doesn’t require much skill to ride High Voltage or the Pinhoti 3.
Which explains to me why you think the knock block is acceptable.
I tried removing the Knock Block on my Slash, and the fork would clear turning left because the air chamber side of the fork is flush with the crown. It's only the damper dials on the other side that would make contact.
So.....straight down tubes are stronger and lighter, which means better a better engineered design. Trek is a big enough player that they could get fork manufacturers to accommodate that design, rather than using a steerer tube block. Don't you want your bikes stronger AND ligher?!
All I hope is for Chattanooga to build the next level trails. Just in case you don’t know about them here is a link.
Let me know if you need a tour guide of your own local trails even though I live 2 hours away.
www.imba.com/blog/next-level-trails-chattanooga-tennessee
Anyone can ride Radio Tower...But can you clear everything, how high are you jumping, can you even whip?
Got a GoPro ready and can meet you this Sunday.
Also, doesn't Canyon use a similar system?
lets get this straight - small and medium bikes should have 28t chainrings and 165 cranks, large should have 30t with 170s and XL 32 tooth and 175s. gear ratios all the same.
I smell a new standard Trek and Sram can get behind. We can push the OLN width out to the point that you can only clear a 152mm crank. Thus MEGABoost 255/152 is born. Frankly I'm already upgrading my current fleet to accept it. Good news is I can just drill and re-tap my cranks and cut off the excess with an angle grinder.
#Mr.EverybodyKnowsYou’reAPoser
It leads to frames breaking for a reason they never needed to break for.
I obviously enjoy all of these reviews, but I'd love to know how the GG and Juliana compare to the Optic and Occam and how the Pole compares to the enduro bikes that match its geometry. I'm not offended in principle that these bikes are grouped together, just greedy for ever more comparisons.
And we don't mind the complaining—it keeps us honest and it's great that people are so invested in what we're doing. Hopefully it's useful for you!
How about once the winners of each category are decided, you take them all out on the types of trails that each bike is typically designed to perform best on.
Once you've ridden all the winners on all the different trails (where practical/safe), it would be interesting to see which bikes offer the more overlap or versatility across different trail-types.
You know, for those of us that are only allowed one bike. We want more. But we can't have it!
1. Specialized
2. Specialized
3. Specialized
4. Yeti
5. Everyone else
Regardless of the classification, they're in the same ballpark and it was interesting to compare how they ride on our aggressive XC terrain.
And how boring would these tests be if all the bikes were the exact same travel and geometry?
My point is... I don't have one.
I personally see the Top Fuel as the heir apparent to the really, really cool 2014/15 Fuel EX 29er. There was something about that generation that was lost when Trek slammed it together with the remedy to make the 17'-19' fuel. Don't get me wrong, that generation (and the current new fuel ex) are freaking cool bikes too, but they weren't the same. On the buttery smooth climbs and descents on a lot of the trails I daily, I set a LOT of both climb and descent personal records on that 2014 silver beast. I'm strongly considering frame swapping to one of these suckers with a 130mm front fork and bit bigger rotors all round, with 750mm bars of course .
And you know what? Because it'll be MY bike, that means I get to adjust the rear shock tune to be whatever I want. Haha!
Ironically, I see bias too when people pay for stuff. Cognitive bias is a funny thing...
Fun to read in front of a cup of coffee in the morning but to base a purchasing choice on these tests seems a real overreach ...
(Here we are again thinking that a 26 pounds bike is super-light ... and reporting total bike weight instead of frame weight. Really, if weight enters in the purchasing decision the only thing that matters is to know which frame is the lightest ... )
All the Field Tests are done with at least 2 testers to make them LESS subjective.
We definitely don't want people to go out and spend $8K based on our Field Test videos alone, but we hope they help make relevant comparisons! Not everyone has all the bikes in the grouping available to them for test rides, etc.
