Trek's 2015 Remedy 29 Carbon

Jun 15, 2014
by Mike Levy  



I was a pretty big fan of Trek's aluminum Remedy 29er when I reviewed it back in September of last year, with the bike surprising me with just how capable it is. Such was the chrome machine's adeptness that I didn't hesitate to put in 70km death marches with 9,000ft of climbing on a Saturday before heading to Whistler on Sunday. Sure, it wasn't the best at either task, and it isn't intended to be, but I can honestly say that it might have been the most fun for both jobs. You can't say that about many bikes, can you?

I just wished it was a bit lighter, and the unrepentant tech nerd in me pined for a carbon fiber version that, due to there already being a carbon 27.5'' wheeled Remedy at that time, was surely coming soon. Fast forward a bit further than I expected and I find myself in Brevard, North Carolina, to learn about exactly that. It might have taken longer than I expected, but there are all sorts of things to talk about here beyond the bike's new carbon frame that Trek says is over a full pound lighter, including an exciting partnership with auto racing legend Penske, and a new rear hub spacing that is sure to be controversial.

Trek Remedy 9.9 29 er.
  Similar lines, much more technology. There's a lot going on with the new 140mm travel Remedy 29 Carbon.


While the frame is entirely new, anyone familiar with Trek's suspension system will surely recognize the bike's rear end. It's all there: ABP Convert allows the dropout pivot to rotate concentrically around the axle, limiting the amount of rotation between the caliper and rotor. Want to run a 135mm QR wheel? No problem, just swap out the pivot hardware. Full Floater - the shock is attached to the rocker link at the top and an extension off of the front of the chain stay at the bottom - is also employed, and you'll find Trek's proprietary DRCV air spring system on its Float CTD shock. Those four letters stand for 'Dual Rate Control Valve', with two air chambers providing two different rates depending on where the shock is at in its stroke. Connecting the two chambers is a plunger, or valve, that opens the airway between the two at a predetermined point in the travel. The plunger is referred to as the control valve, or the 'CV' in DRCV. Trek's tapered E2 head tube, down tube protector, and G2 geometry are also utilized.



A New Axle Size

Here's one that's likely to get people talking, although it might not be in the manner that Trek is hoping for. Boost 148 refers to, as you might have guessed, 148mm spacing of the rear axle. Trek says that this wider spacing has allowed them to move the hub's spoke flanges out farther, which then gives the spokes a better bracing angle to make for a laterally stiffer wheel. How much stiffer? They told us that it's enough to bring the average priced 29er wheel into the same range as a 26'' or 27.5'' wheel, although exact figures on specific wheel model comparisons weren't presented to us. Moving the cassette outwards by a few millimeters does upset the bike's chain line, though, so all Boost 148 equipped bikes will come with a slightly different crank spider that compensates by also moving the 'ring outwards slightly to match the change at the rear of the bike - note that Q-factor is not affected, and the crank arms and chain ring haven't changed, only the spider. Why couldn't they just move the flanges out on a standard 142mm hub? It comes down to clearance issues, with the position of the spokes being limited by brake and drivetrain components.

Trek Remedy 29 9.9 Photo by Sterling Lorence
  Sounds like an energy drink but is actually a new wider rear hub spacing that Trek says makes for a laterally stiffer overall package.


If there's one topic that gets riders shaking their heads, it's when a company introduces a new size that's different than the current norm. Bottom bracket, head tube, or axle related changes seem to bring out the haters in a way that maybe only Donald Sterling or Octomom are able to, and while I can certainly see where the frustration comes from, it's important to also remember that we're not running 1'' threaded headsets and road bike axle spacing due to companies pushing forward with their ideas. Having said that, there also comes a point when the advantages begin to diminish and it starts to go from asset to pain in the ass. What would you rather have: all bikes sporting a single seat post size, or all bikes sporting Giant's OverDrive 2 tapered fork steerer that goes from 1 1/2" at the bottom to 1 1/4" at the top? I know what I'd like to see, and it's likely the same as you, but where does Trek's Boost 148 slot into on that scale? Is it worth it?

bigquotesBottom bracket, head tube, or axle related changes seem to bring out the haters in a way that maybe only Donald Sterling or Octomom are able to, and while I can certainly see where the frustration comes from, it's important to also remember that we're not running 1'' threaded headsets and road bike axle spacing due to companies pushing forward with their ideas.

''We wanted to have a wheel that's as stiff as what we were experiencing on a small-wheeled bike because that allows for better cornering, traction, and everything else,'' John Riley, Trek Mountain Bike Product Manager, explained to us. ''And we challenged our wheel team to come up with ways that would work with this style of wheel for mountain bike use. Boost 148 is a new direction for looking at the integration of the bike, the stiffness of the wheel, and how it interfaces with the frame.'' Are there other benefits besides the claim of added rigidity? Riley explained to us that it could also lead to far better tire clearance, allowing bikes to come stock from the factory with wider rubber, and also shorter chain stays and better clearance for large 'rings on a 1x drivetrain. The design of the Boost 148 hub was co-developed with SRAM, which makes sense given how axle spacing and drivetrain design are intertwined, and the layout is free for other manufacturers in the industry to use. It will be interesting to see whether or not that happens, and it's likely that the public response to Boost 148 will be the determining factor. For now, all Remedy 29ers will come with Boost 148 rear ends, but I expect it to pop up elsewhere in Trek's lineup as well. However, there is no sign of the entire industry adopting the same seat post size.





RE:aktiv Damper

The Remedy's FOX Float DRCV shock appears to be the same as last year, except for that small RE:aktiv decal stuck to it. What's that all about? You may have seen the press release a few days ago from Trek that talked about them working on new-to-mountain bike shock technology with the legendary Penske Racing, and while that blurb was heavy on the marketing, there is a real connection here between what Penske are putting inside the dampers that they provide for all sorts of auto racing applications and what is being used to control compression forces within the FOX shocks found on the new Fuel EX and Remedy platforms. And yes, the very same principles are being applied to the dampers that Penske builds for multiple Formula One teams, although a single one of those can cost more than what a Session 9.9 goes for. A lot more.

