PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
Trek Top Fuel
Words by Henry Quinney, photography by Tom RichardsTrek is a brand with many racers to satisfy. With professional teams and athletes in nearly every discipline, they make a huge number of bikes. Whereas some brands have more of a gravity focus, or have their roots firmly in shorter travel applications, Trek, quite simply, has to offer seemingly everything to nearly everyone. That's all very well and good for your competition-focused categories, but what about bikes that by their very nature aren't built for racing?
Step in the new Top Fuel. Once a purebred XC race bike, it's now morphed into a longer travel contender in the downcountry and trail category. But how does it stack up, and has it lost any of its bite since leaving the race scene behind?
Top Fuel 9.9 XX1 AXS Details • Travel: 120mm rear / 120mm front
• Wheel size: 29" (except XS)
• Head angle: 66° (low)
• Seat tube angle: 76° (low)
• Size tested: large
• Reach: 480 mm
• Chainstay length: 435 mm
• Sizes: XS, S, M, M/L, L , XL, XXL
• Weight: 26lb 3 oz (11.9 kg)
• Price: $10,500 USD (as shown)
•
trekbikes.com To look at the geometry chart, it becomes clear that the Top Fuel is a fascinating prospect. Its slack head angle and long reach seem to have been plucked from bikes with far burlier intentions. However, it's not quite as radical as something like the Rocky Mountain Element, nor is it as tall at the front as something like the Niner Jet RDO, both of which we also tested.
The Top Fuel has one or two geometry dimensions that set it apart from the others, most notably it's a lot lower on the front than some of the other bikes. Its stack figure is around 25mm lower than the Niner, for instance, and that's not even factoring the high-rise bars that come on that bike. The dimension of stack can not only have a large effect on the handling of the bike, but also what terrain the bike will thrive in.
It's also the longest bike on the test. In its high setting, it has a reach of 484mm. Yet it's not the steepest in the seat tube angle. It's certainly very adequate, but the long reach, combined with a 76-degree seat tube does give it a moderately long effective top tube length of 630mm. Although this is 2 and 4mm less than the Rocky Mountain and Niner respectively, the Trek
feels longer because the bars are that bit lower.
At the rear of the bike, it has the near-standard 435mm chainstays that are very common in this category. The bike uses 29" wheels for all models except the extra-small in its range.
The bike uses Trek's ABP suspension layout, and benefits from the clean silhouette that the design enables. It's a very sleek looking bike, and that's before you take into account the rather beautiful Bontrager RSL one-piece bars and stem that came on our test bike. The bars came in a very wide 820mm width, which we duly cut down, and has an effective stem length of 45mm. The 27mm rise bars are certainly elegant to say the least.
Another feature of this bike that Trek seemed to have got right is their integrated storage. Dare I say it, its door seems maybe one of the best executed of all the mainstream brands, and there's ample volume inside.
Our bike came with a RockShox pairing for the suspension. A SID fork featuring their Charger Race Day Damper and an inline Deluxe shock covered damping duties. We ran the shock in its most open setting and found it to be very well damped for somebody that wants to push on. The fork was exemplary in terms of performance and really opens up what you can ride on a bike like this by giving adequate support. Truly, both the SID and the new 34 really do help bikes like this fulfill their potential. That said, our fork did develop bushing play, something that's unfortunately happened before on other SID test forks.
The bike is also compatible with a longer 130mm fork. Assuming all other things are equal, the additional 10mm would reduce the head and seat tube angle by around half a degree. All the normal suspects are there in terms of frame spec. This includes internally guided routing, a SRAM UDH, and a bottle inside the front triangle. The bottle cage on this bike comes as standard.
The new Knockblock widens the range of the steering inputs and is an improvement on previous versions. However, I don't feel it's as well-executed as other brands' offerings, mainly due to the fact that it uses keyed headset spacers that fit into notches in the stem. That means switching to a 'regular' stem requires a special adaptor, an inconvenience that doesn't seem like it should be necessary.
ClimbingThe Top Fuel is a very good climber, even if it's slightly heavier than something like the Santa Cruz Blur TR or the Rocky Mountain Element. It doesn't ride like a heavy bike, but if you're looking for all-out lightweight, this might be a very small stumbling block.