This bike specifically is a climbing weapon and will descend way better than a typical XC bike, but it’s no trail bike and you know it if it gets too rough or wanna get some air, the wheels want to be on the ground.
I bet that 90% of these "tests" only reflect how a pilot happen to fit with a particular bike.
As far as weigh is concerned you are just missing the point: it is silly compare the weight of bikes with different components. The frame is just about 20% of the total weight, the rest is stuff that has nothing to do with the bike maker. If you really want to compare weights take the bikes a part and weight their frame. Otherwise do not report it, it is simply wrong.
Not the newest bike on the block but I'm sure it would kill it here.
Agreed that the Spark was ahead of the curve though, would be interesting to see how it stacks up against more recent releases in the category
However ASAP please:
100% huck to flat compilation, regular speed followed by the super slows with pan to each companies engineer's face watching the video of their bike.
field test Friday fails/bloopers video
Plus since I have your attention: Friday fails bloopers compilations of the field test please.
As for fails... not that many happened. We didn't get the big crash on film, and otherwise just a little OTB from Kaz that's in the intro, and Levy fell over a bunch during the Impossible Climb (which you'll see in a few weeks).
PS. I've sat next to some engineers watching their bikes get ridden at Rampage. THAT was stressful.
That remains true on a lot of trails today
I have a remedy and knockblock has really grown on my because I can run super short clean cockpit cables. I had to get used to it on a couple switchbacks but it's not an issue now. I guess if I rode in Pemberton or liked to do barspins I'd care more.
I am almost 5'11" and tried to ride a friend's 2018 M/L Fuel EX with a 150mm dropper. With the post inserted as far as it would go the seat was still over an inch too high for my stubby legs yet the reach to the bars felt comically short.
This bike looks great to me but I would likely find that I couldn't get the size right unless I went with a shorter length dropper than I prefer.
That’s the one area that will date this bike. I know they say it’s an XCM bike etc but 66 dead would have been a better compromise.
The biggest issue with this entire test is the belief that the stated geo numbers are the same as reality. Not to mention quoting pointless effective and actual seat angles. They need someone a bit more thorough doing the testing.
Judging by the bikes tested it kinda seems like there is NO Down Country category YET.
The mondraker pry could be if they got a different shock tune as there geometry is at least up to date/ seemed to allow for overforking from conception.
The Trail Pistol is really a Trail bike, but if they produced a "super light" version that did not use the modular platform and was only rated for short travel it has the best geo. ( Course if you spent $10,400 on one you could get pretty close to a DC build right now, but fir sure the current frame is always gonna be a Mega Trail at heart...)
The Joplin is a trail bike, the rest of the bikes tested are XC.
Example: Jimmy put down his drink and was ready to go and lay into that tight, greasy turn when he got knockblocked by his best friend, Trek.
These are all very different bikes. Most notably, the GG is a large frame (with short adjustable headset position). The size 2 GG frame would probably be more comparable for testing purposes (or, the way I see it, a larger frame would have been more reasonable for many of the test bikes. Does this also put a weight penalty on the GG? Hmmmmm???? I assume the Size 2 GG wasn't available yet when they started their test.