The RE:aktiv design is essentially Penske's regressive compression damper shrunk down and stuffed into the FOX Float CTD shock. It consists of a completely different main piston design that, in very simple terms, employs a spring loaded valve that can open to allow a lot of oil flow through the compression shim assembly. However, when the valve is closed the damper provides added low-speed compression for more efficient pedalling and, more importantly in my mind, more low-speed control that helps to keep the shock from pitching through its stroke when you're on the brakes or throwing your bodyweight around. This idea is to preserve the bike's handling.

The valve stays closed when the bike is stable, restricting oil flow and giving you a more stable chassis, until a pressure spike begins to open it. This typically happens when an impact of roughly three inches per second or faster occurs, which is actually a very minor hit. Penske worked quite hard at making sure that the system absolutely doesn't behave like a typical pressure release valve, though, and it was made very clear to me that one of the main goals of the RE:aktiv project was to create something that didn't behave anything like an on/off switch, but rather offered a more open and variable feel on the trail. Valve spring rate, valve plate design, and orifice size all came into play in the search for zero breakaway feel, and both FOX and Penske feel that they've absolutely nailed it. Part of this is also down to the velocity sensitive nature of the system: "When the valve starts opening you'll get very quick relief because there's a lot of flow area exposed extremely quickly before it regains control. That's the regressive element that you're feeling,'' Jose Gonzalez, Trek Suspension Engineer, explained to Pinkbike. ''As the velocity increases, the spring tries to work against that force, but at some point the force overcomes the spring to allow for a lot of flow, so there's no harshness. At the same time, because you've got the flow area constantly varying depending on the force that's pushing on the spring, as well as the ports that the oil has to then flow through, you get high-speed resistance as the velocity increases.''

FOX Penske shock

So, with Trek touting the F1 connection, it bears explaining why this type of damper is used on a race car, and why they feel it makes a lot of sense on a mountain bike. After all, the two couldn't be more different, right? Sort of. Sure, one weighs under 14kg and the other nearly 700kg and with twice as many wheels, but both depend on mechanical grip while also being very sensitive to abrupt changes in the pitch of their respective chassis. Grab a handful of brake on your bike and watch how its suspension compresses, something that can cause its handling to go from predictable to pointy in the blink of an eye, and the same goes for race cars but with the added complication of having to deal with downforce being affected. Both require suspension that "stands up" in its stroke until it needs to allow the wheel to get out of the way of a bump in a hurry, but both also need their suspension to be supple enough to provide that all important grip that keeps you pointing in the right direction. Sure, our requirements might be a little less demanding than what Lewis Hamilton asks of his Mercedes through Suzuka's 130R at 300kph, but that doesn't mean that the same basic principles don't apply.

FOX RE activ
  This is the very first prototype shock that Penske fitted with their regressive valving in-house. The piggyback is due to space constraints that saw them move the shock's IFP to a remote location in order to make room for the larger damper piston, something that was resolved on production shocks by some clever machining to create more room.

Trek Penske FOX

The yellow line on the graph on the left represents the added low-speed compression damping that the regressive system provides, but the important bit is how the line dips down after its high point, showing more oil flow through the compression assembly as the damper's shaft speed increases. Trek says that this is what causes the RE:aktiv shock to feel more natural and active than something with a blowoff valve that is intended to solely improve pedalling characteristics. The graph on the right shows how the system behaves in each of the three CTD modes - Climb, Trail, and Descend - with the yellow line representing the shock in Climb mode. Note how it dips down once shaft speed increases, but at a much higher force as required when in the firmest setting. This means that the bike should be much more useable when its shock is set to Climb mode, and that you won't get your teeth rattled out if you forget to flip it to the open setting before rolling into a rough downhill section. Last year's CTD shock without regressive valving would see the same yellow line continue to extend up and off of the page, meaning that it stays firm and less responsive.

FOX shouldn't be left out of the discussion, with the shock clearly still one of their Float CTD models despite the involvement of Penske. In fact, the whole project couldn't have happened without FOX due to Penske being a race oriented outfit that designs and manufactures components in relatively small quantities. You need four shocks for your F1 car by next week? Sure, just put your life savings on the counter, please. Looking for a few thousand for a run of production mountain bikes? Not so much. FOX, on the other hand, is able to manufacturer the shocks for the new Fuel EX 27.5 and Remedy 29 Carbon platforms while dropping in the regressive damper assembly that originated at Penske.

Trek Remedy 29 9.9 Photo by Sterling Lorence
  The collaboration with Penske also resulted in self-balancing bike technology, although the concept was shelved due to people wanting to ride bikes more than watch them stand up on their own.


It's a lot to take in, especially when there's also a new 27.5'' wheeled Fuel EX to talk about, but those who want to learn more about the collaboration between Trek, FOX, and Penske can expect an in-depth analysis of the system and how it came to be within the next few days. I ended up spending quite a bit of time riding the new RE:aktiv unit, including doing some back-to-back testing against last year's standard shock on the new Fuel EX in order to decipher exactly how the system could benefit riders, and you'll be able to read my impressions on the new technology soon.


170 Comments

  • + 168
 I want this bike.

