Video: 2020 Santa Cruz Tallboy VS Trek Fuel EX - Cage Match

Sep 30, 2019
by Pinkbike Originals  


Trek's new Fuel EX and Santa Cruz's equally new Tallboy were two of the most anticipated bikes of the year, which means that we absolutely had to pit them against each other in some sort of trail bike cage match. After all, both machines are intended to be ridden in the same way, from days long enough to have you wishing for chamois cream to pointing yourself down some questionably steep chutes.

Thing is, they go about it in very different ways.


Santa Cruz Tallboy versus Fuel EX


Tallboy Details

• Intended use: Trail riding
• Wheel size: 29"
• Rear-wheel travel: 120mm
• Fork travel: 130mm
• Head angle: 65.5-degrees
• Reach: 468mm (lrg)
• All-new frame and geometry
• Adjustable chainstay length
• Alloy, CC and C carbon frames
• Sizes: XS - XXL (lrg tested)
• Weight: 28.3lb (as pictured)
• MSRP: $8,199 USD
• More info: www.santacruzbicycles.com

Santa Cruz Tallboy full-length review

Fuel EX Details

• Intended use: Trail riding
• Wheel size: 29"
• Rear wheel travel: 130mm
• Fork travel: 140mm
• Head angle: 66-degrees
• Reach: 470mm
• Storage in downtube
• ISCG 05 tabs
• Tire clearance: 2.6"
• Sizes: XS - XXL (lrg tested)
• Weight: 28.6lb (as pictured)
• MSRP: $7,499.99 USD
• More info: www.trekbikes.com

Trek Fuel EX full-length review


First, what do they have in common? They're both on 29" wheels, and their reach numbers are within two millimeters of each other; 470mm for the large-sized Fuel EX, and 468mm of the large-sized Tallboy. Both have house-branded carbon wheelsets and 12-speed drivetrains from SRAM, too, so it's no surprise to see that they nearly weigh the same: 28.6lb for the Fuel EX and just 0.3lb less for the Tallboy.

And to let us concentrate on what's happening in the suspension and handling departments, we've even swapped out the stock rubber on both for a set of control tires - Maxxis DHF and DHR rubber with EXO+ casing - and inflated them to the exact same pressures.


Santa Cruz Tallboy review Photo by Dane Perras
Trek Fuel EX 9.8 GX Photo by Dane Perras
The Tallboy (left) uses a dual-link system to deliver 120mm of travel. The Fuel EX (right) has 130mm of travel from a linkage-driven single pivot, with the twist being the concentric pivot at the axle.


Things are a bit different when we talk about suspension and head angle, though. The Fuel EX has more of the former - 140mm up front and 130mm in the rear, 10mm more than the Tallboy on both ends - but the Santa Cruz is half a degree slacker when both are in their most relaxed settings.

As for the riders, Levy and Kazimer are at odds when it comes to nearly everything, but they both weigh 155lb and have essentially the same suspension and cockpit preferences, making it easy to swap back and forth during testing.

Spoiler alert: While they usually don't agree on much, Levy and Kazimer did see eye to eye when it came to which bike they prefer. It wasn't the Fuel EX. Trek sent over a statement, below.

Trek's response:
“You can get enhanced shock support and a more progressive feel on the Fuel EX by setting the shock to the middle Trail setting and by using the larger 0.6 or 0.8 Fox shock volume reducers (stock is the 0.4 spacer). The trail setting was intended to be the desired middle setting so riders could move either way off of that based on their personal riding style and terrain. If you’re a “set and forget” type rider, just put it in Trail and adjust the spring force to your liking in that setting. You can also decrease sag to 25% to further increase support (standard recommended sag is 30%). Point being, the Fuel EX gives you a lot of room to achieve the type of ride you want.” -Jose Gonzalez, Trek Suspension Development


Do you agree with their verdict in the video? Would you choose the Fuel EX or the Tallboy?

Regions in Article
Squamish

Posted In:
Reviews and Tech Pinkbike Originals Reviews Cage Match Trail Bikes Santa Cruz Bicycles Trek Santa Cruz Tallboy Trek Fuel Ex Mike Kazimer Mike Levy


Must Read This Week
Enter to Win a Pinkbike Academy Orbea Replica Bike
114064 views
First Look: 2021 Trek E-Caliber - A Motorized XC Machine
67531 views
Interview: Rachel Atherton on Her Pregnancy & Plans for the Future
63720 views
Bike Check: The BREWser, a 184mm Travel, Crazy-Slack Experimental Gearbox Bike
56281 views
Throwback Thursday: 10 of Sam Hill's Most Iconic Bikes as Chosen by His Mechanic
51598 views
Round Up: Custom Setup Tricks from World Cup & EWS Races
50139 views
Ed Masters Breaks Pelvis In New Zealand National Champs
44384 views
Slack Randoms: Another Cyclist Falls Through the Ice, A New Suspension Stem & More
44328 views

223 Comments

  • 148 0
 Thumbs up on using control tires...all cage matches, shootouts, round ups, groups tests should.
  • 73 0
 We think so too - that’s why we used control tires for this year’s Field Test. We’ll still mention poor tire spec when applicable, but control tires do help remove a variable and make it easier to focus on the bike itself.
  • 8 0
 @mikekazimer: ETA on the Field Test?
  • 31 0
 @kstrongin3: November. Smile
  • 3 1
 @kstrongin3: rumor has it its being filmed in Park City as we speak.
  • 11 0
 @brianpark:
Any chance that we see Ripmo AF test anytime soon?

Thanks in advance.
  • 8 0
 Agreed, control tires should be used for all reviews and comparisons, I hate when reviews get so hung up on the damn tires. I understand mentioning tire value in the review but its a waste of everyone's time reviewing a bike with the wrong tires for the trail. Its like reviewing one bike in size large and another in size small and then saying the small bike was worse because it felt cramped.
  • 1 19
flag pinnityafairy (Sep 30, 2019 at 10:56) (Below Threshold)
 @mikekazimer: it all starts with the tires about time you guys figure it out
  • 11 1
 Speaking of tires, what MTB apparel company with come out with 29er-specific shorts that incorporate a protective Kevlar ass-crack strip?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - Ayeeeeeeeee!!!!!
  • 1 2
 @Brdjanin: ????
  • 1 2
 @Brdjanin: that was supposed to be a thumbs up
  • 123 11
 I wonder what its going to take for trek to just f*cking give up on this whole rear shock business. Yet again Trek's very capable bike gets a "meh" review and most of that can be attributed to the sponge/ piece of shit of a shock they call Re:Active

Working at a Trek dealer gave me inexpensive access to owning new bikes so I have a owned a few treks now. I owned a 2018 Fuel and after putting a 150 fork up front and getting a normal shock for it that bike was unbelievably good and will go down as one of the best bikes I have owned. I then moved to a slash, once I got rid of the rear shock and put a proper shock on it it was incredible how well that bike performed at full speed and how stable she felt...

