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.
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
• 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
• 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.
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
“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?
223 Comments
Any chance that we see Ripmo AF test anytime soon?
Thanks in advance.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - Ayeeeeeeeee!!!!!
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
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.
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.
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....
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.
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
.
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?
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.
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.
Kinda thought that might be the case regarding the coil.. Especially with the big reducers in there stock...
Trophy Wife earned Hardware
I felt the same about the 2.6 Bontrager tyres that came on my 2019 Remedy. Just too vague and wobbly.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
With that in mind the review feels a little unfair, but I acknowledge that I'm biased – I absolutely loved that bike.
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.
I'll be looking forward to the field 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.
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.
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!
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.
I think you just perfectly captured my hard tail rides....
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.
"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.
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.
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
We'll have the 2020 Occam in this year's Field Test as well.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
The "downside" is a longer wheelbase, which people actually want, but don't think they want.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, just checked your profile, I see you are a Yeti rider. Makes sense.