I actually just want every bike. Ever. N+1
  • - 30
flag tmanb3 (Jun 14, 2014 at 21:32) (Below Threshold)
 I will trade my first born child for this bike
  • + 32
 That equation...painfully true
  • + 44
 Seems like they've finally got a component group spec that I like! XO1, XT brakes, and a PIKE!
  • - 10
flag Mtnbiker11 (Jun 14, 2014 at 23:07) (Below Threshold)
 thats f*cked
  • + 11
 that's actually a really pretty and "clean" looking bike - one of the nicest trek's I've ever seen Smile
  • - 4
flag Extremmist (Jun 15, 2014 at 5:13) (Below Threshold)
 I'd want it in 27.5" size, these wheels are simply too big.
  • + 9
 @Koin, First thing i did on my Camber Carbon, threw out the Avid brakes and Shimano shifters and got Sram shifters and Shimano brakes
  • + 1
 lol
  • + 4
 @Koin XX1 AND XTR!!!! not just X01 and XT
  • + 3
 probably the only 29'er I want
  • + 3
 I'll hold out for the plus one, when the fox fork on treks come with the valving too.
  • + 4
 trading your first born for a 29er is sad.
  • + 1
 That is one good-looking bike.
  • + 5
 Hes kidding.... Clearly the middle child is the least wanted so that kiddo goes!!
  • + 0
 Are you a dwarf?
  • + 92
 Why the f*ck wouldn't they just use 150mm instead of wasting time and money to develop something only 2mm narrower. It would be even stiffer and *gasp* it already exists so parts and aftermarket options are already readily available! Stupid...Trek just lost some serious points from this guy.
  • + 11
 I bet the bike rips though
  • + 14
 They didn't do 150 spacing because that would require a wider BB. With Boost 148 they can use existing BB shells and not affect chain line because they only have to use a narrower spider.
  • + 9
 They said it was because 150mm is actually 156mm wide, and is too wide to use with a traditional BB, which is why DH bikes have a wider BB..
  • + 40
 here's an idea, give the bike a 150mm rear end and 83mm bb!? no new spider, no new tech needed at all.
  • + 23
 riish speaks wise words, but trek love to trap their customers into buying poor quality propriety parts and using 150mm rear and an 83mm BB wouldn't let them do that.
  • + 19
 singletrackworld.com/2014/06/trek-launch-boost-148-29r-specific-hub

And actually this new hub standard has necessitated a new crank standard too - I shit you not!!!! It's a f*cking joke.
  • + 1
 Well, 150mm rear end and 83mm BB are DH-oriented. meaning you have to buy DH-oriented parts (hub, crankset) to cover them. Which ain't gonna be light - and this bike is meant to be light! Wink
However, i'm no fan of those new standarts as well. Why not just stuck with the 142mm rear end, for Batman's sake???
  • - 3
 With the 150mm hub/83mm bb, you also get a wider a-factor. That isn't desirable.
  • + 9
 It's rather simple actually, change things up slightly so many new parts are required in the name of increased revenue - standard technique in many industries
  • + 11
 I'm quite sure you do not need an 83mm BB shell to work with a 150mm hub. There are a few bikes that use a 73mm BB and 150mm rear end, my last bike included, (Banshee Scythe) and it works just fine.
  • + 4
 Yeah this is stupid, you can have wider flanges with 142, for example Specialized's 142+ standard. At least you can use normal 142 wheels in those frames

fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/specialized/593702d1295971866-142-explained-graphically-142plusexplained.jpg
  • - 1
 142+ was silly, and not a "standard" by any means. It was a Specialized patented attempt at making their bikes perform better. Boost 148 is an open design.
  • + 5
 It doesnt change the fact that it's a new standart, It's too close to the 150mm standart, while the 142mm is right at the middle between older standarts and is more undestandable. Smile
  • + 2
 But the flange doesn't change between 135 and 142. The flange on 148 is wider than 135/142, thus it is a stiffer design overall.
  • + 7
 DH oriented parts? sixc and xo cranks are light enough, and as said above, even my rune lets you run a 150 hub with a 73mm bb. So there was always that option too. If you honestly care about the weight difference between something like a hope 150 compared to a 148, then I'm clearly wasting my time here though
  • + 1
 @zshipowick i had an intense with a 73mm bb and a 150 mm hub . ghey can work . but it would be nice if the made it with 83mm then maybe next crank could be for dh... or six c with asingle ring
  • - 1
 guys.....

they dont want to go to 83mm bb because of the q-factor (horizontal distance from pedal to pedal). the smaller the q-factor, the more efficient gets the pedaling. and because efficiency is a important thing for this bike ( stiffness and strength to weight is more important to dh bikes than pedaling) and because they are a huuuuuge company..... they invented "148mm"

its surely a clever invention
but u have to buy all the stuff.... and noone forces u to do so. people are free to buy good ol stuff ( dirtmountainbike.com/featured/hard-tales-3-2014-cotic-soul-27-5.html ) ..... u can use ur old parts to build bikes like this and i would say the fun is the same

not to forget our environment.....
-new bought, fancy and cheap to produce shit: nay!
-durable, quality stuff that can be used for jears: yay!
  • + 0
 @riish - and how much do a SixC and XO cranks cost? Not on the same level as a SLX cranks, right? Wink
To have a 83mm BB and to be after a really light crank you gotta invest in a ridiculously expensive set! And not everyone would do that!
  • + 3
 this is true. however, my point was that light 83mm cranks exist. not that they were affordable. and if you're dropping coin on a carbon trek you probably have carbon cranks planned for it too, and if not you'll pay a hundred to two hundred grams penalty. neither of those options are unrealistic or ridiculous.
  • + 8
 So when is the left turn specific enduro bike coming out ? or the tire for specific rocks made of cooled Hawaii lava ? or the folding handlebars for downhill bikes ?

Also "anyone" who thinks is feet don't move around more than 5mm side to side when climbing or that 5mm will make a difference in their power on a mountain bike is full of shit... that whole Q-factor thing is just hype this isn't a WC XC bike. Onto my second point : my last two bike had 150mm rear ends with 73mm BB and I never had a SINGLE problem so it looks like the tech at my LBS are better engineers than the those at trek because everything runs perfectly fine on my bike....

Cant take this overrated marketing bullshit of inventing a new standards for everything anymore, not only is it a bed excuse for making more money its also driving the those small LBS nuts with thousands of dollars in inventory they have to had each year just to stay afloat....
  • + 2
 ^Couldn't have said it much better myself.
  • + 0
 Do you even enduro?

@Brakesnotincluded

Q-factor is for clearance from the chainstays. Trek geometry runs wider so they mention it for riders to buy the compatible crank.

Feet don't move more than a millimeter or so when clipped in, and the geometry is designed for riders that have tested the limits using that system. Also, a good bike fit will effectively adjust saddle/cleats that will affect a rider's power (and overuse injury prevention), so geometry modifications would seem to follow the same pattern.

