Trek Announces Fuel EX 27.5+

May 26, 2016
by Mike Kazimer  
Trek Fuel EX 27.5

Trek recently released the details of the new Fuel EX 27.5+, the latest iteration of a bike that's been a mainstay in the company's lineup for the last 16 years. The big news is that this version is equipped with 27.5+ wheels, with all three models rolling on 27.5 x 2.8" Bontrager Chupacabra tires. The wheel dimension change is also accompanied by a 10-millimeter increase in rear travel and several geometry tweaks, alterations that serve to push the bike further away from its cross-country roots and deeper into territory that's populated by ultra-capable trail bikes.

Trek Fuel EX 27.5+ Details
• Travel: 130mm rear, 140mm front
• Frame material: carbon or aluminum
• 27.5 x 2.8" tires
• 67.2° or 66.6° head angle
• 432mm chainstays
• 12 x 148mm rear spacing
• Price: $2399 - $5299 USD
• Availability: Fuel EX 8 and EX 9.8: now, Fuel EX 5: June.
Trek Bikes / @trek

The Fuel EX 27.5+ comes with big 27.5" tires on 40mm rims, but it's also possible to run 29” wheels on the new ride with only a slight increase in bottom bracket height. The bike comes set in the 'high' geometry position, but a flip of the Mino Link on the seatstay allows that to be reduced to 66.6°, allowing riders to choose the handling characteristics they prefer. According to Trek, they see the 27.5+ Fuel as a supplement to their renowned Fuel EX 29; it's a sibling rather than a replacement in the line.

Trek Fuel EX 27.5
The aluminum framed Fuel EX 5 27.5+ will retail for $2,399 when it hits stores in June.
Trek Fuel EX 27.5
The Fuel EX 8 27.5+ also has an aluminum frame, but receives upgrades like a dropper post and higher end suspension, features that bring its price to $3,299 USD.

Frame Details

The Fuel EX is bristling with all of the latest standards – there's Boost spacing front and rear, and the 130mm of rear travel is delivered via a metric sized shock (210 x 52.5mm) from either Fox or RockShox depending on the model. Visually, the frame itself looks similar to previous models, that is until you reach the head tube junction area. There's now a slight hump to the top tube, and the down tube has been straightened out in a move that's said to bring the bike's stiffness to the same level as the Slash, Trek's all-mountain / enduro race bike.

Straightening the Fuel's down tube tube did bring a set of hurdles for Trek's designers to overcome, namely the fact that the fork would contact the frame if was turned too sharply. To solve this issue they came up with the 'Knock Block', which uses a keyed headset cover and a replaceable stop chip in the top tube that prevents the handlebar from turning too far. If you harbored dreams of throwing barspins on your plus-bike, the Fuel EX won't be the one for you. There's also additional protection on the outside of the down tube, just in case for some reason the Knock Block ceases blocking.

Knock Block
Trek's 'Knock Block' relies on a chip inside the frame to prevent the fork crown from making contact with the frame.

Fuel EX 9.8
The stealth black Fuel EX 9.8 27.5+ receives a carbon frame and a $5,299 USD price tag, although the two rings up front do seem slightly out of place given the popularity of 1x drivetrains.

Geometry

Geometry

With a 140mm fork up front, the new Fuel EX's head angle now sits at 66.6° in the low geometry position. Compare that to the prior version's 68.8° head angle and it's clear that this is intended to be an entirely different machine than its predecessor . The reach has been lengthened slightly, up to 458mm on a size large, and the chainstay length now sits at either 432 or 433mm. The rear end is designed to fit a 27.5 x 2.8” tire, a width that Trek settled on after experimenting with numerous rim and tire width combinations.

As far as sizing goes, the two aluminum models of the Fuel EX are available in six sizes, from 15.5” to 23”, and the carbon version is available in five sizes, from 15.5” to 21.5”.

bigquotesIt's still not entirely clear what the future holds for 27.5+ bikes, but the fact that Trek would add a plus-sized option of one of their most popular models shows they feel there's a definite demand out there. The wider tires do make a lot of sense for this style of bike, the type of rig that's made for doing a little bit of everything, as long as fun is the overarching goal. That being said, it's going to be interesting to see what else Trek has in store this season.- Mike Kazimer



251 Comments

  • + 56
 Knock Block... Jesus Christ, Trek has really reached out for the sky and took the lead in pseudo-invention olympics. So much so, that they actually did something meanigful but they advertise it from the angle where the arse hole is. The biggest benefit of a keyed headset with a stop lock is that brakes' master cylinders won't hit the top tube during a bail, which can damage the frame but more importantly the brake hose attachment. It's a great thing and I'd love a headset like that. But no, we need it so that forks crown doesn't hit the straight down tube. Why the fukh did you make a straight down tube in the first place ?!

As for Plus tyres, they are super awesome. 275+ makes sense because you can toss in regular 29" wheels with 29,4" tyres if you are going to race or just ride something different.
  • + 43
 And is this not another frame that was – maybe – designed for something else and then used for 27.5+?

I mean, I love low BBs, but 329mm bottom bracket height ... seriously? Ouch. Not sure if 170mm cranks are short enough for this one.

In just a few years, they will advertise higher BBs as a new feature, helping us ride rocky trails without pedal strikes.
  • + 6
 I think this Block system has already been patented somewhere else to protect what you just said (hoses, brakes hitting top tube), so it might be just to avoid paying fees to the patent holder.
  • + 4
 @ArthurFr: Acros did such thing, but Euro patents don't cross over the Atlantic
  • + 4
 I thought about top tupe protection for hunchback bikes like canyon/strives, mondraker and lapierres... But you should definitively raise your brake levers hahaha, cheaper
  • + 111
 Trek is also working on a soft, rider side stem that will prevent groin injuries; it's called the 'Cock Block'
  • + 4
 I just ordered Acros Z-44 Lock Block headset. Motivated by Trek press release Big Grin it doesn't use a proprietary stem though which does seem like a better idea than one-bolt clamp on across but at the same time, it saves me 90£ for a Bontrager stem. They are awesome stems though...
  • + 3
 @Vanguard: the low BB height is definitely an issue for Rocky Riders and root garden. To low is slow.
  • + 14
 you can't even do barspins with it!
  • + 7
 I'm guessing the straight downtube helps make more room for a water bottle.
  • + 3
 "But no, we need it so that forks crown doesn't hit the straight down tube. Why the fukh did you make a straight down tube in the first place ?!"

Why not? I don't think that the average trail rider get's the urge to do spontaneous bar spins mid ride.
  • + 18
 They came up with the Knock Block in order to solve a different problem other then the brakes hitting the top tube. Notice the downtube is very straight. Most manufacturers have a nice curve in the DT to make way for the fork crown. That curve lessens the strength and stiffness of the DT. With a straight DT Trek achieves a lighter, stiffer, and better handling bike. Because they used the straight DT that is why the Knock Block needed to be invented. This information I got from the Trek University website. Trek has online videos for dealers to learn about all their product. I think they hit it out of the park with this one. Nice work Trek.
  • + 0
 @Janosch: they put up a special headset so that fork doesn't hit it... So you may as well have a bent one which actually makesfor a better steer tube/ down tube interface in structural terms. Since you bend it at the bottom then why not? I understand what you are saying but their argument for that headset being there is down right stupid. It is like saying that we have seat belts in a car so that we don't break the wind shield from the inside by our flying body, during an accident. But to make a point you place a knife in front of you. They created a problem, then they bragged about a solution - that's what I am saying.