The bike is very surefooted and tracks very well, although I would say it's more suited to people who want a bike that responds well to accelerations and surges in power, rather than having a very active suspension system that lets the wheel get up and over obstacles easily. It's also very efficient. In fact, by our reckoning, it's the most efficient bike on test.
On the technical climbs, it was very similar to the Rocky in terms of speed, but both were pipped by the ground-hugging missile that is the Santa Cruz Blur TR. For a bike that is so capable on the descents, though, the Top Fuel still packs a mighty punch when it comes to gaining elevation.
The one area it doesn't shine is fit, for me at least, due to the longer and more stretched out seated climbing position. In some instances, it felt like this made it harder to get my weight over the bars, and made it feel slightly disjointed in tight, technical turns. Would a steeper a seat tube angle have helped? Possibly, but that could potentially diminish the bike's comfort on flatter and more undulating terrain, so I understand why Trek chose the numbers they did.
Descending
The Top Fuel is a very capable descender, but its well-proportioned geometry is just half the story. It manages to strike a great balance between grip, tracking, and precision. The whole bike seems to just will you on to hit things faster and with more precision.
It damps the trail very well and is remarkably predictable and consistent. It offers a level of support that will really appease riders who are used to bigger bikes and want to ride this 120mm bike hard. That level of damping does mean that some riders might find it to be a little too firm, especially when riding rougher or more chattery trails.
In terms of the shootout at the more aggressive end of the downcountry spectrum, it's perhaps not as supple off the top as the Element. The two bikes
could be so similar, but they ride very differently. For steeper trails, I would say the Element has the edge, and if you hope to hang on to your friends on longer travel bikes, that could be the more suitable bike. However, if you intend to stick to trails more like the bikes were intended for, the Top Fuel would be my choice of bike.
The low front end of the Trek does put your weight further forward over the axle, but that comes back to you in flatter turns. The Trek has got a lot of personality, and it is a bike that not only inspires precise and confident handling but really encourages you to push on.
Ultimately, it felt like a 120mm tailor-made for someone that wants a short travel bike that excels on aggressive XC trails and is light enough to ride all day.
No, you can’t try it out.
Don’t believe me? See how many Trek specific shocks are on PinkBike marketplace.
[Protective Layer of Dirt]
vimeo.com/149709364
You must not be a car guy.
Also, I don't think of a vette (or any sports car really) as a reliable daily driver, but I certainly don't think of trek as any more reliable at all. Between blown shocks and cracked carbon frames, I think it's almost insulting the corvette more than anything.
It's also worth noting that the claimed weight for the stock GX AXS model is about 1.5 lbs heavier than the stock XX1 AXS model. Other notable differences include Line Pro vs Line Elite wheels, G2 RS vs G2 Ultimate brakes, and a SID Ultimate vs a SID Select+ fork.
I hope you like the video regardless and thanks for the heads up. Cheers.
Oh, it most definitely did happen.
imgur.com/a/OTdhGZr
This photo was accompanied by a text noting how wide bars have gotten these days.
Rossignol Enforcer skis
Hayden Shapes Hypto Crypto Surfboard
Yeti MTB's
Anything the Laird Hamilton uses or endorses
Not hatin' - dads got a right to get as rad too! Load it all up into the Sprinter and then stay home because the wife said the garden needs weeding!
I have knock block on two bikes and know if it gets worn or is set up the tiniest bit off it will hit their frame
I've found Trek to be pretty generous when it comes to warranty claims over the past 6 years.. But, when it's apparent that its crash damage, and a crash replacement price is offered.
I'm not a real fan of knock block, but I've also had no issues with it over the past 2 years on my Slash..
I don't hate knock block either, My issue is that it didn't do its job, and that they designed a downtube that couldn't be cleared by the fork.
Also, as far as it being good enough to handle a pro, remember those guys know what they are doing 99.9% of us posting here are hacks in comparison. Most of us will break more stuff than most pros because they don't tend to make the mistakes that we do. During my time in this game, I've seen way more broken stuff from schmoes than pros.
Oh, if anyone wants a brand new, in-box SID Ultimate, you can find my listing in BuySell.
@mikekazimer are you ready to swap out your Spur for a new Top Fuel?
You really can't go wrong with any of those option - one isn't head and shoulders above the other.
That's way too much.