There is such thing as too much bike for a rider/trail. I also believe in being content with your current bike and appreciating the engineering craft of newer bikes.
  • - 1
 riish xo cranks are 250 on tbs , pretty affordable to me ecspecially for what they are . six c is abt 150 g lighter tho, oh an swides , 29er is too much bike for anyone . accept a cardio junkie. i prefer dh because its not just about how fit you are . it seems like thats all teh xc is these days.
  • + 2
 dh at anything more than a recreational level is all about strength and fitness. skill does play a huge part, but there's a huge difference between a guy that trains specifically for riding and someone that doesn't and just rides.
  • - 2
 your ssayig it takes more skill to do xc ?
  • - 1
 Yes. You're having a laugh if you think there is more bike handling ability in xc. It's road racing on gravel.
  • + 1
 actually my demo 9 2006 has 150 hub and 73mm bb without any restriction in chainline or this kind of stuff
  • + 1
 Trek should have invented 149mm hub.. its 1mm stiffer than 148 boostsh*t, and not so DH-ish like 150..
what's next? maybe 81.5 mm BB shell or 1 3/4 headtube
  • + 19
 So Trek bikes have proprietary shocks, cranks and hubs which means that you are stuck with what they provide. I used to have a Fuel EX but I will pass. No only Trek bikes but all other companies with proprietary parts as well.
  • + 3
 They don't have proprietary cranks. Just a proprietary spider from SRAM for the moment.
  • + 4
 It's the same with Specialized, when the bike get's old and you can't find replace parts to fix. I guess that in top of mind they are wondering that you just put 10k in the trash and it's okay
  • + 7
 Truth. Same reason I don't buy Apple. Nice product, but I don't like being saddled with restrictive proprietary bullshyte.
  • - 4
flag MX298 (Jun 15, 2014 at 12:22) (Below Threshold)
 This shock is so complicated that no one will be able to work on it! It's a wear idem too!
  • + 3
 No one has to work on the shock but Fox. Changing seals on a DRCV shock is just as easy as changing seals on a regular Float.
  • + 14
 Wider dropout spacing and correspondingly wider hub flange distances should have happened at the very beginning of 29ers. Then the 'pain' of a new standard would be comfortably behind us by now. Shame on industry thinking that innovates only half-way, leaving riders with product whose flaws are clear from the outset but seems a safer or cheaper bet in the short term.
  • + 48
 f*ck 148. What's wrong with 142 or 150? Why not just run 150... Isn't that already a standard? I'm over proprietary stuff
  • + 4
 i think they just forgot to check the definition of "standard" in the dictionary.
  • - 4
flag davidsimons (Jun 14, 2014 at 21:51) (Below Threshold)
 Think 150 is actually 157
  • - 4
flag tmanb3 (Jun 14, 2014 at 21:56) (Below Threshold)
 santa cruz uses 150
  • + 8
 Yeah seriously Just run 150. In fact I'm sure you could stuff a 150 in that frame. it's only 2mm. And I'm so over that tiny little difference to make people buy new stuff.
  • + 0
 sdiz, 150/157 requires a 83mm bb/crank, which affects pedal stance width. Lower end stock-level 29er wheels tended to be significantly weaker and flexier than smaller wheel sizes, but by widening the hub spacing they can make their stock wheels strong enough to not make new owners want to opt for expensive carbon wheelsets to get the stiffness/strength they want. They gained tire clearance and chainring clearance as well, and the potential to run shorter chainstays, since the chainring moved outboard a bit as well. 148 apparently is as wide as they could go with current 68/73mm crank options.

29er evolution still going on, with the Enduro 29 not too long ago, Cannondale's F-Si just recently, and now Trek's Remedy 29.
  • + 6
 In the growing world of 1x drivetrains the use of a 150/157mm rear axle could be adopted as the bikes do not need to cater for an outer chainring. On 1x systems the chainring is mounted in the middle ring location, this could be moved to the outer chainring position on a 68/73mm BB set of cranks to provide a more/the correct chainline. Alternatively as the crankset would be a dedicated 1x crankset the mounting positon of the single ring could be set for the ideal chainline. Perhaps the best overall solution would be to move to an 83mm BB shell as this would provide a 22/13 percent (68/73 respectively) wider and likely much stiffer percentage wise (than these numbers) bottom bracket and surrounding area. The frame would also have a much larger area to interconnect the tubing on the frame and also the mounting points for suspension components (Santa Cruz's new Nomad makes very clever use of this area of the frame for its VPP components). Even with a 2x setup and some design work on the shape of the crank arms there might be enough room to produce the desired chainline.

None of these should affect the Q factor. The only thing that might affect the Q factor would be the shape of the seat and chain stays needing to clear the crank arms and connect to the wider axle, although this potential could be designed away.

Also, if the 29ers are going to get wider rear axles so that stiffer wheelsets can be created at a lower cost, shouldn't this be passed on to 650b/27.5?
  • + 2
 "Also, if the 29ers are going to get wider rear axles so that stiffer wheelsets can be created at a lower cost, shouldn't this be passed on to 650b/27.5?"

But then that would make the 650b wheel's stiffer relative to this new 29 standard and a new standard would then need to be invented that would make the 29 wheel stiffer only to have that new standard get passed off onto the 650b wheelsize and the cycle (no pun intended) would never end.

Seriously though, of all the numbers for this thing, Trek needed to publish just how much more effective that hub spacing was in terms of relative stiffness to a "regular" 135/142 hub. If it's truly significant (which I'm skeptical of) then it is a good idea, new standard or not.
  • + 0
 WE JUST HAD THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION IN THE POST ABOVE!! Pay attention, people just went through this entire debate.
  • + 3
 Tracy Mosely just demolished the field on this bike. It sure isn't ineffective on any grounds.
  • + 2
 Something makes me think Tracy's success isn't much because of this new "standard"...
  • + 11
 Sure it's a sexy bike that probably shreds, but I just can't commit to a bike with proprietary components that I'll never upgrade. I have an old Remedy and would love to try out different shocks, but I'm largely SOL. Now a completely unique axle size? Come on Trek.
  • + 10
 You don't have to buy it... The consumerism in this industry is mind blowing. My 26" wheeled, 142mm axled 30 lb mid travel trail bike from 3 years ago still works great, and is fun to ride.
  • + 8
 Im gonna say it now, Im over comapines like,Giant with theyre BS 02 headtube and Bs like 148, like said above why not use 150mm, this is just how they hook, muppets in with no sense and more money, dam nice bike let down by this proprietary BS, stick it Trek, dont you muppets ever learn, you might fool the fools who know no better and part with theyre money trusting the LBS selling what ever marketing speil you push put, but you lose those customers eventually, I talk to riders like this all the time, who feel cheated once they have been around long enough! Just another BS unnessecary std. Cycling industry really knows how to shoot itself up the jacksie!
  • + 11
 Great! Another axle size. New standards are the best.
  • + 5
 I don't get why they couldn't have done something with an offset rear end and use a current 142mm hub. They'd have the even lacing pattern they're raving about, without some new stupid standard? I guess that would be admitting Spec's old rear ends made sense, and that'd be a biiiiiig no-no.
  • + 5
 I agree. It creates a massive issue for anyone wanting aftermarket parts, and can be a bloody nuisance for shops.
  • + 5
 148mm ???...still wondering why they could not simply use a current standand 150mm hub ???...
  • + 7
 If I recall (and I may be corrected here) Trek is saying it's because the chainline with a normal BB would be pretty poor, and the Q-factor of large BBs isn't good for AM riding.