Bianchi did a much better solution for that matter, they made a bumper under the downtube so that forks crown smashes into it. Well it looks weird but solves the issue in the easiest of ways.
  • + 1
 @Janosch: I think you missed the point.
  • + 14
 It's just a bunch of compromises. First, almost everybody made a compromise and put a bend in their DT's to make space for fork crowns. But now, someone at Trek figured that straight DT was probably better idea in the first place, and so, they made another compromise with this "restrained" headset. But, you can't use the word 'compromise' in product press release (or anywhere else, when it comes to bike industry).

Also, it's pretty dumb to use acronyms for every little part of the bike to make it sound more special than it really is, but since the industry can't help themselves, I think that Knock Block is an acceptable compromise. It could've been worse.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: "You can think I'm wrong, but that's no reason to stop thinking." Someone famous said that. I wonder who...
  • + 12
 The straight downtube makes the frame stiffer without adding weight.
  • + 3
 Just don't tighten the hell out of the clamp for your brakes. And that won't happen they'll move!
  • - 2
 @Janosch: The point being made was that if the downtube was manipulated they wouldn't need the Knock Block.

There is no reason for the downtube to be straight with modern hydroforming apart from appearance.
  • - 2
 @mtmtber182: straight tube, suffer frame. Trek isn't bunch of idiots. They spend millions every year in R&D for projects like this. If the bike is in production, and you're reading this article today, Trek knows this is the best.
  • + 2
 Just leave the brake master loose enough so that it swivels out the way in case of a crash when the handlebar moves around too far. It is nice that they have something to avoid the fork crown (or the adjusters) hitting the downtube. It is a bit of a silly solution though, a proper bumper down there should do. Especially as they already have one there for redundancy.
  • + 0
 @mtmtber182: yes, the only issue is that in case of alu frame it concentrates the stress into smaller area, thus you always need a gusset there unless you use a thick and heavy tube, negating the sense of making such arrangement. Bent tube adds flex to the joint which is a good thing, allowing bigger part of the tube handle the stress. We didn't get rid of straight tube joints since the age of Kona Stinky, just for the sake of cool looks.
  • + 0
 @mtmtber182: so they can add weight to the proprietary headset and fork bumper....

Look at the number of modern bikes with bended DT, I think weight/rigidity is really a minor issue.
I wonder if there is another reason for a straight DT, like if I look to the overall frame design, with low standover and BB, I guess a straight DT was the only solution to accomodate a water bottle.
That, plus overall look of the frame, which are real marketing arguments for a generalist brand like Trek.
Don't forget that this bike major concurrent is the spesh stumpy 27.5+.
  • + 1
 @treekilla: I bet you a trillion bucks that when the larger weld overlap of a manipulated downtube is included the overall torsional stiffness loss between front and rear axles is practically zero.
  • + 3
 Then in case of carbon fromt triangle stiffness is an issue if you build a 2lbs DH frame. Once you've build a frame that has enough strength to handle the stress in lab environment and durability to handle hits in nature, the whole thing is stiff as FUQ. Now, since we incorporated 1,5 tapered headtubes into all current designs (at least outside stuff submitted to shows like NAHBS) then talking about stiffening up the head tube area by shape of tubing is looking for a problem where id doesn't exist. Generally, stiffness to weight ratio is the biggest SELLING point in the industry but we are way beyond issues related to that since at least 5 years. Now t is just an empty slogan. We live intimes were stiffness is overrated. Frames fail due to many reasons but it is not lack of straight tubes.

Curvy stuff is more durable, thanks to FLEX n direction of forces and is laterally stiffer than straight stuff. And it is the lateral stiffness you are after in most cases as it is the quality affecting steering.

So Trek goes back in time. Congrats.
  • + 4
 @treekilla:
There's not really any good structural reason why a straight tube would be stiffer. In fact, for the type of loading a bicycle sees, a curved carbon tube would be better.

A straight down tube does make the head tube junction a heck of a lot cheaper to manufacture however.
  • + 4
 Is SRAM gonna make the Rock Block?
  • + 10
 Love how everyone is an expert on carbon fiber engineering.

Trek spend millions on R&D. They know what they're doing. You think they'd compromise the ride of the bike by introducing the knock block. No - that is the solution for re-introducing the straight down tube, not the other way round.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: it has a down tube fork bumper also....FYI...but yeah, in the name of weight savings and stiffness...its lame, they add all those other parts and problems...
  • + 8
 @Justmatthew: I do structural design with carbon fiber for work. We spend many orders of magnitude more than Trek does. There is no structural reason for it. There is a very good manufacturing reason for it.
  • + 1
 @Justmatthew: why did TREK reintroduce the straight downtube?
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: less manufacturing time...idk
  • - 2
 @takeiteasyridehard: I didn't realize it's a fork bumper. Looks weird if it were to be one, I'd make it a big 3x4cm surface put vertically to provide nice cushioning for the forks crown. Like they do on DH bikes. I don't care about weight. I have a coil spring for my shock on my AMbike, can you imagine?
  • + 0
 @Vanguard: learn how to ratchet pedal through rough stuff, or just "boost" it over all the rock gardens. I'm finding new triple sets on Porcupine rim where I used to double.
  • + 2
 @jclnv @tsheep Trek has been making bikes long before curves were in down tubes, I'm sure they know a thing or too about engineering stiffness into a frame. Look at road bikes for example, Trek easily pours more money into road than mountain, and all those tubes are straight and stiff to transfer power better.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: Thanks for calling this one out, thought that was some silly shit when I saw it as well.
  • + 2
 @treekilla: No they're straight because it's the shortest distance between A-B and that's less material and less weight.

Anyway regardless I can't believe they're producing new frames without some integrated storage like Specialized. I hear many manufacturers are looking at something similar.
  • + 2
 Sure make the frame sit low on top of the fork crown but then stick 2" of spaces on the steerer to lift the bars to a usable height.. If headtubes where made correct like they used to be there would be no need for spacers and could still do crossups..
  • + 0
 @treekilla road frames don't handle such kinds of stress. Their frames are designed to handle a vibrator not sledge hammer. Bent tube flexes better in a predictable manner and thanks to that fact is stronger than straight one, while being torsionally stiffer as well. It is irrelevant in that case. straight or arched they are plenty strong. If they did it to stop fork from turning too far in, they went for a half arsed solution. Just like with Boost.
  • + 6
 @treekilla: Road tubes are straight because they can be- it's cheaper to manufacture and they don't have a flat crown to clear.

