Descending The traits that largely define how the Fuel EX climbs - active, forgiving suspension - play an even more important role in the bike's personality when the hard part is behind you and it's time for dessert. The same could be said of the previous version, too, but we're asking a hell of a lot more of our trail bikes on the downhills these days than we were just a few short years ago.
One thing that you won't ever have to ask the Fuel twice for is traction and compliance. Fox and Trek have put together what feels like a stiction-free suspension system, which is obviously not possible, but the back of the bike could trick you into believing exactly that. The high-volume, mid-weight Bontrager rubber has to be a factor in that, so I installed a set of Maxxis tires on both the Trek and another soon-to-be-released trail bike with the same intentions and similar travel. The result? The Fuel EX was still magnitudes more forgiving, despite having the same tires at the same pressure and the sag being within a few millimeters of each other.
The active suspension does well to smooth out edges and chatter that would upset a lot of other trail bikes.
Sure, one big hit could ruin your day, but it's really the thousands and thousands of smaller, chattery impacts that erode your body and abilities over hours and hours of riding. On the Trek, it feels like there might only be a few hundred of those during a ride, and that's the kind of thing that makes a massive difference over a long day, or even just a long, tiring downhill. The bike is magic at muting that sort of stuff, and as you'd expect, it's not as likely to deflect off of such things than a less forgiving machine, which makes a lot of those "Ohhhh shit'' moments disappear.
I sort of want to describe descending the on Fuel EX as being a relatively calm experience given how it eats that small to mid-sized chatter that usually upsets bikes in this category, but that's only half the story.
Here's the other half. When things ramp up, be it your speed or the trail's intensity, that forgiving suspension starts to feel a little bit too forgiving when the shock is left in the open mode. It's almost as if you've eaten a few too many servings of dessert and gained a pound or ten. It'll take the edge away from roots and rocks, sure, but it can also make it harder to understand what's happening under you if that makes any sense. Let me put it this way: When I'm on a short-ish travel bike like the Fuel, I expect to have to think about what's under my tires and what I'm pointing at - that's part of the fun. But when I'm pushing hard with the suspension left open, it often comes across like it's trying to be a 150mm bike, only not in the way I'd like it to.
The Fuel EX is most at home covering ground and focusing on fun. You can get loose on it, too, but that's not its MO.
With the Fox shock in the open mode and the O-ring saying just under 25-percent sag, dynamic moves that require a lot of body English and commitment weren't as comfortable as I would have hoped. The 130mm of squish felt much deeper than that at those moments, and the result is a vague, imprecise ride when you're at your personal ten-tenths.
Let me beat some of you to the comment section: ''Levy, you idiot, just run less sag or, you know, firm the shock up with that blue lever like Trek intended.'' Yes, the bike was much more to my liking at those ten-tenths efforts when it was in the middle setting, but there are plenty of other short-travel bikes that work well all the time without needing a different suspension mode.
I did firm it up anyway, though, for science, and I tried a few different kinds of smaller-volume rubber as well. Those changes lit a fire under the Fuel's ass, and I was much more comfortable on it when things got hairy (for a trail bike). For riders who seek out the hairy, I suspect that the Fox shock's blue lever will offer more of a wet and/or cruisy mode (open) and a dry, go-fast mode (firm), which isn't a terrible way to look at it at all. Trek's best-of-both-worlds approach to the Fuel's suspension is effective, that's for sure, but I'd like to see it offer more support and ramp-up so the bike could spend most or even all of its time in the open mode.
Plenty of traction and revised geometry make the new Fuel EX much more capable than the previous version.
On the handling front, this is easily the most capable Fuel EX that Trek has ever created. No surprises there given the geometry changes, and it allows the 130mm bike to comfortably roll into chutes that I'm not sure I would have been so flippant about if I was aboard on the previous version. We all know how this goes; it's less pointy, less nervous, more composed, and therefore more confidence-inspiring. There, review done! Not really, though, as I have to say that while Trek could have easily added much more length than they did and also have gone a bit slacker, not doing so keeps the new Fuel from losing that nimbleness that some other bikes are happily trading away to go pretend enduro-ing.
The Fuel EX is still a trail bike through and through, and while it might love the steep and gnarly a whole lot more than the previous version did, it's still a hoot to ride on rolling, flowy descents. Of course, you'll likely want the suspension to be firm-ish to get the most out of said rolling descent, so don't hesitate to reach for the shock's go-switch.