Me? Yeah not buying it. They're making a new standard for a new standard's sake. An offset rear end, as annoying as it can be for wheel builders, at least means you can adapt parts over. As this has a set wider freehub to disc flange width, you also can't toss an adapter in and run it in a 142mm frame. Trek really shot themselves in the foot on this.

Also, bare in mind you can get wide flange 142mm hubs. The problem was never actually there.
  • - 1
 why not just use a 150mm axle with 36 spokes 83mm bb parts are readily available....seems so obvious!
  • + 5
 Even though I'll never buy a 29er so it doesn't affect me, this new axle size sounds like a bad idea. As it said in the article, "there also comes a point when the advantages begin to diminish and it starts to go from asset to pain in the ass." The Boost 148 seems like a major pain in the ass. If you buy the 2015 Remedy, you can't run any other hub, and you have to use the special spiders. I have a Giant with the Overdrive2 headset/steerer. I don't care if my front end is "up to 40% stiffer," its a pain in the ass. Due to the unique 1 1/4" steerer size I can only use Giant stems. Plus if I buy a new fork I have to buy a headset adapter (conveniently sold by Giant) in order to fit a normal 1 1/8" steerer. So if you think about it, all these special steerer and axle and seat tube sizes that offer supposed benefits over the existing standards are really ways a company can force you to keep buying their products. Not that it really matters, because I can't afford any of them. So the joke's on you Trek...
  • + 4
 Read the post above yours. I kinda summed it up. If Trek had a 150 rear end, the chainline would be really poor. If they went for an 83mm BB, the Q factor would be a lot higher and Trek claims it wouldn't work for an AM bike.

Both are wrong, in my opinion. Marin has done 72mm/150mm bikes, with no issues, and 83mm BBs have been used on many FR bikes that people had no issues pedalling all day. The fact of the matter is; 29er is inherently less stiff than 26. It just is. It's a larger diameter. If you want a stiff wheel, you're either spending big bucks on carbon, or stick with a 650/26 wheel. This is a great example of "reinventing the wheel" if you'll excuse the pun.
  • + 2
 You could use a wider flange on the drive side of the hub to stiffen it up by shortening the spokes , which would also have the effect of changing the angle of the spokes, again stiffening it up. @sherbert was on the right track.
  • + 3
 In my opinion this is art for art only. They are making their new better standard. This new fu**ing direction make me angry more and more!
  • + 1
 @do-you-enduro check out chromag stems, they are available in overdrive 2.
  • - 1
 I highly doubt that they didn't consider all this stuff that's being talked about here. If any of that would have done what they were trying to accomplish, they probably would have done it.
  • + 0
 Rear wheel wobble/"wonky feel" is a real setback on the budding mid travel/agressive 29" bikes. XC bikes didn't undergo lateral forces as much as all-mountain style riding, and now there's a bunch of riders noticing this issue. Trek engineered Boost 148 to combat the problem, and I hope it works well for them.
  • + 5
 No trek, NO. We JUST got used to 142x12. Like just literally, myself personally moved to one last year. I get it, your bike is sick! its light, and it probably rides like the tits, But PLEASE, please, dont push the industry into another standard. please, i can't afford this. the bike does look sick though, i love the remedy line.
  • + 3
 I 've built a lot of wheels (as a hobbyist) and there is no doubt 29er wheels are not as stiff or strong as comparable smaller wheel builds. The main cause being less spoke angle on the bigger hoops.

Both Trek's 148 and Cannondale 's offset rear on the new F-Si address this. One by widening the hub and the other by offsetting the hub to the drive side. I'm glad to see manufactures moving in this direction, although new standards are sometimes a pain.

Of the two I like Cannondale's approach better. You can use existing hubs and you can build a dishless wheel. Win win.
  • + 6
 Seems kind of weird Fox is a big part of this but the Pike is in most of the pictures.
  • + 3
 Just to add to Mike's great article, there are currently 6 companies developing hubs and/or cranks for use with 148 spacing. Three we can name are Shimano, FSA, and Race Face. There are three other hub-only manufacturers working on 148 spacing, as well.

To address the proprietary issue, this spacing option-and that's what it is, an OPTION; we hate the new 'standards' thing as much as anyone-is something we are opening up to everyone, as evidenced by the other 6 working with it now. This was a development that we came up with that solves an INDUSTRY WIDE problem with 29er wheel stiffness. That wasn't an issue limted to just Trek bikes, but to anyone making 29ers. Wheel stiffness is a common criticism of that wheel size for bikes like the Remedy, which are being ridden over technical terrain, and in enduro races. Previously, the only way to achieve a stiff 29er wheel was to make it out of carbon, which instantly makes them cost prohibitive.

As mentioned previously, 150 spacing as used in DH bikes presents other issues when you try to adapt that for trail bikes, namely Q-Factor and BB spacing.

While it's true that in order to benefit from this development, a new bike is required, no one is suggesting that your existing bike is suddenly not fun any longer. Like any other industry, the bike biz is constantly looking at new ways to move products forward. It's not a conspiracy. It's development. It happens with phones, tvs, computers, shoes, technical apparel, all of it.
  • + 3
 Mike, I really appreciate your attempts to pre-emptively appease the inevitable haters, but alas. I look forward to hearing your impressions of the ride!! I have an aluminum Remedy 29er, and would LOVE to buy the carbon frame.
  • + 5
 "However, there is no sign of the entire industry adopting the same seat post size."

