[Ironmaniac]

Weigh in here on your thoughts.

Trek is really making me mad with this long delayed model. Besides the fact that I can no longer do a Project One mountain bike build they are backordered until April in most places.

And what about that 2X9 Crankset? Will FSA have a Carbon 3X9 option? What other carbon options are available for this narrow BB without piecing something together since the FSA was produced only for this Trek?

Where did the Carbon XXX wheels go to?:nono: Since most everything else is XTR why not just put the XTR wheelset on?

 

[theextremist04]

about the backorder- trek has to produce enough frames in each size before they can start selling them. there's one mold per frame size- you do the math. it takes a while.

the FSA crank is actually pretty nice, use it before you start hating.

and about the XXX wheels, trek couldn't produce nearly enough pairs to do them OEM on any bike, and so they adjusted the price accordingly.

and trek doesn't do non-bontrager wheels on anything, if you hadn't noticed.

 

[pedalitup]

If you're ready for this bike, the 2x9 KF light is what you want anyway. I have one and its better than three rings in every way. The narrow version can only be better.

 

[muaddib]

I ride in the Rockies and bought a Trek Top Fuel 9.8 and am having the lbs upgrade the parts. I am a pure mtn climber and there is no way I could pull the 2x9 crank up the mountains I ride. You guys must be a lot stronger than me! Do pros actually ride 2x9 cranks in the mountains or just flatter xc race courses?

 

[Ironmaniac]

2x9

Yes, that is one of the sticking points for me. This crank has been made specially for Trek by FSA. So there may need to be some changes if you climb on steeper terrain. But I believe the main focus is cross country racing. And if you change the crank out you won't get the benefit of the narrower design which will be a benefit to those of us who ride narrow designs on road bikes.

I checked the measuring of the gears from the provided information and what I cam up with is that the lowest gear you will be able to achieve on a regular 3X9 setup is with the front chainring on the smallest gear and the back cog in the exact middle. I then rode this around on a lot of challenging climbs to see what I could handle.

If you are considering this then I would do either of the following
- plan to make a change to a 3X9
- ride the similar gear combo i outlined above and see if the stock set-up will work
- plan to use your other bikes if available ( I personally have a HT Elite if needed)

 

[trekman]

Sorry the crank options are so confusing.

While the Top Fuel 9.9 SSL comes equipped with a special low Q-factor crank, the frame itself is compatible with standard Shimano / FSA / Truvativ 3-ring setups.

The change-over to a 3-ring will require a different bearing and possibly a spacer, but your dealer can help you with that.

That said, I've ridden the bike in a variety of terrain and was surprised to find that I actually like the 2x9 in steep mountain terrain. At Bootleg Canyon near Vegas, I never ran out of gears... while I consider myself in shape, I don't really race all that much anymore.

So like pedalitup said, try it before you switch over.

I'd love to know more about how you like the bike once you get it... sorry for the delay!

 

[h00ters]

Re: low Q-factor cranks did you ever read about Armstrong in Coyles book where they found out his low Q cranks cut his power by several percent?

 

[trekman]

yes.

but low q factor on a road bike is a lot different than low q factor on a mtb.

A mtb setup is typically 20-30mm wider than road. The Top Fuel 2x9 setup gets closer to a standard road setup than anything else on the market.

The thing is, you can't go much narrower without affecting tire clearance or front derailleur compatibility...