The revised geometry has opened up more terrain to the Fuel, which is exactly what should be happening with the all these new trail bikes, but it's also easy to ride. It doesn't ask you to take a different approach to an ultra-tight corner or awkward section of trail, and it's still relatively stable when the corner is ultra-fast or there's no berm to save your ass.
Is the Fuel EX one of the most capable trail bikes out there? Nope, as its forgiving suspension and middle of the road geometry keep it from getting that nod, but it is the kind of bike that's going to be at home in a wide variety of terrain, some pretty damn steep and scary lines included.
Does that mean Trek has the T.W.A.T box?
happyride.se/forum/read.php/1/3469764/3593585#msg-3593585
Or at least a tasty block of cheddar.
I wonder how much better this would perform with a Can Creek IL, for instance. Give Levy that support he needs without locking it out.
I've seen Mike Levy saying something sucks, and this isn't it.
This is about as close to saying it sucks as I've seen a Levy review, but I also think he does a great job explaining why he doesn't like it and giving it points for what it does do well.
But he didn't say what you said he said.
"It's not a good trail bike, it's a good "mellow, forgiving bike" that gets easily overwhelmed when hitting any real terrain ***until I put on different smaller tires that lit a fire under the bikes ass***. It also isn't an exceptional climber, it's very inefficient climbing because of the overly active suspension ***unless you hit the blue switch, which as he hates as a reviewer, but he acknowledged it was effective*** and the only time it is good is when it's super technical and you want a lot of traction ***where it is a wizard***
So what I got out of it is: Trek made some design decisions to make it plush including 2.6 tires and a soft shock mode that is maybe a little to soft and forgiving. Mike doesn't like levers but the lever did make a difference and so did switching to tires that are more Mikes speed. I also read:
"The revised geometry has opened up more terrain to the Fuel, which is exactly what should be happening with the all these new trail bikes, but it's also easy to ride. It doesn't ask you to take a different approach to an ultra-tight corner or awkward section of trail, and it's still relatively stable when the corner is ultra-fast or there's no berm to save your ass. "
"Is the Fuel EX one of the most capable trail bikes out there? Nope, as its forgiving suspension and middle of the road geometry keep it from getting that nod, but it is the kind of bike that's going to be at home in a wide variety of terrain, some pretty damn steep and scary lines included."
"On the handling front, this is easily the most capable Fuel EX that Trek has ever created. No surprises there given the geometry changes, and it allows the 130mm bike to comfortably roll into chutes that I'm not sure I would have been so flippant about if I was aboard on the previous version." (side note- Pinkbike has said positive things about the old FEX).
Sounds like a decent trailbike.
75° my *ss.
But I am from Hawaii and I am Asian
Maybe the best sentence of any review and it sarcastically sheds light on all the crap we need to ride. In frame bike storage sounds like the best thing ever. Thank you Specialized, and how Trek. Catch up, industry.
www.bikemag.com/gear/reaktiv-detailed-look-treks-f1-inspired-shock
www.bikemag.com/gear-features/bike-shop/bike-shop-trek-thru-shaft-revolution-evolution-or-neither
That just ain't true. Maybe you rode an old one or something and they fixed it since. Just not my experience at all on my 19 remedy.
My name is Dave and I did the thru-shaft project on the rock shox side of things.
..........
Finally the leaking issue- some shocks (too many) had the lower shaft seal rolled or cut on the assembly line during the initial production run- this issue has been solved. The good news is that if you got a bad one- it leaked immediately on the first ride. If the seal is good- the shocks are pretty bombproof.
Being tall I never get to test ride a bike since shops seldom stock XLs let alone XXLs. So I bought the 2020 Fuel EX 8 sight unseen and....it's just OK so far. Not really impressed with it's climbing or descending ability but to be fair, it's early and I need to sort the bugs out. But so far I would have to give it a big Meh.
Wished I would have seen this review first. It seems like a lot of glowing Fuel owner reviews always start out with "this is my first full suspension mountain bike".....
And I also made the mistake of looking at the components you get per dollar. The Fuel EX 8 comes with GX and a similar price SC NX. Word of advice to anyone out there, don't focus on components unless everything else is equal. Fit and how it rides are all that matters.
Take a look at the new Norco Sight, it might just fit the bill in XL. It might be a smidge short, but overall it doesn't look bad.
This is going to make an incredible trail bike for most riders that don't have the ability to consistently push a trail bike to it's limits, aka 90% of riders. Arguably Trek nailed it for it's intended audience. The problem comes when people read reviews and overestimate their abilities and terrain.