No one at our shop currently riding a trek has kept the Re:Activ shocks on their bikes, its the first thing we remove and try and sell on PB.

TREK YOU ARE A BIKE COMPANY NOT A SUSPENSION COMPANY.... YOU f*ckING SUCK AT IT
  • 43 0
 I'll second these thoughts. Trek is doing the hard stuff well, then completely ruining a bike with wonky shock "technology", in house parts that don't last and silly marketing lead engineering efforts like knock block.

Instead of knock block, just knock all that shit off. Know your strengths, know your weaknesses, and get your head out of the vacuum you so clearly are living in some of the time.
  • 13 3
 "Yet again Trek's very capable bike gets a "meh" review"...

I haven't seen too many reviews on the 2020 yet, but the 2017/18 got really good reviews. When I was looking for a bike last time it came up repeatedly on best bike lists. Bike's bible talked it up like crazy and basically only thing missing was the 140 front (which it now has). So I don't know, maybe everyone's just a schill but they got anything but meh reviews.

However, I tried one and didn't get on with it well--because of the rear suspension. I tried the remedy and loved it though- re:aktive through shaft and all.
  • 11 14
 i downvoted you after the first sentence because you sounded like an anti-trek fanboy... but then I ended up agreeing with you. Sorry I can't change my vote now.
  • 5 0
 @dro-cfr: I ran a RS Deluxe RCT I found online that was the correct eye to eye and stroke. I ran two volume spacers and about 28% sag and that handled everything I could throw at it .
But I also know that many fox Shocks and some of the new RS deluxes and Super deluxes with the correct eye to eye length can have a custom stroke reducer installed by a few suspension tuning places so my guess is theres a much larger group of shocks that could work I just didn't have time before race season so I found what I could and on it went, and man was it worth it.

Chat with your preferred suspension service place or tuning specialists and see what they can offer you and then go from there. And to be honest we haven't had one experience where the shock we replaced the Re:Active shock with was a downgrade so....
  • 2 1
 @hamncheez: lol
  • 11 2
 @ICKYBOD: Ever since the inception of "We will do it ourselves" shocks that trek has rolled out going all the way back to the DRCV valved bikes, Trek has really never had an outstanding blown away review for their bikes.... I mean shit The Slash that won bike of the year had a an X2 on it and you can tell PB just wasn't sure who else to give it to that year..

Maybe "meh review" is taking it to a bit of an extreme but all the reviews of trek bikes that have had DRCV valve shock, a DRCV+Re:Active shock and now a Re;Active-thru-shaft shock always get dinged by the reviewers for having to really fiddle with the shock. Im sorry but when paying the money that a 9.7, 9.8 or 9.9 model of trek comes along with Its inexcusable to have to f*ck with your shock for a week to try and understand how to make it not feel like shit.

We also cant ignore the amount of these shocks that fail in some weird way that traditional shocks do not. I mean my 2017 Fuel EX with Re:Active failed within 2 weeks of owning it and at the time I was told by trek that it wasn't their problem and Fox told me, well we don't have parts to fix them for 8 months... And i am sure many people here have a story about their DRCV valve shock just grenading itself as well...


I am sure many folks have found a way to get along with their TREK shocks but in my experience its not been a very high percentage of people.
  • 3 0
 Best thing I ever did to my 2012 Remedy was upgrade from the variable volume Fox thing to a Monarch. Before widespread trunion mounts and such, the shock was set up for that exact frame by RS, and it was a game changer.
  • 16 1
 I said it numerous times, that Reactiv shocks are mediocre products with Penske badge of approval that is worth virtually nothing. They are exclusive shock pumps with rebound valve. You can check under almost every review or press release of any Trek in a few last years. There it is Waki moaning about Reactive shocks
  • 3 0
 Completely agree. Also currently running a 150 fork on an ‘18 FEX with a DPX2 out back after blowing up 2 Re:Aktivs... completely transformed the bike
  • 4 1
 @colelarsen6: I'm probably in the minority but I like how my re:activ bike feels. I'm definitely a set-and-forget guy, and just leave in the middle setting. Enough platform to pedal against, and sucks up the bumps too. What I maybe don't like is the reliability. I'm on my 3rd shock on a 2017 Fuel EX - that I bought late in the year, the bike is only 2 years old. If the current shock dies, I probably will just put an off-the-shelf shock on it, just because 'dammit not again'.
  • 2 0
 Dirtlabz makes a conversion kit to run a normal rear shock on the newer trek stuff. It's still annoying but at least now that full float is gone the shock sizes are closer to normal.
  • 3 0
 I put a regular shock on both of my trek's too! Makes them way better.
  • 1 0
 @pelli: you don't need a conversion kit for most of them, just the thru shaft stupid expensive models.
  • 1 0
 Gotta agree, replacing the piece of shit stock Re:aktiv shock on my old Remedy with a DPX2 was the best thing I did to it. Improved the ride by miles. Re:aktiv sucks, it lets down massively what is otherwise a great line of bikes.
  • 1 0
 I got fluid function to modify the internals of my reaktive off my slash. Reduced reaktive platform and maxima synthetic oil made a world of difference. The bloody thing now works at 165psi and rebound adjustments actually make sense too.. However fox dpx2 or the new superdeluxe ultimate are a worthy upgrade on any treks with thrushaft shocks. Coil likes to party too...
  • 3 0
 I recently bought a slash 8 with a good discount on it, and so far, I need to say that I am quite happy with the rear shock. For the price, I was glad to see the shock on the entry level bike was the same than the one on the top end carbon slash . I am a bit surprised by the comments, because all the reviews I read about this bike were very enthusiastic about the reaktiv/thru-shaft shock....But that's just my feeling...
  • 1 0
 @jurassicrider:
In fairness, the shock works well for a 180-200lbs riders who sticks to flow trails. Majority...
.
.
.
Everyone else, upgrades the damn thing anyways.
Minority
.
  • 2 0
 @jurassicrider: I picked up the Slash 8 a few months back.. Been happy with it... Dropped a Charger 2 cartridge into the fork and upgraded the brakes...

I found about 32% sag is a sweet spot.. I've got it figured to 1 click on the rebound is the difference between my local trails and slow it down for more lippy bike park stuff... Compression switch, full open.

I wouldn't mind more adjustments on the shock, but a new shock isn't in my budget..

Anyone have any feedback on using a coil on the Slash?
  • 2 0
 @lumpy873: I know some folks have had some decent luck running the X2 but does take a good chuckle of time to set up.