Again, there is no structural principle behind their claims of increased stiffness due to tube shape. Given the same cross section, each tube's area moment of inertia is the same, hence their resistance to bending is the same.

What straight tubes do allow is a more simple mold, and a simplified head tube joint. That cuts way, way down on costs, especially on a big production run.
  • + 2
 @tsheep: but i wonder if the special cock blocker part ends up offsetting the cost of cheaper tubing.
  • + 1
 @adrennan: Maybe a tiny bit- but they're just adding one or two extra cuts to already machined aluminum pieces, and a rubber bumper. It's small change compared to the savings they get from simplified molding, forming, and joining process for the frame (i.e. a couple of bucks vs fifty or a hundred).
  • + 2
 ....they made the down tube straight on this bike to make it as stiff as the slash.... but the slash doesn't have a straight down tube .... lol
  • + 1
 @Janosch: they compromised common sense and you bought into it hook, line, & sinker
  • + 1
 @Vanguard: recumbent MTB with front wheel drive will solve the bb zissue. Butt down low, pedals up high. Win win.
  • + 2
 I'd be curious to survey everyone's memory - what is the earliest bike you remember that had a DT that was curved at the HT and didn't use gussets? And I don't mean Schwinn paperboy bikes.
  • + 3
 Really stoked to see this. One of my favorite features of a downhill bike is that you always have a space (albeit small) to vault yourself through if you jackknife your fork. Among my group of riding friends, getting pinned between your bar and frame has resulted in broken legs, ripped/exposed muscle tissues, ripped testicles and general pain. This is all on single-crown bikes. Stoked to see this.
  • + 1
 @jason-at-specialized:
I remember my 2003 spesh epic had one.
Ever bought c'dale f series before, with straight pyramidal tube shapping, so the epic looks a bit like a bio designed car in comparison.
Cannondale frames were beautiful.
I still own a 2009 f4 I bought just because it was the last batch of frames welded in US.
  • + 1
 @treekilla: That was kinda my point. I currently own two of there bike so I would know.
  • + 1
 @gnralized: Probably good points but I do think stiffness is more than a minor issue. I've had some noodle bikes in the past and they were no good. That being said my 2016 remedy 9.8 is plenty stiff but I'm still all for improvements. I didn't know those noodle bike sucked until I rode something else.
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I'm no engineer and I respect your opinion but I'm gonna say trek knows more about frame design than you or I ever will.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Why don't we hit up @protour , he'll sort it all out for us.
  • + 5
 @jason-at-specialized: it was some Specialized I remember you talked about it in an interview for Pinkbike. I also remember cobra headtubes on 2005 Enduros and first Demos, emulating what tapered head tubes do today. What I found most laughable was when around 2010 Giant and Trek guys said that long travel 29ers will never happen because there is no place for chainring clearance and front mech without making a super long CS. Then you make Enduro 29 while Banshee prime was already there. Then E29 is around already and they claim Boost was needed to shorten the chainstay and make for tyre clearance, while they ABP uses very similar chainstay layout. Then they use special chainstays on Stache to achieve that... Then they mantion wheel stiffness being increased as a byproduct, not the main benefit, WHILE you guys already used offseted hub for dishless wheel on Demo, as Cannondale just did recently.

@mtmtber182 - it has little if anything to do with structure, I don't think it compromises anything, it was you who brought up details. I just commented on that. But I'd say this is a new selling point rather than a rational design decision from a structural perspective. It's just another bullet point on the list of features. Hopefully more companies will stock their bikes with such headsets after a big company like Trek pa es way for the trend.

Now... Trek makes some very nice bikes, Trek Factory store is probably the coolest shop in my Town, with probably best suspension service in Sweden. But their combo of marketing pitch and product management is just bollocks. The only way Trek can sell this wicked idea to me is to make a vid with Emily Batty explaining it all to me. If I was to buy a super light XC fork I'd buy Fox over Sid, because of her. I'm a creep.
  • - 1
 The amount of uneducated guesses is astounding.
  • + 4
 @Janosch: show your credentials then and please let's continue talking about engineering and science in face of a selling pointSmile
  • - 1
 @WAKIdesigns: My credentials? Oh, I'm sorry Mr. engineer, I must have left them in my other pants.
  • + 2
 @Janosch: no worries mate Big Grin you know, you sounded a bit serious with such statement condemning all the troll world, so I thought you had something at the end of your tongue or at the back of your pocket Big Grin cheers!

What is fascinating for me is that usually one post of an engineer from the company shuts stuff down, smelly speculation bubble bursts and there's nothing else left but fresh air and a few butt hurt trolls. But something stops them reps coming in here. Not every company has Jason-at-Specialized Wink
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I didn't want to sound serious. And I do condemn all the troll world. There is nothing positive or constructive trolls "bring to the table". They are an occurrence, which happens when a primitive person comes in touch with the technology. And I don't know why many people consider you and a couple of other guys as trolls. I would call you many things, but not a troll.

Reps tend to ask interesting questions and a lot of those nice and outstanding gentlemen from forums don't have answer to those. So they shut the fu*k up. And I don't blame the reps for staying away. It's a waste of perfectly good time. Would you come here if you were, oh I don't know, Wacek-at-Trek?
  • + 2
 @Janosch: you're perfectly right.
Pinkbikers who loose time on reading and writing posts so deep are a minority and probably not the core target of generalist brands like trek or spesh or c'dale.
So why loose time with that ? The bike will sell anyway because it looks good, got a ton of state of the art engineero-marketing acronymes giving it a high-tech aura, got a solid brand name and a good selling network.
So why bother with pinkbike trolls?
  • + 1
 @tsheep you're na engineer huh?
  • + 2
 @Janosch: how about gullibility (uneducated implication)? You have to be be fairly out of the know not to have seen any number of "improvements" by well established manufacturers in *any* industry, let alone MTBing, in your lifetime that was sold as the greatest thing since sliced bread that later can only be found in the annals of "WTF did they ever think that made any sense"

They created their own standard and there'll only be one place to acquire replacement parts from. Then there is the whole knock/cock block thing. They had to realize it, bet they even thought it was funny, when most people will wonder how they could have been so juvenile minded to have not thought clearer. When you go to buy parts I'm sure there won't be any blocking as you get bent over ....
  • + 1
 @treekilla: Ayup.
  • + 0
 (tl;dr? Then don't.)

That downtube isn't straight, it is curved near the bb. It is fairly straight though. I can't tell anything about ride quality, strength and/or stiffness just from looking at pictures. I lack the internet x-ray to check wall thickness and fibre orientations to be able to tell anything about that, let alone have a look at the calculations. I can compare some geometry numbers to what I'm riding myself and imagine what it'd be like, but that goes only so far for minor differences. If it is massively off, I wouldn't be able to tell. Moreover companies rarely mention how geometry is measured. Is suspension sagged or not? If the (straight bit of the) seattube doesn't intersect the bottom bracket, how is seat tube angle measured? The few companies who do tell have very different ways so the same obviously goes for companies who don't. The main thing I look at when deciding whether I'd like a frame or not is how low the top tube is compared to how long it is. You can derive it from standover, but I'd have to subtract bb height from that for it to make sense. But companies don't get you the bb height, instead you get the bb drop. And as you don't know the axle height (dependent on the tyres mounted) you don't know a thing. In that respect Trek does well here. In fact, I think I'd like the amount of room Trek gives me on board. The fixed seatpost on the alu version is a waste though. I have nothing against fixed seatposts as long as you can drop them down. And this frame design doesn't allow for that so this particular post would get chopped down considerably or be replaced right from the start.