But we all wish they would.
  • + 4
 30.9. Nuff said.
  • + 2
 Tiny theoretical benefits over obvious pain-in-the-ass compatibility problems. If I would by mistake end up with that ride I'd probably just use some washers with 142mm hub or file down 150mm or just bend the rear fork 1mm wider per side - this much it will have to take without snapping. Maybe these would require custom brake adapters but hey, if U can bend the money suckers' rules U should.
  • + 2
 I'm using 9 speed, two piston brakes, 26" wheels with tubes, 135 rear hub, a normal seatpost with a quick release, 20mm front axle, straight steerer tube and a coil shock. Guess what, I bet I'm faster than anyone who buys this bike because the rider makes the difference.
Having said that, it is a beautiful looking bicycle, pointless hub width and all!
  • + 2
 So your bike has a bunch of outdated stuff and you're faster than anyone on this bike... so you're making the argument that older technology makes you faster and newer tech doesn't. I'm willing to bet you'd be faster than everyone in the WORLD then, if you upgraded from all that old school stuff. If all the new tech in the last few years didn't make people ride better and more enjoyably, none of it would sell.
  • + 1
 to scottallye sit back, relax, and have a beer maybe just chill out and count up all the money Trek is paying you for services rendered! Job well done sir internet pitbull of the day!
  • + 0
 If you spent the time riding an old bike, that you would have to spend sitting behind a desk to buy this one, you'd be faster for sure.
  • + 1
 So it's better to be unemployed and riding an old out-of-date bike than hold down a job and spend your $$ on bikes? Oh, and a home, a vehicle to travel to riding destinations, money for vacations to ride in awesome places, races, etc. etc... or would being unemployed make me faster? And justincs, I'm just trying to clarify the point he's trying to argue, because I love these guys that insist they don't need any of this "new-fangled fancy-pants technology" to enjoy riding... until they actually do get a new bike and realize how good some of the new stuff is. I'm not arguing for Trek by any means (and don't own one) but companies like them are the ones with the $$$ to develop new stuff that will eventually trickle down... and someday become the old out of date stuff that some guy insists is better than any of that new stuff because "I'm faster than anyone who buys this bike".
  • + 1
 Scott, in my case (and a lot of other people's I'd bet); YES. When I was unemployed for about a year I was riding an unspectacular single-pivot bike with a parts list sourced from used stuff and E-bay deals, but I was riding about 5 or 6 days a week. Fast forward two years later and I've got a great job and fancy new bike (and a wife/kid/mortgage) and get to ride once or twice a week as time allows. I was definitely faster on the "outdated" bike. I'm not saying I'd switch arrangements by any means, but more time in the saddle will always make you faster than new tech.
  • + 1
 The important part I got out of that was "I'm not saying I'd switch arrangements by any means". The first part of my question was if being unemployed and riding and old bike is *better*. So your answer to that was a resounding NO. Sure, when you don't have anything better to do with your life you get faster as a byproduct (the second half of my question), because you spend all your time riding. I'd rather have the rest of my life in order like you, rather than actively choose to be unemployed just so I could be faster than the other guy on a new bike, which is what jaame seems to advocating.
  • + 0
 I also have a wife and a job and a mortgage and 2 kids, and I am also definitely slower now than I was five years ago. I could buy this bike if I wanted to, but I know I'd spend more time looking at it than riding it. Riding an old bike that's good is still good fun. Ten grand could be better spent, that's what I'm saying. A riding holiday on your old bike, for example. A motorbike, to teach you what fast and dangerous really mean. A great weekend in Vegas. In my opinion, spending this amount of money on a bike for marginal and unquantifiable gains in speed or enjoyment over the bike you already own, is rather silly to say the least. And anyone who thinks ten grand is not a lot of money is almost definitely shit on a bike!
  • + 2
 Moot point. At the price point that I and countless others can afford, these 'innovations' are irrelevant. Only a few trickle down, and only those that can accommodate a bulk of the mass market consumers - this isn't one of them. That said, carbon and wheel size are no longer sufficient to compel a yearly purchase from the 'too much money, not enough brains' crowd. Thus....
  • + 2
 What the heck Trek? I knew the carbon Remedy 29er was coming out and was really looking forward to seeing it and possibly buying it. With that 148 rear end, this bike will be super rare because nobody (including myself) will buy it. People with enough money to buy this bike/frame will not want to run a proprietary "cheap" rear hub. I don't see my favorite hub manufacturers pumping out 148mm hubs anytime soon so for that reason I am out.
  • + 2
 I'm assuming the graph on the left is comparing the shim or orifice curves against the RE:aktiv shock set to the "climb" setting? Is the graph on the right showing the curves of the three CTD settings of a standard shock, or the regressive shock?
  • + 7
 1- graphs with no units are next to meaningless. Depending on the numbers, those curves could be *almost* the same or radically different.
2- Foes has used regressive damping for over a decade, it's not new to bikes.
3- you won't find Lewis Hamilton at Suzuka running Penske. Mercedes F1 use Koni dampers.
  • + 3
 @ScandiumRider - presumably the new regressive shock. I can't see there being any reason for them to illustrate the curves of a standard CTD shock, and all three of the curves display the same trademark "bump" as the curve for the RE:aktiv regressive shock on the left. That said, their color choices are confusing.

Also, I'm not quite a fan of the "RE:aktiv" branding. fi'zi:k isn't explained either, but at least it doesn't make any sense. THIS, however looks like the heading for a memo. I imagine it's not. I think that if a marketing department is going to get freaky with nomenclature, they at least have to have some cutesy little explanation for it. Otherwise it's just bad art.
  • + 1
 G123-wrong on #3 Lewis Hamilton DOES run Penske Dampers. Check their website. And they actually ran Sachs before the Penskes, 3 years ago. Your mistaking them with McLaren.
  • + 2
 @matmanmoto - you're right, I was going from memory. I thought it was RBR, Force India, Toro Rosso, Caterham and Marussia only on Penske. Aren't McLaren with Bilstein?