The suspension platform was designed around an air shocks ramp up characteristics. They are a linear platform so coils can have a hard time feeling great but there are folks out there running them.
  • 8 1
 I disagree. I think the Re:Aktiv shocks are great. I mean, here in Colorado we have absolutely massive climbs and it allows my Slash to pedal better than my 115 mm travel Smuggler ever did (even with a DVO Topaz on it), yet still rip on the downs. It pedals great with no bob, yet you can blast through rock gardens at speed without blinking an eye. I'm not sure why you had that experience or what year shocks you had, but mine is a 2019 so maybe the 2019s are better? So far I'm in love with the shock, but I think personal preferences come into play here also. Some people like a much plusher shock and that's OK. I like racier, more supportive shocks that don't give up their travel like a virgin on prom night. The shock is not a coil, that's for sure. Also, keep in mind Trek isn't making shocks or trying to be a suspension company. The shocks are still made by Rockshox or Fox.

I also think that the feel reviewers mention on the Fuel has to do with how they tuned it. The Slash feels pretty firm and supportive so it's hard for me to imagine the Fuel feels that way. But it seems they tuned their trail bike for everyday riders and not the super aggressive ones (that would gravitate towards the Slash), which makes sense given its intended purpose. As mentioned in the review a different shock tune or bigger volume reducers (not necessarily a different shock) would probably change that if that's what you're going for.
  • 1 0
 @TheBearDen: There are a lot of adjustments on the X2... That means more time setting it up.. But, I do like the tinkering...

Kinda thought that might be the case regarding the coil.. Especially with the big reducers in there stock...
  • 1 0
 @BaeckerX1: I'm a big dude I'm outside the weight range of what the stock re active is designed for. I am loving my new slash even though the shock is soso but I'm waiting for the new dvo jade to be available and I have a feeling the bike will work loads better for me when that shows up.
  • 1 0
 @pelli: I'm 6 foot, 220 and no issues. Not sure why you're having a problem. I still love mine.
  • 1 0
 @BaeckerX1: I'm 6 ft 5 and 250. I would also guess I ride harder than you ????‍♂️
  • 2 0
 I rode the trek over the weekend on a rental bike. It sucked. Sucked hard. I weigh 195 pounds, and had the shock at over 200 PSI to get it to roughly 25% sag, and I had to run it with the switch on to keep from bottoming out hard. I also had to run the rebound as fast as it goes, and still the bike felt dead. Manuals, or even small poops to clear roots and drops took far more effort than my 160mm travel enduro bike.
  • 4 0
 @BaeckerX1: I've ridden on a 14 and 16 remedy and now the 20 fuel ex. I've had zero issues with Reaktiv and think they perform and feel great as well. /shrug
  • 1 1
 @pelli: you don't know me. Probably wishful thinking on your part.
  • 1 0
 @BaeckerX1: that is why I said it was a guess
  • 69 7
 My ex-wife rides a trek
  • 16 0
 Bet that doesn't fuel your fire
  • 2 1
 Marriage traction not doing well.
  • 7 0
 According to the vid, she’s be better off riding a tall boy.
  • 1 0
 @chyu: exact opposite my new wife is trophy wife and is one of the fastest ladies on the East Coast. She rides like a girl try to keep up please.
  • 2 0
 @chyu: www.pinkbike.com/photo/15389073
Trophy Wife earned Hardware
  • 1 1
 @FuzzyL: all her trips to the top of the box were all on a Kona Process. So I would have to say proven results speak louder than hypothetical Theory.
  • 37 1
 What about Tallboy vs Ripley
  • 20 4
 or the Smuggler
  • 22 0
 So many different bike comparisons to make. Plenty more of these videos to come Smile
  • 9 0
 @mikelevy: new Norco Optic please! 140 / 125mm puts it right in the middle of this pack
  • 3 0
 @mikelevy: VPP vs DWL final supreme get down!! youtu.be/FYcVrWDOiao
  • 3 0
 Tallboy vs Trail 429
  • 3 0
 @mikelevy: What I would like to see actually is how the new models compare to the previous generation. There are a lot of us, I imagine, that have the model being reviewed, but the previous generation. That is my curiosity right now. I also imagine a lot of us are brand loyal, so comparisons to other bikes doesn't matter as much, though I like to read about them. Be great if you could do some articles along those lines.
  • 24 0
 THANK YOU for using a standard set of tires! One of my biggest pet peeves is when tire spec is listed as a pro/con, when tires are one of the easiest thing to replace, and most commonly worn out!
  • 24 1
 That’s true, but poor tire spec is still worth mentioning - they’re not cheap, and if you’re buying a bike it’s annoying to need to spend even more money to swap them out.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: the stock tire spec on both of these is pretty solid actually.
  • 11 0
 @brappjuice: Neither of us liked the stock 2.6" tires that come on the Fuel EX. Not terrible, but they feel a bit vague compared to something with a bit less volume and stiffer casing.
  • 4 4
 @mikelevy: different folks different strokes I suppose- I've gone to 2.5-2.6 on all my bikes right now I think its a great blend of traction and speed when pushing fast technical bits- but I also run a pretty firm tire which might counteract that feeling of vagueness you mention. I find speed doesn't need a scalpel- but I get where you're coming from. The DHF/DHR on the TB would definitely work better for your market- so I concede- but still say the 2.5 version of those tires is far better than the 2.3.
  • 1 2
 @mikelevy:
I felt the same about the 2.6 Bontrager tyres that came on my 2019 Remedy. Just too vague and wobbly.
  • 3 3
 Pinkbike- demands boundary pushing geometry. Still prefers 2013 tire sizes.
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy: but... 2.6" tires are very standard, and while I'm on the fence about a spec tire for testing, I think you should stay close to stock size to give some relevance to the factory choice. After all, 95% of people are going to ride the stock tires until they decide what they want to change to.
  • 20 0
 santa cruz also has a lifetime warranty on bearings and frames....just saying....santa cruz is a no brainer for me....they've treated me and all my friends well.
  • 19 1
 When you eventually sell that TB, you will easily get back the price difference plus some.
  • 7 0
 So true SC hold their value like crazy...
  • 8 11
 This is the one thing that needs to change 100% in MTB. Half the reason these companies can charge that much is because they know people will buy them, and the people that buy them know they can sell them because there are suckers out there that will pay >$3k for a used, out of warranty bike, with neglected suspension service, reduced life on all the bearings, and out of date geometry, all because high original price must equal best.
  • 10 0
 @phops: Bikes should come with geometry expiration dates printed on the seat tube so we know just when they go out of date.
  • 17 2
 I think one thing everyone needs to remember is just because these two preferred a particular bike on the particular trails they ride doesn't necessarily mean you will come to the same conclusion, or that one bike is objectively better than the other. I think maybe I would like the Trek more based on some of the traits they mentioned -- a little more travel, a little more comfort. To their credit, they mention that. I think this was pretty well done.
  • 11 0
 That could be said of literally every product ever made... Expert opinions are great.
  • 4 0
 @tgent: Maybe, maybe not. I think some products are legitimate turds, not a matter of preference. I don't think that's the case here.
  • 23 9
 Why not throw Giant Trance 29 into the mix. Would be interesting to see how those 3 bikes compare considering massive difference in price (Pro1 costs less than half as much as these bikes but comes with pretty good kit).
  • 7 5
 I agree. The Trance 29 is an amazing bike. My favorite bike in years.
  • 101 5
 This video sucks, why not add the bike I own ________________ here.
  • 9 2
 @High-Life: ding ding ding
  • 9 0
 www.pinkbike.com/news/field-test-giant-trance-advanced-29.html
  • 40 0
 Why stop there, why don't they just make Kaz and Levy ride every bike in existence in one 82 hour strait test. No food. no breaks. Oh wait I know why, because there's two of them and two bikes so they can put together a pretty complete breakdown in one nice short video for us.
  • 3 10
flag SL13 (Sep 30, 2019 at 10:53) (Below Threshold)
 @warmerdamj: Obviously that is ridiculous and I love what they have done here, and comments like @High-Life are dumb, yet always going to happen in the PB comments. There are too many bikes out there for them to test now days, but it would be awesome if they did a bracket type system where they just test two bikes from the same category at a time and eliminate the loser. Ripley, Smuggler, Trance 29, etc, etc. Winner takes all! All of what? Who knows? Especially because this is just two guys opinion and all of us may think different and prefer one of the losers. Fun idea anyway.
  • 11 0
 @SL13: sounds like the Field Test, which we'll start dropping in November. 14 bikes across 3 categories, each with individual reviews and then a round-table where the editors name their favourites (and least favourites).