So structural design is near impossible to discuss just from looking at a picture on the internet (though the discussion was amusing, thank you for that) and geometry is a can of worms. Especially on bikes with suspension and in particular if (and which is usually the case) it is not given how the geometry numbers are measured. There is one major flaw that turns all these "carefully designed" geometries into major bullshit. And unlike structural design, it doesn't take a degree to see this. Which is that the chainstay length remains fixed throughout the sizes! Really, whereas wheelbase increases by about 100mm from smallest to largest, the chainstay (which is well over 2/3 of the wheelbase) just remains fixed. Yes some very carefully designed frames like the incredible On One 456EVO2 get that treatment, but this care is not given to the design of some random Trek Fuel or S-Works Stumpjumper FSR. Ok, I'm provoking a bit here. I do understand that changing the chainstay length affects the suspension design. But isn't that worth it? We probably all agree that geometry is more important than suspension design. Or well, at least I do think so. Yes it may imply that the amount of travel is going to change between sizes and my guess (yeah, guess, sorry) is that companies are just afraid for bad responses if they're the first to differentiate between sizes. "Hey, my husband and I bought identical frames, same kind of money. But I'm only getting 128mm of rear wheel travel whereas he gets a whopping 132mm. Yeah he is taller than me, but that doesn't differ with other brands. Why are you treating women differently?" Oh boy, how are you going to set that straight? Somehow Norco does actually size the rear end proportionally (without affecting travel though probably effecting suspension kinematics), probably after input from (relatively short ex team rider) Ben Reid. So that's a company that actually designs all their bikes, not just designs a single one and slaps the same rear end onto their different sized front triangles. Just look at their "Range" bike, the rear center goes from 419mm up to 436mm. From the companies that stick with a single chainstay length (@jason-at-specialized, now that you're here anyway), it would be fair if they'd tell which size gets the proper geometry and which get the compromises.

Back to the curved or straight downtubes. I'm not too interested in the results from the survey Jason started. As frames are released per model year, it is probably like figuring out whether ABP or DW-link was first. I just like the tubes straight from an aesthetics point of view. This Trek does fairly well for me. There was a time when Specialized came with a BigHit and an Enduro SX (maybe it is when they dropped the "Enduro" name and forgot what "SX" was about) when the downtubes were so curved they were a bit ugly in my eyes. Which doesn't mean they may have been beautiful for someone else. And regardless, they were probably fine from a functional and structural point of view. I love that new Orange Four, for instance. And that is purely a matter of taste. Others might not like the Orange and prefer the tubes much more curved than on this Trek. That doesn't mean either the Trek or the Orange would fail prematurely.

And in my experience very often someone from a company would comment on PB after a product release. I recall Suntour does. Cesar Rojo from Unno bikes answered my questions perfectly well. Then apparently Trek doesn't. So it both happens. Obviously if the shitstorm as already started and the commenters don't really seem to stand to reason, I can imagine those people from those companies may feel it not to be worth it.
  • + 1
 @TheUnknownMTBR: I'm not sure if you realize, but you are implying (indicating the existence of something by suggestion) a lot of things.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns has a great memory.

I was curious to see if people cared or remembered the shift from straight tubes to curved tubes. Apparently not so much.

If history is any indication, we also won't care or remember if/when the pendulum shifted back from curved to straight, should that become the case in the future. And that is OK. Some evolutions happen organically without great fanfare.
  • + 1
 @jason-at-specialized: which brings us back to the original point which was critique of sales pitch of selling a new headset, where you motivate it by making a straight tube (for whatever reason you find necessary). I give 10000$ that shape of downtube won't win any medal, EVER so why don't we mention the only true benefit of that headset, in fact a huge benefit, that is not allowing the bars to hit the top tube. It is a reason why people use more headset spacers than they may actually need, or use bars with more rise than necessary. Beleive it or not but I heard that argument on trail this very week. Top of the heel three guys stop up there and one of them tells another one to put in more spacers on his XC bike because bars will hit his fresh carbon top tube.