Trek Top Fuel (M)
BB drop 3
BB Height 343
Chainstay length 434
Effective top tube 598
Head angle 68.0°
Head tube length 9
Offset 44
Reach 445
Seat tube 419
Seat tube angle 68.5°
Seat Tube (Eff.) 75.5°
Stack 590
Standover 735
Trail 103
Wheelbase 1152
Pivot Mach 4 SL (M)
BB Height 334
Chain Stay Length 431
Head angle 67.50°
Head Tube Length 108
Reach 427
Seat Tube A (Eff.) 73.50°
Seat Tube Length 419
Stack 611
Standover Height 696
Top Tube Length 616.5
Wheelbase 1146
Juliana Joplin (M)
BB Drop 38
BB Height 335
Chainstay Length 430
Front Center 757
Head angle 65.7°
Head Tube Length 110
Reach 450
Seat Tube A (Eff.) 76.6°
Seat Tube Length 405
Stack 610
Standover Height 708
Top Tube Length 596
Wheelbase 1211
GG Trail Pistol (3 short)
BB Height 340
Chainstay Length 426
Effective Top Tube 615
Head angle 65.9°
Head tube Length 120
Reach 483
SA - Actual 74
Seat Tube A (Eff.) 78.1°
Seat tube Length 430
Stack 619
Standover 724
Wheelbase 1219
Mondraker F-Podium DC
BB Height 337
Chainstay Length 432
Fork Offset 44
Head angle 66.8°
Head Tube Length 90
Reach 450
Seat Tube A (Eff.) 75.1°
ST Angle, Actual 70.8°
Seat Tube Length 420
Stack 582
Top Tube Length 603
Wheelbase 1167
GG Trail Pistol (2 short)
BB Height 340
Chainstay Length 426
Effective Top Tube 615
Head angle 65.9°
Head tube Length 100
Reach 458
SA - Actual 74
Seat Tube A (Eff.) 78.2°
Seat tube Length 400
Stack 601
Standover 724
Wheelbase 1186
It looks like the recommended setting coming from Trek is for a plusher more planted ride, since the brand has a big amount of clients, some of them are just starting, or having their first FS bike.
When I bought my Remedy, I had to put 20 more psi rear and 10 psi more on the front, for a more lively ride.
On the Top Fuel I had to add waaaay more psi on the rear to avoid feel it "stuck" (at least 30psi more if I recall correctly) and remove 10 psi front (same as you).
Already changed rear shock on the remedy to a float X2 and changed bars and stem on the top fuel.
I wasn't trying to drop weight but I ended up saving weight with those changes. Next is to put a deore XT groupset because I dont like SRAM that much for a pedal friendly bike (shift under load).
Bike has basically been tested with questionable sizing, suspension settings, brakes and tyres. I can understand the reasons for all of these things, especially the brakes which is 100% on Trek (I changed my 2-pot and 180/160 SLX rotors to XTR 4-pot and 180/180 Icetech rotors). But it isn't the most ideal way to review this bike.
I didn't play around with volume spacers, although if I did, I likely would have maybe added a few to let me drop the air pressure to try and get some initial suppleness. It's not always productive to do something like that to overcome an inherent damping tune, though.
Good to know this since I’m right at 185lbs. Will be watching those huck to flats more closely from now on.
And the backwards threaded main pivot came loose repeatedly.
Just sayin.
however, if you buy a ferrari or porsche or a USA Paul Reed Smith/ Gibson/Fender guitar...you're going to drive it/ play it and then even if you sell it you'll get a good portion of your money back.
$9k bikes? you'll be lucky to get a quarter of it's value back on re-sale after just a few seasons...just doesn't make sense.
One of the Pros for the Trail Pistol was "great value and tons of spec options" so I guess I was expecting to see how a 9K bike with some strange component choices, like the brakes for instance, would rate in value.
Maybe a road bike?
I do like the lever feel, but my trance w/ a hair more travel came with the guide g2’s and it’s similar feel with lever firmness, more accessible power. Wouldn’t have been a bad spec on this fuel
The perfect bike for the Trek loyalist and the 5x a month rider who wants to treat himself to something nice. They don’t really care about shock tunes and geometry but it sure is light!
And Knock Block?
I liked my Trek bikes of the past, but until Trek gets its head on straight, I'm out.
It sounds like the Trek shock is mounted to simply accommodate cable routing, which is probably another side-effect of internal routing.
Mybaben makes a good point too.
Can’t recall the last time I did normal shock maintenance and found evidence of water damage or dirt ingress caused only by shock positioning. Most shock issues I see are from side loading caused by linkage design and poor maintenance/hard riding.
That being said, I prefer shock orientation which allows lubrication to sit on the seals