Logistically we can't do every bike in every category, so we chose 2020 bikes only. And sometimes our choices are limited by what the brands have available, sizing, etc.
  • 2 0
 @brianpark: y'all are doing good work. the last group of comparos you did where you had 4 or so bikes per category and a few categories was great.
  • 6 0
 I think the limitation is that there are only two Mikes. Wink
  • 2 0
 @brianpark: what 3 categories? Hopefully, DH instead of XC!
  • 2 0
 @warmerdamj: with enough meth, that could be possible...
  • 12 0
 I like the format. More of these please. The Fuel's do seem to be a lot more softly set up then the Slash and 2019 Remedy. Interesting that they chose that on their high volume bike. I do agree with what Trek said as far as trail mode on the FEXs though- they ride better if you just leave it in pedal mode all the time and switch to soft for the big downs.
  • 13 0
 "I do agree with what Trek said as far as trail mode on the FEXs though- they ride better if you just leave it in pedal mode all the time and switch to soft for the big downs."

That's in interesting tidbit. Usually, we're all looking for the bike to ride wide open and only deal with a switch for tough climbs. Instead, Trek has made a bike to flip the switch the other way. Makes a lot of sense if you think about what the bike is intended for. It's going to be used for more XC/Trail stuff, so why not set it for the majority of your riding (flowy ups and downs) and then have a mode for less likely situations (bigger descents).
  • 6 0
 @drpheta: they want you to ride it in Trail because in trail they boost a shit ton of Low Speed into the compression giving the feel of better support.... The issue with this is you get a really hard spike in the shock when the it encounters high speed damping. One of Vorsprung's Tech-Tuesday videos does a really good job explaining the issues with having to much low speed damping.

Re:Active seems to suffer from early CTD Disease. Open mode feels like a mushy sponge, Trail feels numb and small bump compliance dissolves and Climb mode is there to make the other two not feel like shit on really steep climbs when out of the saddle.
  • 1 0
 @TheBearDen: My experience on the FEX - ya I couldn't get the rear shock set up right during my tests. It did ok in pedal mode but I could never quite dial it in- that was only over a few test rides though.

However, I love it on the remedy. I don't know if the RS on the Remedy is just a more robust shock than the Fox on the FEX or what, but I basically went to recommended pressure minus 5 lbs and it's been great. I haven't had to mess with the sag, spacers, or anything else to be happy over a wide range of conditions. So I like the concept and I don't know why one works better for me than the other. (edit) and it does fine in open mode too.
  • 18 4
 no X'ups on the Trek... the Santa Cruz takes the win for me
  • 10 1
 no mention of the knock block at all.
  • 1 0
 @insanemntbiker: its there...
  • 7 8
 @insanemntbiker: it's a complete non-issue unless you're doing slopestyle
  • 7 0
 @ksilvey10: or.. unless you're not a slope style rider but still do X'ups........
  • 5 7
 @insanemntbiker: its like still blaming apple for no headphone jack. Did they need to add the knock-block? Probably not. Did it make their job easier? Sure did. Will it bother 90% of riders? Nope. Its gonna be there.
  • 11 0
 @ksilvey10: Or you want to transport your bike inside your car with the bar turned. It's just stupid, it's a solution to a problem that didn't exist
  • 1 0
 @Whipperman: I like being able to run super tight cables though. It's not all bad- I don't do xups though.
  • 5 3
 I do switchbacks and it was a problem.
  • 3 0
 @Whipperman: Have no issue stuffing my Slash into the boot and traveling with it bars turned. What's the problem?

I do think Trek would benefit going up a degree on the seat angle, would really help but I just slam mine forward on the rails to compensate. The Rockshox Reactive has been fine for me, the Fox Performance fork, had to pull a token before I was happy with it.

GX drive chain - well it's GX and I have had the rear derailleur bend a little. I wear out the rear cassette and then look at migrating to a SHimano XT setup. Love the Guide RS brakes though, once I swapped out the pads for aftermarket, they have been great and consistent for me.

Anyway, horses for corses.
  • 5 0
 So Mike Levy, you have tested an overbuilt Blur as well...so beefed up Blur or lightened up Tallboy for someone who would say they are not really into XC racing but lives near XC trails and wants a full squish for those rides longer than, say, 1.5 hours (have a hardtail I want to single speed and a burlier FS rig for bigger stuff and the odd race..). Biggest concern is the weight, though still would be a couple lbs lighter than big bike, but also a couple lbs heavier than a Blur built up...
  • 4 24
flag solarplex (Sep 30, 2019 at 7:27) (Below Threshold)
 No way i could stand 65.5 deg for any kind on climbing on the tall boy. The trail blurr looks good. Could bump the fork to 120.
  • 8 1
 Honestly, the Tallboy is quite capable on the climbs regardless of its angles. The Blur is a ton of fun, but I'd go w/ a light-ish Tallboy if I wasn't going to race.
  • 2 2
 @mikelevy: Ripley
  • 1 0
 @mikelevy: kinda thought that would be the answer...also, I am 6’4” and like the XXL options...Hightower is perfect as XXL...
  • 1 0
 @mikelevy: and thanks for the reply!
  • 1 0
 Honestly, I wish they would keep the Tallboy 3 design as the Blur TR. it is the perfect middle ground between the Blur and current Tallboy 4.