Block Lock type headsets becoming a norm on complete bikes in 3 years, YES please. Down tube/ Headtube interface bollocks - go fiddle yourself. Stiffness... for fuks sake I can't believe I got drawn into this.
  • + 1
 @wolf-amongst-lambs: But the Slash is heavier.
  • + 1
 My son's Giant Pre 12.5" run bike has a pinned headset to stop the bars going round. It cost £60 for the complete bike.
  • + 1
 @Vanguard: I have a Trek Slash and the pedal strikes are indeed numerous
  • + 1
 The knock block ... another compromise restricting compatibility trying to make useless things sound special. They could have made a longer head-tube, protruding below the down tube. The head tube length is not reported in the table but it looks quite short ... and they built the bike with plenty of spacers under the stem. What is this stuff?!
  • + 44
 Yes... Yessss... Let the hate flow pinkbikers...
  • + 17
 I clicked the article only to read the hate on the comments
  • + 29
 What is the point of making these extra wide tires with a shitty tread pattern, why not just put some tires with more agressive tread pattern on a normal size bike? Equip the regular fuel ex with a DHF ST front and HR2 60a rear in exo casing and it'll have plenty of grip (or DHR2 for less rolling resistance)
  • + 11
 Because standards.
  • + 28
 Because new bike sales
  • + 54
 That's exactly what plus size bikes are all about, its a new dumb standard to do the same job but a different way, grip obtained through soft compound and aggressive tread is replaced by an increased contact area to achieve grip, reduced rolling resistance created by a narrower tyre is obtained by low profile tread and hard durometers, competative weight is achieved by paper thin sidewalls and in return, pinch protection by increased tyre volume... So in a parking lot test or at a smoothed out trail centre, the bike will feel virtually the same... However once you start pushing the sidewalls feel vague and the bike feels bouncy and doesn't dig in when leaning over on loose terrain, but that's fine if you're a slow poke... Plus tyres are a pure marketing gimmick Imo, the industry wasn't happy with everyone buying 650b, now they're trying to peddle something else to the consumer, albeit by force, again!
  • + 8
 @ctd07: Couldn't said it better myself.
  • + 10
 @ctd07: my friend said it the best. We're not old enough yet for plus bikes. Once I'm grey and old I may reconsider plus bikes and man diapers. Until then, Ahhhhh hell no.
  • + 5
 @saski - Because then how are you gonna sell bikes to fat old guys with no skills?
  • + 11
 26" minion 2.7"...best tire ever made...period. can we please just have that back and be done with all the "plus-sized" talk bollocks, maxxis?
  • - 3
 @ctd07: Have you ridden a + bike or a full suspension fat bike?
  • + 4
 @ctd07: Respectfully, there is a noticeable advantage at least for me. I had no intention of grabbing a "plus" bike, but after demoing the new SC hightower, I did just that. not only did I have a blast riding it, my normal times on trail loops were faster. I was a skeptic. I've converted.
  • + 1
 @ctd07: I was on a 25lbs 27.5 bike and made the switch to a 27.5+ alloy bike at 31.5lbs. I've managed to get my best KOM's on the plus bike despite the weight difference. Granted they are on rocky and technical trails. It isn't for everyone but it sure as hell covers my technical weaknesses. I'll take it!
  • + 9
 @kanter: I felt the exact same way as @ctd07, then I rode one.
  • + 1
 @kanter: Dammit, meant to give you props. Wanted to say the exact same thing. Bought a plus bike to ride on the snow in the winter (something I wouldn't do on my 2.2"-tired bike), and fine myself riding it all the time now, even though the snow is all gone.
  • + 1
 I have a 27 lb Intense Tracer and a 33 lb Foes Mutz. On certain trails I'm faster on my Mutz and on other trails I'm faster on the Tracer. I love fat and + bikes.
  • + 5
 Honestly, I got the chance to ride a 27.5+ bike for a few hours at a demo day, and it's pretty unreal. Unless you look down at the front wheel, you don't even realise you're on some monstrosity, it's just a fun bike that goes really fast. I'm sold on the 27.5+ concept, my nexy bike is going to be one
  • + 7
 I mean I know it's to sell new bikes but it amazes me how many people actually buy them, then again when I worked in a shop I saw a lot of people who have no idea what they want + too much money so they just buy whatever they're told is in at the moment. The stuff that actually provides real benefits is usually first seen at the top level of the sport...
  • + 4
 @ctd07: I don't think plus size is a direct competitor to regular knobs. I've spent some time on 3.0 Chronicles and they were shit if you ask me on an aggressive hardtail - my dampf/nic combo held a line way better and could run almost similarly low pressures at about the same weights. 29ers roll better too if you ask me. But on a rigid bike / single speed or on a winter bike in less snowy places I thing more chunky tires would be great as you put less demands on them. It's like a high performance car vs jeep, one is gonna be better in certain places. I'm not convinced that they they are ideally suited to the same styles of riding or conditions, least not yet. A 2.5 or 2.6 on a 30ish interal rim seems like a good sweet spot in my mind, but I have yet to try it.
  • + 10
 @gtill9000: It'd be hilarious to see the difference in these comments if everyone in them had ridden a 650b+....
  • + 4
 @minotro: I'm curious how different the Hightower is from your normal set up...... it may not necessarily have been the + tires that made the difference.
  • + 1
 @Boardlife69: I said the same thing about 29ers, but now I love every moment on my remedy 29 and at 25 years old I have yet to find a grey hair. I'm not completely sold on plus tires for all of my riding either, but I do see a time and a place for it. Personally I think this new bike looks pretty rad.
  • + 2
 @ctd07: Vee rubber and WTB make tires with decent side walls and aggressive treads. They are worth the extra weight, and roll just as fast as a 29r. I ride faster than I ever have on the 3" tires at 18 psi front, 22 rear. I weigh 185# The transition to plus wheels has blown my mind! I am able to leap tall buildings in a single bound X)
  • + 5
 @Chonky13: Man, you really don't notice the weight? I used to be on 2.25 nobby nics with KOM i23 rims, now I'm on Dampfs/Nics on i25 KOMs and lemme tell you, I don't go up anything faster. Aside from Schwalbe most 3.0s are pushing 1000 grms and the rims are heavy AF. I don't think weight makes the ride, but rotating is the one area that I really notice a change in performance. If I was mainly going down stuff it would make far less difference, but my trails have lots of short steep ups with little momentum and it gets tiring/irrtating pushing heavy wheels up. Get those 3.0s packed with mud and watch out! Just my take.
  • + 0
 I admit I haven't ridden a + bike yet, but I do know how a 29er handles and I don't like it, it's a wagon wheel. Where do you find + tires better, is it corner grip, something else...? Also to be a fair comparison it should be done with 2 bikes where the only difference is the wheels. The normal one should have some proper tires, a nobby nic is not a proper tire for comparison.
  • + 2
 @ctd07: ya but what about when they incorporate those more aggressive tread patterns onto the bigger wheel sizes? then you get an even better product right? right.
  • + 2
 @ctd07: Personally, I picked up a 6fattie from spec this season going into with an open mind, and I was pleasantly surprised. Coming from only having owned burlier freeride full squish bikes and 6 inch fork hardtails that is. I mean sure, these bikes look awkward on paper, but with the suspension set up stiff with 20ish psi in the tires, you suddenly get a playful, poppy bike that jumps pretty well. Its like having 20mm of wide open high speed compression and rebound. I mostly ride shorter DH tracks, jump trails, and freeride features (jumps, drops 6-10 feet) in my local MA trails, and I wouldn't say its a gimmick or worse tech. It's honestly just a different animal for people who want to try something else. I run spec purgatory tires front and rear, sure I've dinged the rear a couple times, but no shitting pinches or anything yet. I'd say just try one out on the gnarliest trails you have and feel the difference. Not better or worse, just different.
  • + 1
 @Stayslacking: This kinda riding or rock crawling seem like the best application of mid-fats for sure.
  • + 2
 @WasatchEnduro: well your right in that there are so many variables, but in my case this is easy. I had a 2012 26" santacruz blur LTC so it was very easy to isolate the advantages being so similar. I can say that the 11 speed drive train gave a slight leg up, but I most notice the advantage on the climbs I have some techy rooty rocky climbs that are just gobbled up and with the lower tire pressure I'm able to run I notice some of the rocks and roots that used to require more control on my part are now able to hold the line much easier. it's not the height of the tire as it's only 2.8, it's the width and the low pressure on those 40 id rims.

