Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
41 - 60 of 365 Posts
I don't think the alloy is very expensive for FS at all. Or is it?
I don't know what the UK price will be but I thought it reasonable as well bearing in mind the Farley 6 with mostly Deore level stuff and no suspension was ÂŁ1300 while the SLX and Fox equipped Fuel Ex8 was ÂŁ2500 therefore I was expecting a full suspension Farley to be a silly price. In some ways I wish it was a silly price to put it out of consideration as the idea of huge traction and full suspension is very tempting although I have bought the 29+ as my faster summer bike already.

John
 
I don't know what the UK price will be but I thought it reasonable as well bearing in mind the Farley 6 with mostly Deore level stuff and no suspension was ÂŁ1300 while the SLX and Fox equipped Fuel Ex8 was ÂŁ2500 therefore I was expecting a full suspension Farley to be a silly price. In some ways I wish it was a silly price to put it out of consideration as the idea of huge traction and full suspension is very tempting although I have bought the 29+ as my faster summer bike already.

John
Agree on the bold. :idea:
 
Wish they rushed something out to be "first" and released something that handled like crepes and had many many faults and issues.


Also, kinda hope they do a farley ex "5" or some sort of lower spec further down the line. Kinda blew my money on a remedy 9.8.... who am I kidding I'd prob rob a bank or sell my left testicle (actually possible) to get a farley ex 9.8
 
It can still take 26 x 4.8 with the 197 rear hub.
That is what I'm saying- with a 197mm rear it should easily fit 26x4.8 and 27.5x4.5, since they both measure out to similar diameter (760-770mm). However, Trek says 27.5x4.0 is the max and if you look at the pics of the chain and seat stays there is not a whole lot of side clearance with a 3.8 Hodag, not a very wide tire to start with. It looks similar to the pic Gigantic posted of his Bucksaw running 27.5 Hodags, so I'd think it has similar clearance to the other 177mm FS fatties (Bucksaw/Mutz) I.e. No 4.8's and a maybe a few of the undersized 26x4.5-4.6 tires if you don't mind tight clearances.

Not that I'm sure the world needs a 4.8" FS fattie, but I'd definitely like to try one ;)
 
I'm kinda new to this whole bike thing. I wish I would have known I was stealing money from under privileged industry pioneers and kicking small puppies when I bought my Treks.

I don't think the alloy is very expensive for FS at all. Or is it?
It just dawned on me. Apparently I own the two most hate bicycle brands on the interwebs.

If I wasn't having so much fun riding them I may have developed a complex.
 
Why does the author of this article think the tires are 27.5 x 4.5? Is he on crack?

Sea Otter 2016: Trek Farley EX

The spec sheets posted in this thread clearly says the tires are 27.5 x 3.8. The most you can probably fit is a 26 x 4.5, but deff not a 27.5 x 4.5, doesn't even exist yet (maybe it does but hasn't been huge)! Plus that would be massive!
 
27.5 x 3.8s would be plenty wide for me.

If I consider this bike then there is no reason for me to consider 27.5+ wheel/tyres for my remedy 9.8 eh =D

........We'll see if they do a 29er Slash haha
 
That is what I'm saying- with a 197mm rear it should easily fit 26x4.8 and 27.5x4.5, since they both measure out to similar diameter (760-770mm). However, Trek says 27.5x4.0 is the max and if you look at the pics of the chain and seat stays there is not a whole lot of side clearance with a 3.8 Hodag, not a very wide tire to start with. It looks similar to the pic Gigantic posted of his Bucksaw running 27.5 Hodags, so I'd think it has similar clearance to the other 177mm FS fatties (Bucksaw/Mutz) I.e. No 4.8's and a maybe a few of the undersized 26x4.5-4.6 tires if you don't mind tight clearances.

Not that I'm sure the world needs a 4.8" FS fattie, but I'd definitely like to try one ;)
The 27.5 x 4.5 won't fit the rear stays on the Farley EX due to the larger diameter at the widest part of the tire encroaching on the stays taper at the main frame end of the part. There is a ton of clearance with the 27.8 x 3.8 but not enough for the 4.5. 26 x 4.8 clears easily.
 
27.5 x 4.5 does exist and is OE on the Farley hard tails, and yes is huge but will not fit on the dually which gets 27.5 x 3.8. Both the hard tails and the dually will also fit 29 x 3.0.
 
The 27.5 x 4.5 won't fit the rear stays on the Farley EX due to the larger diameter at the widest part of the tire encroaching on the stays taper at the main frame end of the part. There is a ton of clearance with the 27.8 x 3.8 but not enough for the 4.5. 26 x 4.8 clears easily.
Based on what has been shown with the 27.5X4.5 prototypes, they are similar diameter (768mm) and smaller width wise than a 4.8 Bud/Lou. http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/27-5x4-whos-excited-whos-not-979984-24.html#post12529182 http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downloads/13827_Update_Tire_Geo_Chart_v2.pdf

I'd guess Trek made them that size so the'd fit in a Bluto's arch and not screw over all the Farley 9 owners. So if a 26X4.8 fits on the EX, then a 27.5"X4.5 would also fit and that would be super cool.
 
Why does the author of this article think the tires are 27.5 x 4.5? Is he on crack?

Sea Otter 2016: Trek Farley EX

The spec sheets posted in this thread clearly says the tires are 27.5 x 3.8. The most you can probably fit is a 26 x 4.5, but deff not a 27.5 x 4.5, doesn't even exist yet (maybe it does but hasn't been huge)! Plus that would be massive!
There are so many f-ups in that article they should fire the editor. 27X4.7 on the Farley 9.9? Half the MTBR readers could do a better job than that clown.
 
41 - 60 of 365 Posts