The Tallboy 3 was hands down the best bike ive ever ridden for fun XC ish trails. I’m selling mine currently and I’m pretty sad about it. The TB4 is amazing, but it just doesn’t have the sprightly spring to it that the 3 did. It’s a great climber but not as efficient a peddler as the former edition.

I’m selling a Large if you’re interested.

Or keep your eye out for closeouts. That bike is still better than many other companies current XC/trail bikes.

Don’t get me wrong, I love my new TB4. It slays the descents but it just isn’t as well balanced on these old school XC trails we have here in the North east. But as the new trail systems evolve and build more flow trails, the TB4 will be ready for them.
  • 5 0
 My local bike shop had a Fuel EX 9.8 in. I took it for a test ride. Liked it. Bought it. I'm no Mike, with my limited skillset I doubt if I could really tell much difference between the two bikes anyway, I´m sure they´d both ride just fine on my local trails. For me, supporting my local bike shop and having someone to help out if anything goes wrong is a major plus. No buyers remorse here.
  • 7 3
 FWIW, I rode a 2016 Fuel Ex and can confirm that the bike was designed to be ridden in the middle 'trail' setting by default, and frequently switching to open mode on descents. If you don't mind flipping the switch often, then the suspension works like a charm. (I put in max. volume spacers for rowdier riding.)
With that in mind the review feels a little unfair, but I acknowledge that I'm biased – I absolutely loved that bike.
  • 9 0
 When my Tallboy LT was stolen, I bought a 2018 Trek Fuel Ex 9.8. Both were/are great bikes, so I shouldn't be too biased one way or the other.

I ride my Fuel in the middle setting 90% of the time, as was suggested by Trek. I switch to the softer setting at the top of long downhills, and the firm setting at the bottom of long fire road climbs. I don't mind the Reactiv, but I usually get along pretty well with most equipment once I get it dialed in.

I'm sure I would be very happy with either of those bikes.
  • 3 0
 @jacobyw: I have a 2017 Fuel EX and do exactly as you guys do: ride the middle setting on flow and ascents and open it up on rougher sections/descents. I can see why it’s not the suspension platform for everyone but I get along just fine with it. I’d even add a - gasp! - remote to toggle between the settings if it were available. Modern geo on 29ers has gotten WAY better in the last 5 years as well.
  • 5 0
 Levy actually a low-key ripper. I'm surprised after watching how slowburn the dudes over at Bike mag are. Proper loose steez too and no corny ass kneepads. Great honest review. Hyped for the rest.
  • 4 1
 Not sure if the new Top Fuel would have been a better match for the Tallboy.. The Fuel seems to fall right in the middle of the Tallboy and the new Hightower. The Fuel has been on of my favorite bikes for my local trails, but with this new version, it got a little closer to my Slash.. Makes me want to go with something a little shorter if I get a chance to add a second bike to my quiver. Tallboy and Trance 29 are high on my list since the bar mounted dual lockout would be something I would remove. But, the Fuel feel that I like in a lighter form is hard to ignore... Also, one noe on the video... The Fuel has had 130mm of rear travel for at least 4 years now...
  • 15 0
 Categories are always a challenge. Travel vs angles, etc... You’re in luck though, we had the Top Fuel in the same category as the Tallboy in this year’s Field Test. Stay tuned!
  • 2 0
 @brianpark: agreed... A lot of new bikes are blurring the lines of the established "categories "
I'll be looking forward to the field test...
  • 6 3
 Agree with this and spoke with my wallet. The Smuggler is the blueprint for all these bikes - if it never came around, Trek and SC would still be on the geo of two generations ago. But the Tallboy is a better bike. Smuggler is even more linear than the Trek. Great traction but does not feel as fun. Trek is a casual rider/parking lot test bike. The Tallboy felt more fun and felt like I could push it harder. Better results on my “stupid four foot huck to flat for no reason” test.

Ripley is a good bike, but liked the Tallboy better, plus you still can’t actually buy a Ripley anywhere and I trust Santa Cruz Carbon way more than Ibis carbon.

I would buy the Giant over the Trek and maybe the Ripley. It pedals better than the Smuggler. Tallboy just worked better for me and the other dentists in my practice would have looked at me funny, even if I had AXS on my giant.
  • 2 1
 Unno Dash is the blueprint Wink Unno published that geo way too early lol.
  • 19 15
 Trek is a USA family-owned company. Santa Cruz is owned by Pon Holdings. I know where they're made. Besides I like that Trek supports all forms of Cyclings. From NICA to Pro Tour teams, everything. Bicycle advocacy.
  • 3 0
 This was a great comparison. I loved the emphasis on consistency and coming out with a clear answer was a breath of fresh air instead of "well bike #1 is better for odd number days and #2 has better antisquat for riders willing to flip the switch on the (insert proprietary tech name here)".

For future comparisons...

Looking at specific "innovations" and comparing them throughout a market cycle would be great. First mid-fat bike vs modern mid-fat? 65 degree head angle in 2013 vs 2020? Santa Cruz VPP 2015 vs 2019? Carbon durability year-to-year?

For me personally (this is a total "please compare this to my old _____ because I think its awesome" request), I'd love to see the "wheel swap bikes" compared. Converting 27.5+ to 29er was still a pretty big deal when my Switchblade came out in 2016, so how has that innovation progressed? Did it stick? Who did it better? Not focusing on the wheels sizes themselves, but the design considerations necessary to build frames to accommodate both.
  • 3 0
 Just ride your bike more.
  • 3 0
 @trek Which Volume Spacers do I need for the "Fox Performance Float EVOL" in my FEX 9.8 2020 ?
I am just curious and want to be able to play around once I have the feeling to need to change something.

I have just received my FEX 2020 last friday and spent the entire weekend riding it in the Alps...
Was just very happy with it. I have to admit that there weren't any serious drops or jumps. For the ones who know the Herrensteig-Trail in Kronplatz (a rough 1300 m descent trail in South Tyrol) with all it's funny jumps and drops, it felt just fine.

But still with my 86 kg im not a featherweight and I didn't have any problems with bottoming out at all. And to be honest I didn't even had to change anything on the SAG since I picked the bike from my dealer.