I also don't notice that the rear travel is slightly less.
  • + 8
 If + tires were really faster, wouldn't we see more of them in enduro races??
  • + 1
 double posted for some reason...
  • + 2
 @skelldify: Racers are even more resistant to change than Pinkbike goons. Look how anti 29" this place is even though its won multi EWS races.
  • + 1
 @ctd07: I am guessing you haven't ridden a Surly Dirt Wizard. Big and aggressive.
  • + 2
 @JesseE: Chronicles aren't that agressive try a Dirt Wizard.
  • + 1
 @JesseE: You have to keep your momentum and the rotational mass helps you out. It's the stop start stuff that kills heavy tyres.
  • + 3
 @fartymarty: Nothing like a single speed to teach you how to maintain momentum! The dirt wizards look great, but total overkill on smooth stuff we have on my local trails - least for me. Funny, I felt like a poser putting on a dampf cause I didn't "need a tire that aggressive". Mid fat with side knobs takes it to a whole new level of grip, I'm sure. All 29ers should just have clearance for B+ so we can all mess with our bikes when we get bored.
  • + 2
 @minotro: Fair enough, gonna try to get some demo time on a + this summer.
  • + 2
 Those tires grip like crazy man.... Ride them before you hate.
  • - 1
 Lol how everyone tries to justify their decision by claiming I haven't ridden them, I wouldn't bother commenting if i didn't have an opinion, I expect on hardpack trails they would be awesome, where I ride is all loose and rocky, I found when you push into a corner hard the up'd and over and slid more, didn't like them when pushing hard, but couldn't really see much wrong when cruising, they're great for a casual trail cruiser or on the right trails, but I wouldn't consider them a serious setup choice if you want to ride technical loose and steep stuff. Not really a necessary change at the very learst
  • + 1
 @ctd07: I wish I could just give you my setup to check out man, really. You obviously have your opinions set in stone, and "your trails" are the gnarliest there are. All I can say is that you can ride anything on any bike. The rider makes the bike, not the other way around.
  • + 1
 @Stayslacking: Check the recent review by rob warner, Steve peat and crew, the plus size tyres flatted a lot as soon they were ridden over rough stuff, I struggle enough with flats as its is with normal tyres and tubeless, they do not appear to be able to hold up to hard riding
  • + 0
 I'm scare of: 1) that 27.5+ .... 2) Bontrager "Chupacabras" ... 3) the price
  • + 27
 Now tied in to specific headsets and stems to prevent damaging your frame... Soon we'll all be riding a bike with stock spec because nothing else will fit.
  • + 17
 Yeah remember the Giant version - bloody hopeless
  • + 5
 I wouldn't mind it if the fork and the stem were keyed so when you install the stem it's perfectly aligned. That'd actually be useful.
  • + 2
 @UtahBikeMike: That would actually be a pretty ballin' system if you could get component makers to agree on a standard.
  • + 24
 Whoa, I almost cared. Not looking forward to when squids on plus-sized carbon electric bikes take over the trails.
  • + 4
 Its happening in enduro already if you look at vital or dirtmtb, not that pb would publicise anything negative about the retired downhillers past time of 'enduroing'. 'e-bike used for practise at an enduro race' lol
  • + 23
 so metric size is 210 x 52.5? wow so much for easy to understand metric sizing. hey rock shox, stop proving cant wrong.
  • + 10
 It's para-metric
  • + 22
 Calling the new shock sizes "metric" is one of the daftest things the bike industry has come up with lately.
  • + 9
 @Crossmaxx: so if we just convert an imperial size into millimeters, its metric, right? so...they've all been metric this entire time? or not? 210x52.5mm sounds a farkload like 8 1/4" x 2"...im confused...no, hang on, im not. create another make-believe standard and sell some more shit. FFS do manufacturer sales reps read these comments and feel like bottom-feeders? i really hope they do.
  • + 2
 @Crossmaxx: agreed, soooo stupid.
  • + 1
 52.5 (just like 25.4 and 31.Cool is Canadian Metric. :-)
  • + 1
 I wasn't aware Fox is on board as well. To call it metric is silly, of course.
  • + 18
 I really struggle to find the +'s with this bike.

Seat tube that doesn't have enough depth, looks like that post isn't far off full insertion.
Crazy slack seat tube so once you have the seat up you are in a terrible pedalling position relative to the bb.
Kink in the top tube adjacent to the head tube for no apparent reason.
Headset stop system to stop fork hitting downtube. Rubber guards on downtube.
2x11 = reverb lever in poor position.
Horrendous cable routing around the bb area.
Big tyres with little knobs- umm for good grip on hardpack?
  • + 7
 but it has water bottle mounts
  • + 1
 Effective seat tube is 74°... Oh, right, anything below 90° is slack nowadays.
  • + 2
 @passwordpinkbike: The taller you are the more reduced that effective seat tube angle becomes.
  • + 2
 @jclnv: Which is good. Taller people tend to have longer femurs and need a slacker seat angle for good pedaling ergos. Just hope the bike still handles right...
  • + 3
 @scottzg: they also have much more weight behind the main pivot (instant centre really) meaning the suspension is more effected by weight transfer when climbing.

You're right regarding the ergonomics. What really needs to happen to correct all this is size specific rear centre lengths which some of us have been asking for for years. No doubt we'll get a load more bullshit like the Knock Block before we see any progress on that though.
  • + 2
 @jclnv: Truth. Norco and on-one have models that correct for that, and it's normal on road bikes. MTB industry DGAF about good fit, though.
  • + 0
 @scottzg: at least Trek has 5 sizes... I'm in between on so many brands but Trek always has something pretty close
  • + 0
 actually 6 sizes apparently compare to Intense with just 4
  • + 18
 Now THIS is the wheelsize that I want to die.
  • + 4
 Don't forget fat bikes!!
  • - 5
flag PHeller (May 26, 2016 at 9:58) (Below Threshold)
 What wheelsize? 275? These are just bigger tires. Man tires.
  • + 3
 you want 29 to die? because that's all 27.5+ is. this bike gives the option of either, but so did the 2016 remedy/fuel 29ers. right now Trek is offering 2016 27.5 Fuel/Remedy at a discount. 29ers are still full price. That says everything. 29 won. Its over.
  • + 1
 @deadtime: people act like wheelsize changes are the end of the world. What's the end of the world are hubs standards that can't be easily adapted. Blame the manufactures for not thinking outside the box when designing tire clearance, flip chips, and adjustable geometry years ago. Banshee has been doing it, you can run 275x2.8 up to 29x3.0 on a Phantom with different dropouts. No Boost Hubs or Cranks, just a design that allows customers to experiment. The future is bright, I forsee in a few years we'll have lightweight bikes that can be ran 29x3.0 with 100mm travel, 275x2.8 with 140mm travel, or 275x2.5 with 160mm travel. Chainstays that can be shortened with dropouts and BB height that can be adjusted via flip chips. One bike, many options.
  • + 0
 To make your futurama optimized you can trow in the patented automatic BB height /sag adjustment from www.tantrumcycles.com
I raises the BB and HTA) when pedaling to avoid ground clearing issues. But instantly drops the BB when coasting or hitting a obstacle that overrides the chain tension.
Best of both worlds with out any flippchipping or "OnTheFly" remote decisions fiddling. One Bike, infinit options, always...
  • + 12
 So now you need a propriety stem, spacer and headset to go with your new tyre, wheel and axle size standards, to go inline with your extra bottom bracket and shock length standard.... forgive me if I've missed any standards, I cant keep up! Just putting it out there, I think trek are trying to corner 'a' market! Not sure which!?
  • + 4
 Their own aftermarket.
  • + 10
 Seriously? If you're going to do a Plus bike, don't limit yourself to the smallest tire size option. Specialized's FSR 6Fattie and Rocky Mountain's Pipeline full suspension options will clear the largest tires available even though they ship mid-range 3.0s. Rocky's Sherpa will also clear a 3.25 tire even though it ships with 2.8s and is considered an "overland adventure" bike for bike packing / touring. And they do it without proprietary headsets and frames that can contact the fork crowns. There is ANOTHER valid reason for allowing someone to rotate the bar/fork around more... fitting it into a car easier if one doesn't use an external rack system. The rest of the "features" don't bother me at all, not even the metric shock sizing since so many brands already ran exclusive shock sizing (specialized especially is known for it). so as to make replacement shocks a special order item for most stores.
  • + 3
 They didn't have to redesign the chainstays - I just fit those same tires on a 2014 Fuel EX 29er.
  • + 2
 @deeeight I'm with you on this. I'm not buying a new bike to fit 275x2.8 when my current bikes can do that. The whole idea behind the Plus bike thing is versatility. 29x2.5, 275x3.25, 275x2.5 with adjustable geometry. The manufacturers are still trying to get us to own multiple bikes.
  • + 11
 I'm sure i could learn about all this new innovative stuff, but i just can't be fucked.
  • + 8
 Someone had way too much tequila designing this rig! Interrupted seat tube? Fail! Knock block? Knock knock gimmicky Plus size? This bike has an identity crisis!
  • + 9
 Love the blacked out stanchions and shock shaft
  • + 5
 I think that bike has perfect geometry for a 140mm trail bike- decently slack, not too short chainstays, and oh so low a BB. That thing must rail the tight and twisties... I'd love to demo it.
  • + 3
 The 9.8 looks lovely, but the whole 'knock block' thing is a dumb idea, solving a problem that was solved years ago by changing the shape of the down tube. And also, a $5000 bike with Fox forks and I don't get Factory, kashima coatings? Seems like pretty poor VFM there.
  • + 8
 I recon kashima will make zero difference on the trail compared to this black coating...
  • + 3
 Cables ripped and/or brake hoses streched never happened to you in a bad crash? I think it's a great idea, it is high time something like this comes.
  • + 2
 I've gone down too many times and had the bars spin hard, including bike tumble-down-mountain-mode, and the only time I ever blew a brake line was with the sharp edge of a dual crown fork crown. I dunno, maybe I'm just lucky.
This looks like a solution to a problem that didn't exist any more until Trek decided to recreate it.