Regardless, the whole sales pitch of using "F1 technology lifted from an F1 car" is pretty laughable. Now, design and sell some banned active suspension from the Williams 14B, and you've got my interest...
  • + 1
 so whats next for the rest of the 2015 trek mtb line. the session is coming in 650b eventually, since the racers are on them. i am curious about whats next for the slash. will my newly purchase slash be outdated by much on the next go around? all we can say is its nice that companies are pushing hard to make our ridding experiences that much better. are they pushing to make our wallets even lighter too? are mtb companies going to price their self's out of sales for the average buyer worse than they already are? spending what i did on the mid level slash would have got a top tier bike a few years back. the mtb industry has become a crazy hard to afford hobby, with crazy things happening. these companies with their proprietary shock and fork technologies are crazy. i sure would love open options on my trek when it comes to a shock replacement. it would be nice when its time to replace my shock i had the option to go with a ccdb inline or what ever else i would like to choose. when bike companies get specific it makes it tough to build aftermarket options for every bike. maybe its time we all just work hard enough to afford a killer bike then bust our asses learn to ride like a pro and understand our bikes and get sponsored so we can afford to keep riding.
  • + 4
 couldn't the spoke bracing angle be improved by just making the flanges taller?
  • + 1
 or make the wheel stiffer with thicker spokes... what a waste
  • + 1
 Great idea guys, I'll be those moron engineers at Trek with years and years of education and experience didn't consider either one of those things. You should probably apply for jobs at Trek.
  • + 2
 im sure the stupid hub wasn't an engineers idea... its just like giants overdrive 2... they need something simple to show know nothing buyers that their bike is stronger.
  • + 3
 148 really only disadvantages the owner of this bike in the fact they have limited choice of aftermarket hubs/wheelsets
Can't see 148 becoming a new standard
  • + 1
 There's a lot to be upset about here...proprietary hub spacing, BS marketing shock...but the thing that is reaaaaaaaly making me hyperventilate is that gowdamn "Deflection Comparison" chart.

Really...3D excel charts?

This is even worse when you compare it against the simple, effective and stylish Damping 101 and CTD Behaviour charts below.

You guys could start reviewing e-bikes and I wouldn't mind. Hell mandate that I have to wear a fanny-pack, goggles and a half shell just to read the site and I'll gladly enduro-up before I read. But I swear to good if I see another needlessly "fancy"chart on this site, I'm leaving and never coming back.
  • + 0
 What do you expect from Mike Levy? He's a shill for SRAM and then some.

I wouldn't mind so much if they just disclosed it but they take the piss some times.

You can't have all these site sponsors and then expect an honest review.
  • + 1
 Couldnt you use a 3mm spacer on both sides of a standard 142 hub and the standard XX1 spider for chianline??

Only issue I could see is if you brake caliper will slide over 3mm or not. Maybe open the holes on the caliper a little........

I have one of these coming so I think I will at least try it.
  • + 1
 What a bunch of proprietary turds. Instead of making the axle spacing wider, they should have made the flanges taller. Keeps the axle spacing and crank spacing standard, and makes the wheel even stiffer because of shorter spokes (the flexy part) at the wider angle. Trek, you are dumb
  • + 1
 The regressive damper is how I imagined propedal worked, before I saw any diagrams of it. I thought propedal was an air spring (what the boost 150 or 200 value meant in psi), behind a plate that covered an oil port ahead of the the compression circuit. Oil pressure needs to overcome the spring; more oil pressure pushes the air spring through its limited travel to allow room for oil flow, such pressure created from a bigger hit. I thought the propedal lever was a cam that would preload and disengage this plate. I guess that's how I envisioned platform. Similar to how platform (lock-out with blow off) is created on rock shox motion control damper, I guess.
  • + 1
 ahhh hahahaha haaaa hahahaha haaaaaa...ok. you guys are all joking when you say you want this right? go try a 27 already, and stop trying to make a gyro(wheel) thats too strong to control somehow magically still make sense for people under 6'1.....honestly. why cant frame proportions include wheel size when we scale to fit. ponder that. and bring on a bunch of whiny old men.....
  • + 2
 Liteville already does. Frame geo and wheel sizes change as the overall size changes. You'd think that would just be common sense.

That being said, I'm glad it's not the norm. Everyone has some preference on fit, and many of us want a smaller or more playful bike (short stay, 26, for example) with a larger sized frame, and many smaller riders want to hop on the wagon wheels and be able to roll over everything, as their smaller frames can't muscle the bike around, so the rollover helps.

So to be the most wishy washy mother f*cker I can be, I agree and I disagree. I feel more companies should involve geometry and wheel size in their sizing, but I hope it never becomes anything more than a handful of companies.
  • + 1
 If they are always changing standards how can you even call it a standard ?
I sure love your bikes Trek, I even own one but seriously because of these specific parts I won't buy Trek again. I can't stand having to fight with everyone each time I need to change some specific parts that are no longer in production.
  • + 1
 Agreed mate. I have a useless session 88, because they no longer make rear chain stays for my model. Ouch!
  • + 0
 Gotta be said it's pretty hot for a 29er. I really don't get the wheel size issue. Maybe it's fear. But lots of riders have two or three or more bikes and I'm pretty sure they, usually, will be for different applications and hence will have different characteristics. Longer, higher, shorter, lighter, stronger, stiffer, lower, different gear, sometimes one gear etc etc. Whats wrong with à different wheel size for a certain bike? Really?
  • + 1
 Wanted a remedy this year then saw the spec for the 9.8...the worst of the sram roam wheels in boost 148. Can upgrade them, but how do you sell the others?! C'mon Trek, decent wheel spec for a £4000 bike please.
  • + 1
 I like the new frame design, looks like the 2014 650B version that I have. I bet this 29er rides a lot like the 2014 650B. I would love to try it out and compare it to my 9.7 One sick 29er, but I'll stick with the 650B.
  • + 3
 Thanks pinkbike, I had always wondered what the difference between 494 and 494 was. And now I can sleep knowing it's zero.
  • + 0
 Wow! This bike sounds like the do-it-all bike. It probably couldn't dirt jump as well as a 26-inch 140mm, but it would be better for exploring since 29 inch wheels and rolling over stuff.