Before I decided for the new Trek FEX I also had an eye on the new Tallboy. But the extreme enduro oriented geometry with it's low head angle and especially that Ultra Low Bottom Bracket prevented me from it. I think you should have mentioned that also in your review. It always comes to your intended use of the ride.

I went for the FEX and have no reasons to complain so far!
  • 7 4
 Trek really likes squish. I ride A remedy and have max volume spacers in the shock in order to get the mid stroke support necessary to have a solid feeling ride, and im only 160lbs!
  • 2 1
 agreed, i own a 2016 remedy and a 2019 slash and with proper sag i bottom out so much even with maxed out spacers!!
  • 11 3
 Adding volume spacers does nothing for mid stroke support, it only changes the ramp up at the end of the travel. If you need more mid stroke, try adding a bit of pressure or more compression damping.
  • 2 3
 @i-am-lp: I am not a suspension expert by any means, but if I run the same pressure in the shock with more volume spacers would that not mean there is less space in the air chamber and thus the dynamics of the shock would change throughout the stroke?
  • 8 1
 @jibbandpedal: Yeah, if you kept the psi the same and just added spacers you'd have a bit more midstroke support...but most people add spacers then drop their pressure to readjust for sag. That causes a dip in the midstroke. The best way to get better midstroke support is to run higher pressure.
  • 1 0
 @jeremy3220: or send it in for a new compression tune
  • 3 1
 I think Trek design their proprietary shocks and tunes for parking lots test rides and beginner riders who will "like it squishy"
  • 8 6
 So was the Trek simply setup improperly? Did you do the things mentioned in Trek's response? Any bike takes some effort and fiddling around with to get it setup properly for your preferences, you didn't mention what you did (or didn't) do... If you made an effort to get the bike setup to your preferences and couldn't achieve it, that's a whole different thing than "I got the bike from Trek, set it to 30% sag and never touched it ever again".
  • 14 1
 Of course we tried some things Smile Even in the middle setting, the shock doesn't offer the support that we'd like to see.
  • 4 0
 @mikelevy: It's been that way on Trek's bikes since the first DRCV shock circa 2010, nothing new.

Almost all Treks since DRCV was introduced are still wonderful bikes - that just come stock with wallowy tunes set up for parking lot ooh-aah squish and beginner / timid riders wanting a magic carpet sponge ride (to be fair, this may be a core part of Trek's market)

I think your closing comment about who will prefer the (stock) Fuel is spot on - someone looking for comfort/mistake eraser from their suspension, while the Tallboy rider wants the suspension to provide traction, support and pop.

I loved my Fuel and Remedy but no amount of tinkering with the stock shock got the sweet spot in terms of support.

Different strokes for different folks really.
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy: Good to hear, I think that's key info for the review and a legit question... not sure why the downvotes. I have had the same experience on all of my Trek bikes starting with a 2008 Remedy. Even my '18 Trek Slash, I went through a few thru-shafts that Trek shop folks told me was the best shock ever before buying an X2, which transformed the bike into what it should have always been. I think with Trek bikes the issue is you need to plan on buying the shock of your choice with the frame, and as a consolation you can keep the stock shock for emergency use or when the real shock needs service. It's a shame because I really like my Trek bikes. I had two 26" Remedies, a 27.5" Slash and now a 29" Slash. At least the newer Slash has a nicely progressive rear sus curve.
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy: Can you please tell us more precisely what you´ve tried exactly? Did you try the larger 0.6 or 0.8 Fox shock volume reducers as recommended by Trek? And how would you compare the new Fuel EX with the actual Remedy? Thanks a lot for your reply!
  • 1 0
 Can Trek upgrade the shock next year, or are they locked into limp suspension for the model duration?
  • 1 0
 @High-Life: unlikely, their shocks have had the DRCV valving and mellow-wallow suspension (to varying degrees) since around 2010. It's fine if you're a mellower rider, if you're a "needs moar volume spaacers!" kind of rider you will probably want a different shock or a different bike.
  • 1 0
 Their whole concept is anti-support. Regressive damper tune? Come on. Even if it has the low speed support to feel ok pumping a carpark, at some point you will need it and the support won’t be there, be that a compression or climbing through tree roots. This shit might work humping curbs in a streetcar, but it sure lacks sense off road.
  • 4 2
 This more or less checks out with the scores on BikeDigger.com, which runs geometry numbers through formulas to estimate a bike's handling capabilities. It gives the Fuel EX the higher Rowdiness score and the Tallboy the higher Nimbleness score.
  • 8 3
 Guessing bikes behavior based on minute differences in geo numbers is like choosing a girlfriend by her school grades. Good luck with that! 65 head angle on a 120 bike, yeah, how about that’s stupid. You get geo of an enduro bike to send it down sht of a kind that rear suspension won’t be able to cash. How’s your bike mate? G-G-G-G-G-R-E-A-T-T-T dy dy dy dy. Are you ok? Ye Ye Ye Ye Ye oy oy oy oy, I sent it down the r r r rock g g g g gard gard d d d d den amd I think I got one major concussion out of 100 micro concussions, but it was damn right confidence inspiring G G G G G Geo
  • 3 0
 @WAKIdesigns:
I think you just perfectly captured my hard tail rides....
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: haha. yeah man guessing a bikes behavior based on geo numbers is dumb.

Then you go ahead and do that exact thing... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Why are you judging a bike you've never ridden? Who says a 65* HTA has to be on an Enduro bike? We used to think 68 degrees was only for DH bikes only 10 years ago. Its pretty cool that bike companies are pushing the limits of what these short travel bikes can do.

Around where i live, its techy rocky old school XC trails with some short steep, rocky descents. This bike is absolutely perfect for these trails. We also have a lot of steep chunky rock rolls, the slack head angle makes these much more possible even at slow speeds. So many guys are riding 140mm-160mm travel bikes and pedaling around all the extra squish they don't need just to have the advantage of the HTA on the steeps spots. So this bike is spot on for what 95% of riders in the Hudson Valley region of NY need. And we can still send it down the rocks, it just takes a more skilled rider to finesse the lines.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Forgot to add: I had the Previous Tallboy3 since it was released, as well as an Sworks Enduro 29 and later a comp Enduro 29. I tended to prefer the TB3 to both of those on most trails. I have been riding a TB4 since the week it released. The HTA change is barely noticeable on the trails untill they turn downhill and it opens up. Such a good bike.
  • 2 1
 @Questlove967: Tallboy vs Enduro29, what’s next? Nomad faster than Session? No point continuing this discussion
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Im just saying that you totally contradicted yourself.