As far as the rest of the bike goes, ya, two wheels... meh, it's another bike. But this cock block thing is just a bandaid for something that should have never made it to production. But hey, that's just my opinion!

Edit: After taking a closer look, I have to say the kink in the top tube really kills the design of the frame. That being said if someone was handing these out for free, I wouldn't say no.
  • + 1
 @EnduroManiac: No, never.
  • + 1
 @rjhayter: And brake lever hitting the toptube? I have my stem as high as I can on uncut steerer tube and there's less than 5 mm clearance... If the lever is turned down a tiny bit (user preference or consequence of a crash) then bang, your nice carbon or paintjob.
Sorry but that's a good idea. People love complaining about new things (my eyes pointed at the ceiling when I first read about SuperBoost). Like disc brakes (who needs that), suspension (useless extra weight) or dropper seatpost.... Plus this one is not even a new "standard" taht makes it fully uncompatible with your old bike parts. You can still mount your fork on it.
  • + 2
 Plus size tire sis a welcome new addition to MTB. There are a lot of riders that are welcoming the plus size and I am one of them. Good thing is that for those that don't like it they just are not forced to buy it. It's that easy. Instead find something else to wine about like why we don't have a mandatory MTB in schools for an example.
  • + 3
 I demoed it on Monday night and I was thoroughly unimpressed... the knock block is annoying, there is only room for 2.8 tires, the stock tires have no grip in mud, and the reach felt too short....
  • + 5
 all these people hating on stuff they have never tried lol so much butt hurt
  • + 1
 I do look forward to a ride on 2.8 or 3.0 rubber to see how it fits my style of riding as that is where the market has gone....a flavour for everyone! I slipped on a set of 33mm internal wheels on my SB66 and remounted the same rubber from my old rims. Result is a 26er that climbs the nasties wet or dry better and seems more forgiving in most all situations and with the low psi does not lock up in the roots as all the 26ers I have ridden.The overall tire height increases to 26.75 in! Hey I am now a snobby 26.75er ONLY dude! Bottom line is I enjoy the ride more and I needed a new wheel set.
  • + 1
 It's nice to look at but I'm just not excited about this bike at all. Our Trek rep was in last week and was just telling us how this is one of the best bikes ever made blah blah blah it was hard for me to sit there and not go.... meh..
  • + 1
 Hmm could 27.5+ be the death of 26, 650B and the 29r for the recreational rider?. Sure if you DJ or DH race 26 might still be your go to and if you xc race than 29 has the advantage, but what if you just ride for the most fun?.... found this and it's worth a share youtu.be/w6TMA2vI8bA Is + the bike industries version of the shaped ski?
  • + 0
 sorry couldn't get the link to show up as a link
  • + 1
 I got abit excited when i heard this bike was being released.Price wise though,you can get a Scott 720plus with a fox 34 and a dropper post,same travel for nearly the same coin as the ex5 or a stumpjumper comp fattie for under 3grand aus.Probably get cheaper still when the 2017 bikes come out in a few months....
  • + 2
 Okay, but hang on a minute. Metric shocks from Rock Shox and Fox? I thought Fox hadn't announced that they were going metric. There was that big coalition and Fox wasn't in it. Did I miss that announcement?
  • + 2
 I got to ride the XT build today.... Oh my god this bike is just insanely fun. I couldn't believe how wide the diameter of the bars are and the bike is so insanely smooth and grippy. I want one bad!
  • + 1
 Nice bike, although I feel like this whole 27.5,26,29, 650b blah blah blah is played out between the industry and consumers like the scene in There's something about Mary with 7 minute abs. If you have no clue what I'm talking about punch it into youtube.
  • + 3
 I feel like I could crack that seat tube after by riding that bike for 2 seconds.
  • + 4
 Who seriously would buy something like that, who buys that ?
  • + 1
 Interesting that this rig, with nearly the same #'s as the Mojo3 27.5+, will run 29, but they don't recommend running regular sized 27.5 tires.

Is there any science left in the world?
  • + 1
 Way to go trek....just kiddin you still suck! Fox has those black uppers now I almost forgot they are trying to make people that dont have gold feel inferior. Not to mention all the bontrager stuff. Looks like a d bag trio.
  • + 3
 I like my 160mm 26" with 2.7 maxxis mobsters,I don't need 2.8 and less travel
  • + 3
 No dedicated 29er you say?
The trek fuel ex is shown in 29 on the website...
  • + 6
 Through in some 29er wheels and it would be a sick trail bike!