I'd love to see this set up for aggressive park/freeriding. (Normal seat post stomped and a different cockpit with some risers).
  • + 5
 148 is so enduro
  • + 0
 So Trek said: These Fox CTD shock are not good. Let's get some formula one guys to try and fix it!! good for them...could've switched to another shock manufacturer though.
So Trek said we: we need our 29 wheels to be as stiff as 650b wheels. Let's make a 650b remedy..ohh no we did that already. Let's make a new standard!!!???
So Trek said: Let's make it look amazing!! Acomplished!
  • + 2
 Everyone hold on to your hate comments on new standards and how much the bike industry sucks, let me go make some popcorn and crack a beer first.
  • + 1
 Man thats a sexy beast, to me anyway bikes seem to be getting way more appealing aesthetically. I think the next couple years are going to be exciting. A technical achievement you can ride.
  • + 1
 i wonder if the bike industry is going like the electronic industry. i remember when tvs were high priced and dvd players were expensive, and there were options between the hd dvd player and the blue ray. i am hopping the bike industry gets over the hump of introducing new technology and the pricing drops. i remember when 300 or so got you some amazing entry level mavic wheels, i remember the 650 or so deemax price thinking that was crazy, now a days thats a cheap price compared to whats out there. whats next are we going to be like its time for a new bike or a new used car? which do i get
  • + 1
 That is such a beautiful 29er. If I win some kind of lottery any time soon I'm putting my name down for one of these with a set of the new Fox 36's...
  • + 3
 That last picture looks animated for some reason
  • - 1
 I thought this was a test on the Remedy 29 carbon. What a let down.

As for proprietary parts I guess none of you own a car or motorcycle? Ford doesn't design cars to use Chevy parts. You can't put a Yamaha exhaust on a KTM. Proprietary parts are a pain for us in the bike shops but sometimes progress means change. Will 148 be the next big thing? Who knows. .
  • + 3
 man you guys will really bitch about anything
  • + 1
 Did I miss the part where they said how many spokes per wheel and whether they are butted or not? Seems like that is pretty damn relevant to how stiff a 29er wheel is.
  • + 3
 Wait for 78mm BB standard.....
  • + 0
 Thank you trek for making mountainbikes a 1000 times more complicated. There is probably less science in a spaceshuttle than in this bike. I wanna ride, not deal with axle sizes and funky suspension devices. Keep it simple
  • + 1
 You can say what you want about 29ers.... but you can"t deny the fact that this is one sexy bike!
  • - 2
 I have always thought that the flexy-ness In a 29er wheel was caused by using the same spoke sizes as the smaller wheels, but making the spoke work harder by increasing the span it has to bridge.

To me the angle and width is moot if the undersized spoke issue hasn't been addressed?

Thoughts?
  • + 2
 Oh boy, another bike from trek I can't afford
  • + 1
 One day I will have a bike exactly like the one shown in the pictures and my life will be complete :')
  • + 2
 Cannondale was much smarter with the FSi...
  • + 1
 Ha... I put a pike on my Remedy 29er. I want that cool frame cap over where the front deraillier should be.
  • + 1
 Why is article's banner pic have a different bike from the carbon bike that is the subject of the article?
  • + 1
 First Trek MTB frame I like. Congrats to the new damper tech. But boo for the rear axle!
  • + 1
 I guess that using a 150mm hub was just too much easy for Trek's engs... we needed a new standard sooo much
  • + 2
 "round wheel technology from an f1 car"
  • + 1
 So now it has proprietary everything. Did they make the chainstays stronger too?
trololololo
  • + 2
 That last pic seems photo faked...
  • + 1
 Anyone ever hit the local jumps track with the ctd switched to climb? It's pretty sick.
  • + 2
 New standard announcement? Here goes the neighborhood...
  • + 1
 Man what a rantfest! Don't buy it, move on.
  • + 1
 Some one knows when trek session 9.9 27.5 gonna be AVAILABLE ?
  • + 1
 That's a great looking bike. Nice job Trek!
  • + 1
 Very good job Trek Remedy 29er looks fast. We will love to test it.
  • + 2
 Another axle standard...
  • + 4
 plus a new spider for the crank... fack! It's for those people that don't pay full price for things... I'm going to go ride my 135mm hub'd steel hardtail
  • + 3
 It's like 142 was too narrow and 150 was just too wide. For me I'll stick with my 135 too.
  • + 0
 I'll stick with my 126 thank you very much.
  • + 1
 148mm rear hub?? lol, very retards
  • + 1
 that is the first 29er that made me want to ride one. A beauty.
  • + 2
 nice shocks though....
  • + 1
 Looks nice, and I'm pretty sure it'll ride nice too; is there a price yet?
  • + 0
 F@ck me, that reactiv damper sounds alot like SPV. Whats old is new again. Haha.
  • + 1
 It pretty much is. SPV also came from auto racing where it was used to keep cars from leaning over in corners or diving under braking. It was so well loved by the bike industry that it went extinct within a few years and took most of the companies making SPV forks & shocks with it. I almost wonder if someone's gonna bring back elastomer forks & shocks...
  • + 4
 There are two big differences though. First, SPV is a position sensitive valve like Fox's boost valve. Same with the Manitou CID Intrinsic damper. Second, the SPV valve closes as the damper goes deeper into it's travel, for a more progressive damping rate.

This RE:activ setup really is just a speed sensitive blow-off valve. Maybe it's a more controlled and variable blow-off valve than more simple designs, but that's all it is. I'm not trying to say it's a bad thing. The more ways to control the flow of fluid in the damper, the better the damper is able to work.

On the compression side, this is why you see a separate a low and high speed circuit, mid-valve (mid-speed) circuit, hydraulic bottom-out and a blow-off valve in some forks. They all have a job to do and can extend the range of operation of the damper.

It looks like there is a single high speed compression shim above the "green piston". So, it has propedal (low speed), high speed and variable blow-off controlling compression damping.

Good luck to Fox. They could use a boost. Err, except inside their shock.
  • + 1
 I want the proto. shock with the remote reservoir.
  • + 0
 meh
  • - 2
 294life
  • - 3
 120 comments for a bike that hardly deserve it ...lame Razz
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.077175
Mobile Version of Website