"Guessing bikes behavior based on minute differences in geo numbers is like choosing a girlfriend by her school grades. Good luck with that! 65 head angle on a 120 bike, yeah, how about that’s stupid. You get geo of an enduro bike to send it down sht of a kind that rear suspension won’t be able to cash."


You are being hypocritical and judgmental of a bike you've never ridden solely based on reading geo charts and reviews.

I respect your opinion. Im sure a long travel Enduro bike is essential where you live, but not where I live. So the modern geometry and short travel is a perfect combo. My Enduro was amazing on the downhills but it sucked to pedal on the more XC trails we have mainly. The previous gen Tallboy was fantastic on 80% of the riding where i live, and the new TB4 ticks the boxes for doing absolutely I need it to do well.
  • 2 1
 @Questlove967: minute, sorry should have said minimal. Throwing a different tyre on a bike can completely change its character. 200g less, thinner casing, slightly less side knob. Everything changes. i am aware of that.
  • 4 0
 Hey that's a well made review. Thanks for putting the extra effort. And also for apparently saying what you think regardless of it being big vendors ;-)
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer You are completely right about FC needing to be proportional to RC. This is the reason why one size feels better than another. People point out that reach increases 25mm, but the WB and FC also increase by 25mm when upsizing. Increasing the front by 15mm is about equivalent to shortening the CS by 5mm, in terms of shifting body weight to the rear wheel. It's easier to ride when the balance is better.

I wager that a vast majority of those feelings you felt can be attributed to that fore-aft weight balance. It's no coincidence that your preferred bikes hit a certain balance. 435mm CS and 1230mm WB. 430 CS and 1210 WB... add or subtract 5mm CS and +/- 20mm off the WB (FC+CS difference). That's why you liked the L SB130 over the L SB150... I'd argue the M SB150 kicks ass. I'd argue the M Firebird 29, M Process 153, and M Whyte G170 feels better than those same models in L. Might be a toss up between the Transition M and L, fixable with stem length change.

Beyond that, the bike's CoG (lower and centered weight), suspension kinematics, the chassis rigidity, the spec that's directly responsible for technical-handling-capability (tires, susp, brakes), and the ergonomics (including reducing of penalty-of-failure, such as increase standover height) play a major role in your choice. The quality of life things, like the finish and that downtube storage feature, and how easy it is to check sag and get to the rear shock and bottle, are things you can kind of get over, if the trade-off is better performance.
  • 3 2
 Bit confused on the analysis. 120-140mm trail riders [especially Trek Fuel] have been asking for the Fox 36 platform for ages, to combine the best of trail efficiency and enduro. It finally happens, then doesn't seem to provide any advantage, in fact coming second to the Pike in descending, indicating 1 degree slacker headtube > 1 Fork Platform. The review overall just seemed to focus on climbing ability and the ever-popular SeatTubeAngle.
  • 7 1
 Geometry over everything else.
  • 1 0
 I'm 160lbs and never wanted more than a 34 up to 150mm.
  • 6 0
 great vid
  • 2 1
 Seems like less is more with the new breed of 29ers. I'm still in the camp that 120/120 is all the majority of riders need unless you flinging down a mountain all the time in a bike park. Is a review coming soon of the new 120/120 Norco Revolver?
  • 1 0
 What else is having 130f 120r suspension, lifetime warranty and is not made in Asia for much less €$? Ding ding ding.
Orbea Occam TR 2019. The geometry is more conservative than the tallboy but oh boy it s Swiss army knife. Mini endubro to amped up xc bike.
Now after thinking about buying the trek I glad I went with the Occam.
If I had that much money though I would probably just buy the tallboy for the purple paint. :-D
  • 2 0
 The Occam frame isn't made in Asia? They do a lot of paint and assembly in the Portuguese factory, but AFAIK they aren't laying carbon up there...

We'll have the 2020 Occam in this year's Field Test as well.
  • 1 0
 Do you think the lack of rear support comes from the re:active tuning/thru-shaft or from the geometry itself? Just wondering if you'd expect the lower end models which don't have thru-shaft (9.7/Cool or re:active (7) to ride any different.
  • 2 0
 It's all the Trek tuned reaktiv shocks, not just the thru shaft versions.


I'm running 220 psi in my 2018 Ex8 which is 10% more than Trek recommend, and I've got a spacer in there.


If (when?) it dies I'm buying a better shock.
  • 2 0
 The last time you guys reviewed just the rear shock on the previous version of this bike it seemed pretty positive. www.pinkbike.com/news/trek-fox-thru-shaft-shock-review.html Has it "regressed" since then?
  • 1 0
 Honestly Trek is falling behind, they can't keep up with the modern geometry that Santa Cruz is using. These two bikes may be meant for the same type of riding but the geometry and travel make this comparison kinda useless.
  • 9 6
 Hey, what's the advertising breakdown Shimano vs. SRAM on Pinkbike?
  • 16 1
 I have at least three different bikes in my shop that have Shimano brakes with wandering bite points. I think I have one set of SRAM brakes doing the same thing right now.

Bottom line: mountain bike brakes have been horribly inconsistent for many, many years now. You might get a four in a row of the same model that works well, then two that don't. Or vice versa, and from all the brake companies. Everyone is trying to make them too light and too complicated.
  • 6 0
 Meanwhile I pulled my 2003 hope m4s out of the drawer, put them on a bitsa bike and they just worked like new.
  • 2 1
 @hubertje-ryu: So average then ?
  • 4 0
 Great review! Thanks
  • 2 0
 Love Rupert...such a fun trail and great for a test like this. More of these!
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy did you guys notice any chain slap from the fuel ex? The chain sits right on the chain stay lower in the cassette.
  • 4 0
 Yup, sure did. I forgot to mention it in the video, but it was in the full review: www.pinkbike.com/news/trek-fuel-ex-review-trail-bike-2020.html Smile
  • 1 0
 SC no doubt. Rider support is key. Bikes break. Trek is too big and reactiv is like not long ago when big S had their own proprietary shocks. Dumb idea.
  • 2 3
 I still didn't see the video ... but I don't have to think which bike I would buy ... the Santa Cruz of course! TREK SUCKS!
I bought a Remedy 2019 and the thread of the water bottle got loose and the vibrations broke the frame ... what did TREK said? that was my fault and the warranty is not valid!!! WTF!?!