Trek saw people buying Top Fuels and bumping up the fork travel, putting bigger tires on, and slaying singletrack, so they changed the bike up a bit to appeal to those riders. The Top Fuel really hasn't been a true XC race bike for a number of years.
Sincerely,
2018 Trek Top Fuel RSL owner dreading the day he cracks the frame.
First, it was introduced as necessary for straight downtubes and increased stiffness, which Trek thankfully walked back and made room for fork crowns on their new bikes. If it'd been launched as an optional, removable thing on their XC bikes with a message of "hey if you're racing and you want to avoid damaging your cables when you crash, we have this handy rotation stop," I don't think anyone would have minded.
Second, it's added complication and weight for (as you say) a thing that generally doesn't affect the rider one way or the other. I'm not an engineer, but if you move the couple grams that Knock Block weighs into a thicker, more typically shaped downtube instead, I bet it's almost a wash.
And finally, for people who do want a rotation stop on their bike, I think there are way better, simpler ways to do it (see the way Canyon does it on the Lux, for example).
As long as you know what you are getting, the Reactor is one of the good bikes you can get.
a) I should trade in my old top fuel for a new one
Or
b) Man I wish I could buy a much cheaper second hand top fuel from the classifieds, but that geometry sucks
You’ll be needing a 9point8 Slack-r headset - I took option b) and hot piss, it is my new favourite dad-country whip
They are the essential the same bikes however the Top Fuel improves specifically on the few shortcomings I see with the Spur.
Since I can sell the Spur for exactly what I paid for it, and I really like bikes, everything is on the table.
To each his own of course... if the cubby hole offsets the quick depreciation, and the knock block, and the other proprietary components, then go ahead and sell that Spur.
PB classifieds always have a bunch available….for good reason.
Otherwise, I’d say bump the fork up 10mm and this thing seems ready to rip.
Mine is a year old and running sweet.
Trek said it’s 27,6 for this model in gx axs
I’m joking in saying that someone will come up with a solution that makes them profit, rather than just not having knocmblock.
On a side note:
Anyone else notice the excessive use of commas in this article?
The article references other bikes that have yet to have their reviews released, it's something where this article will make more sense once the field review is complete.
I didn't say "write articles this way!" I just commented on how it's frustrating to read a review lacking data.
Cheers!
They've always done the thing with the other bikes. It's strategic; makes us want to read the other articles. I like the little sneak peeks.
I just don't understand the need to nitpick these articles and reviews. Bikes and how they ride are super subjective. Data truly means very little compared to perceived ride qualities.
I think you're reading too much into what I wrote. Some of us really like the yearly field reviews and to me, it's lacking certain information which previous field reviews contained. If you saw my follow up comment, I mentioned this article will make more sense at the completion of the field testing.
Btw I never said anything about this article being the worst thing in my life lol. Also, I'll pass on the parenting thing, that is a life choice that isn't for everyone.
Cheers!
You're totally right about bikes being super subjective. However, for XC and downcountry field testing, it would be nice to know how long it took the fastest bike to complete each portion of the test track ( climb and descent). I would hope people aren't buying bikes based on these timed runs, but the analysis makes for an interesting and fun read. I have a feeling they're saving the overall numbers for the wrap-up article.
On last year's field testing, they gave percentages on how much faster bike X was than bike Y and Z during each review. I didn't mean to nitpick(maybe a little with the comma comment), it's more of me expressing my criticism.
Thanks for the feedback. I do overindulge in commas so that's fair f*cks. I kind of write as if I would talk and that cadence carries through. It's not to everyone's liking and that's fair enough.
Thanks for reading the reviews. I know it sounds a bit silly but we compare the bikes in the reviews so they'll be a better resource if you were to buy a bike. However, that sometimes means that whilst they're getting released the information is more drip fed. It's a short term loss for a long term gain. If in six months' time you were interested in researching the best downcountry bike then this approach could prove to be more helpful.
I never want to do review within a vacuum. I think it's a cop out. It grips, it slips, it's fast, it's slow. These terms, in my view, become a bit limited without comparison and just mean that I, as a reviewer, never really have to actually nail my colours to the mast and actually say what's better and what's worse. Again, this is to be more helpful if you were trying to understand the differences between these bikes and what sits more in line with what you're after.
I hope that sheds some light on why I write my articles the way that I do. It's not solely incompetence, although I'm sure that plays a big part. Haha!
Cheers