Slack, short, and low = fun and fast
  • + 1
 @bjorntsc: interesting that it's as stiff as the slash? So is that a hint a new updated remedy29 using same front triangle?
  • + 0
 @coxy-1000"...At the moment, there's no dedicated 29” version of the Fuel EX in Trek's upcoming lineup."
  • + 1
 @bjorntsc: for real, I wonder if this is gonna cannibalize the remedy 29 a bit and the fuel ex 29 also? It's right between both of those. Looks super versatile.
  • + 4
 @enduroFactory: What's going to be the really big news is what Trek has up their sleeve for the new Slash... Trek know's the Remedy stepped all over the slash so they knew it was time for some big changes.
  • + 3
 @brockfisher05: I don't suppose you have details about the new Slash that you'd like to share? :-)
  • + 2
 @charmingbob: Just gonna have to wait Wink I don't want to lose my insiders Smile
  • + 2
 @brockfisher05: Wonder if they will upgrade Semenuk's bike too with knob block?
  • + 1
 I can personally tell you that the new EX will fit not only regular 29er but also a 29x3.0 on the front.
  • + 3
 Meh, Pass. The only good thing about this bike is the head angle for a trail bike.
  • + 2
 "Keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg as far as Trek's 2017 models go"... Are you sure it's not the tip of the 'Knock Block'?
  • + 4
 If you buy this bike you have made a mistake
  • + 2
 "...the fact that Trek would revamp one of their most popular models shows they feel there's a definite demand out there" - yeah, from the manufacturers.
  • + 1
 the rubber thing on the bottom of the dt will be helpful on the shuttle trailer. my current bike is a bit scratched in that area but I don't care because shuttle.
  • + 1
 Doesn't look like there's a whole lot of room for seat post height adjustment on that frame. Personally I like to slam my post as low as it can go at the top of steep trails.
  • + 3
 I think the demand for the 200mm dropper just got waaaay bigger
  • + 2
 that seat tube seems extremely slack, limited to specific post lengths and not for riders with long legs....
  • + 2
 I often ponder when reading pink bike comments, do any of you actually _like_ mountain biking?
  • + 0
 Treck just found a way to sell more bikes with more tires .
yayyyyyyyy.
How bout 26 plus tires. ?
29 plus tires? Those out yet?
Nothing like increasing your outer rotational mass to (improve?) The performance of your bike.
  • + 1
 Trek came out with the 29 plus Stache over a year ago.
  • + 1
 Surly did 26 and 29 plus years ago.
  • + 2
 Almost every fat bike is 26+
  • + 1
 Am I behind the curve on this being the first time I am seeing the blacked out Fox suspension. Looks way better than the Kashima!
  • + 2
 No session 29" ? Or trek doesnt like to be late, as KHS and Intense already have a 29" dh !
  • + 7
 Sooon! They can't decide which electric motor to put on it Wink
  • - 2
 No need for an engine, this thing would be unstoppable in the right hands! Anyway i ll stick to my 26" giant trance
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: or instead of adding an engine you can just be a real man and peddle it.
  • + 2
 I called an engine Just For You Wiki
  • + 2
 @properp: may God have mercy on your soul... Big Grin
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: thanks bro I knew you'd like it
  • + 2
 Holy slack seat tube angle! Is that what you hafta do to fit plus tires on a bike?
  • + 4
 26 or die
  • + 6
 RIP
  • - 1
 no words can explain this but in other worlds this bike maybe the only thing the aliens ride. this should be sent back to space before it transforms every other bike out there.
  • + 2
 But a Canyon - they should sue
  • + 3
 Looks like a session
  • + 1
 So all Trek Fuel EX frames get the humpback treatment for 2017? Will there be a Fuel EX 27.5 for 2017?
  • + 1
 Wouldn't this be like riding a double crown where you just can't do some really slow speed moves?
  • + 0
 That "dip" behind the head tube is one of the ugliest things I've seen in a bit..... Bikes need to look burlier not more anemic.....
  • + 1
 All that matters to me, can I take the swing arm of this bike and mount it onto my 2013 Fuel Ex 7?
  • - 2
 Plus tires work! I own a Trek Stache 5 and it rips! I can ride faster, climb steeper and looser sections, brake harder before corners without skidding and lay the bike down further. The grip is just crazy. Lower the seat and it is like being on a mini motorbike. Those complaining about changing standards don't know jack about innovation. This happens in all sports. In auto racing it's all about maintaining grip to transfer power. Wider tires do that and allow more control at higher speed. There are trade off's on bikes like the bounce affect and the increased rolling resistance after airing down...I usually only air down at the top. Right now I am more interested in the Ibis Mojo 3 than this new trek. It got great reviews.
  • + 2
 Hate the look of that bike!!!!! Don't ask y, I just do
  • + 2
 Wondering if @protour would approve the suspension design and tire choice.
  • + 2
 Nokia needs to bring back the Gazza 3" tires!
  • + 1
 Despite everyone's complaining about standards, this is one damn good looking bike!
  • - 1
 Agreed. I'm usually a fan of Trek's, but damn, that's one impressive looking bike.
  • + 0
 Except for the Knock Block...
  • - 1
 @Vanguard: Crap, I missed the "not" in my previous sentence!
  • + 2
 That is a really really really ugly bike.
  • + 1
 It's so ugly that size 18.5 is already out of stock after being on the market for 48 hours.
  • + 2
 @deadtime: Did they only make 5?
Did you know that the toyota camry is the best selling car in the US? Honestly, cars don't get much uglier that that. No accounting for taste.
  • + 1
 @Dobbs59: exactly, the camry, according to you, is ugly. yet it still sells 400,000. and you probably think the camry, as a car, sucks. but nothing sells faster.... like this fuel.
  • + 1
 @deadtime: As I said. There is no accounting for taste. Just because something is popular (and I'm far from convinced that this bike qualifies as popular), it doesn't make it good.
  • + 1
 @Dobbs59: sometimes popularity DOES denote quality. Dark Side of the Moon has been sold the most, is it bad? And if American buyers had problems with the Camry they'd stop buying it, yet they don't, 10 years running. Your argument just doesn't work with these two examples. What you decide as ugly may only apply to your eyes.
  • + 1
 @deadtime: I'm not going to caveat every thing I say with "IMHO".
And judging by the comments, plenty of others think it's a pig too!
  • + 1
 This bike isn't utilizing Super Boost Plus 157. It's already out dated.
  • + 0
 Look everyone jizz over the new over rated trek quick!!!! My 2012 reign still looks better!!!
  • + 2
 Fugly. Really Fugly
  • + 2
 No barspins?
  • + 1
 Can't do barspins? What's the point?
  • + 1
 Green dragster with stick shift - woo-hoo
  • + 1
 Can you even adjust that seat post?
  • + 0
 this week trek kill the xup
  • + 0
 That headtube angle is a bit evil ????
  • - 1
 Was going to say something really witty or funny but I just go with what a piece of crap!
  • + 1
 Looks F-ing sweet, imo.
  • + 1
 Fk plus size!
  • + 0
 You've got to be a special kind of stupid to buy one of these things
  • + 3
 I'm buying 3 of them, bro.
  • + 1
 TReks look brutal
  • + 0
 2X drivetrain. Here's the song for that: youtu.be/aZ-C21uGnBY
  • + 1
 Oh for fu*ks sake.
  • - 1
 Bet this will go down well with pbers... oh wait
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.123761
Mobile Version of Website