Once again ... TREK SUCKS!!!
  • 1 2
 you sucks Once again ... YOU SUCKS!!!
  • 2 0
 The following, been doing all this for years, but sssshhhhh don’t mention the e word on these pages
  • 1 0
 How you got all those shots in without hoards of folks dropping in all around you at Rupert is a mystery. 6am? What’s your secret Mikes? Many takes?
  • 1 0
 @mikelevy think you'll ever do one of these for bikes that aren't mass produced? I'd love to see a chromag stylus vs pipedream moxie or altruiste vs shan video.
  • 1 0
 They should have compared them with a control shock. My super power is noting the obvious. I can see things everyone else can see.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer - did you ever feel with today's geo that an XL would be a better size for you on the tallboy with the larger reach?
  • 2 0
 Not really. I'm sure I could ride the XL without too much trouble, but I like the seated climbing position of the size large Tallboy, and on a bike like this I'd be doing plenty of climbing. It's more a matter of personal preference, and in this case I'd likely stick with the large.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: Awesome - thx. I'm 6 ft, and on an S4 Enduro which has been awesome (~490 reach etc.) Looking at that alone I was intrigued by the XL here, but aware i would make some sacrifices in agility to get that length.
  • 3 1
 Trek abomination shocks were always the weak link.
  • 2 0
 I just want to know their fastest time on Rupert on each bike.
  • 2 0
 @mikelevy - What tire size did you go with? 2.3's all around?
  • 2 0
 IIRC 2.5 DHF up front and 2.4 DHRII in the back, both EXO+ casing.
  • 1 0
 throw a 140 on the TB4 and then re-run comparisons...guessing TB still wins. Wink
  • 1 0
 Am I the only one put out that with SC, you have to spend $9,799 to get a Shimano build in a complete?
  • 3 0
 Nope. Thinking of getting either a Tallboy or Hightower next year, and will have to go frame only to get the slx/xt-build I want. Then again, from a frame up you can build up a really good shimano build for way cheaper than the cheapest CC-complete.
  • 1 0
 Great review guys - thank you for the excellent, free content. Appreciate what you do and more of this please!
  • 1 0
 When is PB's review of the new Primer S coming?!?
  • 1 0
 In about 1 month.
  • 1 1
 Why don't you ever review the 'insert my current bike here'? It's the best!
  • 1 0
 Sentinel, Hightower, the Offering cage match.
  • 1 0
 Great job !!!! More of this type of comparisons, Thank you!!!
  • 1 4
 in Treks defense, these shocks need to be tweaked some to eliminate that variable. negative spring volume makes a big different. pinkbike is cool, but the value of their reviews is questionable - especially when it's all the big box mainstream stuff. what i really wanna know is how these compare to the Jamis Portal etc etc.
  • 5 0
 We test bikes the way that the vast majority of consumers will get them. Using control shocks or doing custom tunes beyond volume spacers and basic suspension setup isn't our job, it's the product manager who specced the bike's job.

We should definitely do more outside-the-norm reviews (and there are a bunch coming). That said, the Portal is a 130mm bike that has a steeper HTA, a slacker STA, and shorter Reach compared to these bikes, so it's likely going to feel pretty dated.
  • 1 0
 Where are you riding in this video!? Such a cool trail!
  • 1 0
 This was such a good and informative video! Thanks!
  • 3 1
 Tallboy is pretty ugly.
  • 1 0
 off-topic: where is this track? I want to ride it.
  • 1 1
 Since nobody has said it yet. This definitely the downcountry category.
  • 12 15
 I would like to see adjustable travel forks come back. The trails I ride up are steep and being able to drop my fork from 160mm to 130mm makes a huge difference.
  • 14 7
 you're literally the first person I heard saying that.. you could use the old technique of strapping it down.
  • 7 0
 @wowbagger: Yes you do give up some plushness with the Rockshox Dual Position Air, so some people didn't like it, but riding up a steep trail in the lower position is way better: Steeper head angle, lower front end. Call me crazy but I think on-the-fly adjustable geometry is the future. XC bike uphill, DH bike down.
  • 1 0
 @axleworthington: This is essentially the Canyon Strive concept except they leave fork travel alone and change rear suspension
  • 3 0
 Cane Creek Helm
  • 4 0
 Cane Creek Helm, you can use the "charge-port" feature to quickly drop the fork anywhere in it's travel. I use it all the time for long, steep climbs!
  • 1 0
 @axleworthington: they had a bike like that in the mid-2000s, I believe it was called the Bionicon. I was a secondary air chamber on the shock that allowed for slack/steep geo without affecting travel on either end. I thought it was a great idea, having had one to use for a week as a friend was a rep for the company. I think timing and fashion relegated the design to history--that was a time when rigid and single-speed were en vogue.
  • 3 0
 One of my riding buddies still has a 160/130 mm dual position Pike that came stock on his Reign. He rarely drops it into the low position, because it causes too many pedal strikes. That bike has 160mm of travel, a 74 deg seat angle, and a 65 deg head angle, but he still prefers the fork in the long position on all but the smoothest climbs. Modern bikes are so good at climbing especially with these 76+ deg seat angles that dual position forks seem completely unnecessary to me anyway.
  • 1 1
 double post...
  • 1 0
 The solution to that isn't dropping the fork, is having longer chain-stays. Look at the hill climb motorcycle events, all of them have super long swingarms for that reason exactly.

The "downside" is a longer wheelbase, which people actually want, but don't think they want.
  • 1 0
 I don't really do tech climbing, but I can't imagine lowering my fork 30mm and being able to pedal up anything but a road without smacking a pedal
  • 1 0
 @phops: the other downside of longer stays is a bike thats less poppy, playful, and generally hard to wheelie and your posterior chain.

Longer stays for speed & stability i wont argue with, but the pendulum toward stable fast may need to come back to center soon.

I both love and hate my sentinel. Its fast but not fun. Had a stumpy evo for a bit - best wfo turning bike ive ridden but sofa king boring and dull.
  • 1 0
 @Grosey:

Most people have no idea what poppy or playful actually implies, as they mainly ride trails with 2 wheels on the ground most of the time. A longer wheelbase bike with long chainstays can still be made to lift the front wheel easily, it just takes an adjustment period.
  • 1 0
 @phops: adjustment period for your low back
  • 1 0
 @Grosey:

You act like everyone is built the same. Back problems aren't a thing for everyone, just like not having the seat at the right height won't automatically give you knee pain.
  • 1 0
 @phops: you act like you know what your talking about
  • 1 0
 @Grosey:

Oh, just checked your profile, I see you are a Yeti rider. Makes sense.
  • 5 7
 You still dont know how to set up shimano brakes ????
  • 6 0
 Enlighten us brake master joe.
  • 5 2
 @acali: if the free stroke screw doesn't affect the brake lever, it means they were not bled properly. There are lots of videos explaining how to bleed them, including shimano’s own videos. Dumb and Dumber continue to tell their audience that the free stroke screw is useless instead of actually learning how to use the equipment they are paid to review.
  • 1 4
 I'm concerned by the lack of standover height on that Tallboy
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.023421
Mobile Version of Website