And the TWAT thing is just awesome, must have on my next bike I must say. The bike is a good value as well.
+1 on the Elite level for sure.
In my SWAT box: Tube, pump, toolbag, big ass burrito, and still space. This bike has enabled me to do unsupported 60+ mile races without any pack or frame bag, which gets in the way when you have to carry the bike across creeks, over logs, etc. Liberating to never ride with a pack and always be prepared.
I had the 2013 Fuel EX. Top handling capabilities but I had same comment: " When things ramp up, be it your speed or the trail's intensity, that forgiving suspension starts to feel a little bit too forgiving when the shock is left in the open mode."
Had to run less sag and tweak the shocks to avoid repeated bottomings. That lead to less small bump compliance. Uncomfortable.
It took 2 cracked chainstays before I gave up on this bike. Pretty slow learner I am...
How much R&D, marketing, tooling, and royalties did Trek pay for this stupid thing? I doubt its helped them sell a single additional bike, and their enduro riders don't even use it.
The shorter travel, but modernized geo, bike will be the new hotness over the next couple of years. And most of us would be much happier on one.
Edit: 9.8 is $5500, 9.9 (tested) is $7500
Lies.
Honestly never been an issue for me on either of the Slashes I've owned or Fuels I've demo'd.
I honestly can't imagine how much stiffness theyd lose/how much weight they'd gain by putting a curve in the DT.
Guess their lawyers are getting lazy. While we're on the subject, here's an idea: Why not cover over the headtube area of the front triangle with carbon fiber and put the SWAT hole up there where you can reach it from the bars. Sorta like what triathletes do: www.dcrainmaker.com/images/2011/10/the-slow-march-towards-more-functional-triathlon-specific-bikes-7.jpg
This quote speaks volumes
Useful
Nduro
Toolbox
@trek you can have that for free xx
I have a 2019 9.9 frame and it kicks ass, the new frame is a lot more solid looking, ( there is one in the lbs) and I cannot wait to get one.
I don't see why 5” travel is classed as small these days. I kick ass on mine at 48 years old
But how would you broadly describe the differences between the two, and who would you say would be looking for/happy with each bike?
If I end up with one of these bikes I may just grab a coil off another bike and just run a test fit to see what it has for clearance.
It looks like it will be tight when bike is not in its sag but clearance will grow a but as shock is compressed and the top of shock pivots forward.
Give it some time to be out in the world and I'm sure someone else will test this out too haha.
I was more just making example. That it can be done. I never said it's a wise decision.
Bikes that can run a host of different suspension models and types is not a bad thing.
The numbers represent eye to eye length and stroke. But one mounts in the side of the shock and one through a standard eyelet with bushing.
The trunnion will have more seal overlaps and bushing overlaps blah blah. But just because the bike came with a trunnion doesn't mean it has to run one.
But TWAT was really good also!
...BUT...
..." but it can also make it harder to understand what's happening under you" say's it all!
This was the precise issue with my Canfield ('15) Balance. The Cane Creek DB had bugger all for mid-stroke support and the frame itself didn't help one bit.
When things are this soft, it puts you out of touch with what the tires are doing and even worse, make's it difficult at times to gauge attitude.
Still a rockin' looking rig!
Shut up and take my money! Ugh.
www.pinkbike.com/news/review-ethirteen-trs-12-speed-cassette-offers-a-whopping-556-range.html
Maybe we all need to nose wheely around tight corners, that's he answer, yup.
Nope.
So many new bikes these last few weeks.
use in a sentence "Now that Skylar has a Trek he never forgets to Peg before his ride with Janice".
Given its a trek it is only appropriately called the Stache Cache.
Size: XS , S
Bontrager Line Elite Dropper, 100mm travel, internal routing, 31.6mm, 340mm length
Size: M , ML
Bontrager Line Elite Dropper, 150mm travel, internal routing, 31.6mm, 440mm length
Size: L , XL
Bontrager Line Elite Dropper, 170mm travel, internal routing, 31.6mm, 480mm length
I'm 5'3" on a small Mojo HD4 with a 150mm Fox Transfer. I will not buy another bike that won't fit at least a 150mm dropper. If these new Fuels can fit a 150mm on a small frame at my height... great, but I shouldn't have to buy a second post. And if there's not room for a 150mm post then the Fuel is off my list.
my ripmo weighs .6lbs less with the same tires a lyrik fork and a piggy back rear shock...
Obligatory nothing against ripmos- they're great bikes statement here.