Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok so i am looking for a FS XC bike! I have owned a few treks through my life and i have been very happy with the bike, the componants, service and everything else!

Now here is the hard part, i am a college student looking for this bike so i am watching the used market. I have about 550 saved right now and i fiugre that if i look hard enough i can find something when i have the appropiate funds. Now i am looking for an entery level XC bike. So i was looking at the fuel 70. How much better is the 80? Is it worth the money an the wait to step it up?

Should i look used or should i just suck it up and save the money and get one new? I work at a student workers job for 6 bucks an hour so that will show you how long it takes to serve. I ride a trek 830al right now and it has proven me well, I have gone through and upgraded everything on it and repalced alll the componets through the years.

So is it worth it to get the 70? Or should i move up?

All suggestions are welcome
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
what year are the used fuels that you are looking at? have any of the original parts been replaced?

I have a 2003 fuel that has been very good to me. Sometimes I think an extra inch of rear travel would be nice, but the bike has never let me down on the trail. it's great on tight single track and it climbs better than i do.

Remember, the warranty on the bike only applies to the original owner. If you buy a used one and have a problem, it's your problem. You can probably pick up a new 2005 Trek hardtail for close to your price range. everything would be new and come with a warranty. not as flashy (or comfy) as full suspension, but still may be an option...
 

·
TXAG
Joined
·
174 Posts
I would have to agree with Phil that buying new will be the best option due to the warranty issue. I saw a Fuel 70 at my LBS not long ago for around 850 for an 05. I know that it will take a long time to save but you might thank yourself for it later. Good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I am not really sure as to what year used ones i am looking, I found one but it was sold. I am just looking i have not found any thing yet but i know if i wait long enough i could find something. I do agree that buying new would be smarter and i probably would just bite the bullet and save, I think i am gonna go back to school early and work a lot to get the money needed, and then see if i could loan the money from my parents for the rest.

So the question that i have now is the fuel 80 that much better then the 70?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,610 Posts
Just a suggestion, but check out the Jamis Dakar bikes. Jamis tends to offer more bang for your buck than Trek. Also, dealers are willing to deal on 2005 bikes right now as they are trying to get rid of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
kstang said:
So the question that i have now is the fuel 80 that much better then the 70?
just going by memory I think the 70 and 80 share the same frame (SL Alpha Aluminum), it's just that the 80 has a step up in the componentry. If you like the 70 and it works for you keep it and upgrade the components when they break. In the newer years you might get disc brakes with the 80's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
I am surprised at the differences (and similarities) in the specs between the 2006 70 and 80. The 80 has a better mix of drivetrain components (no big deal since they will wear out and need to be replaced anyway), a RS Judy instead of a Manitou Splice (never heard of that), same hubs and rims, same rear shock, and the 80 has hydraulic discs vs mechanical. The 70 in black is cool but the 80 in blue is, well, not my color. 80 in red is ok. Of course the 80 is about $450 more too. Either way, same frame, nice bike. I personally think the 70 is a fine first full suspension bike, and the price is right.

Enough drooling over the new stuff. Now is a good time to look for a 2005 leftover for the budget minded...
 

·
Weiner Dog Connoiseur
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Phil said:
..I personally think the 70 is a fine first full suspension bike, and the price is right. Enough drooling over the new stuff. Now is a good time to look for a 2005 leftover for the budget minded...
I bought an '05 Fuel 70 in August. It definitely is a fine first full suspension bike, as it was my first squishy. It is a heavy bike, tipping in around 33 pounds. You can shed some weight through upgrading the front shock and wheelset when you get around to it. It comes equipped with the Hayes MX-1 mechanical disc brakes which work extremely well...perhaps the best component on the bike. The bike is also an extremely stable and very forgiving platform. You can ride some unbelievably bad lines and the Fuel just rolls over them like a tank. The Trek lets you get away with a lot more rear wheel drift without having the rear end completely come out from under you compared to my hardtail...important stuff when you're riding over wet roots which are so prevalent on Maryland trails.

The key to the Fuels is to get the rear shock dialed in properly. Too hard of a setting and you might as well be riding a hardtail. Too soft and the thing just bobs like crazy. I found with the Rock Shox Bar that running the shock at 95 psi was the sweet spot for me (I weigh 145 pounds).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
SaxMan said:
I bought an '05 Fuel 70 in August. It definitely is a fine first full suspension bike, as it was my first squishy. It is a heavy bike, tipping in around 33 pounds.
33 pounds, are you sure? I have a small 02 frame that I built up with a few fairly heavy bits (Vanilla fork, Thomson stem/seatpost, Shimano XT/XTR drivetrain, Avid mechanicals, and Shimano hubs laced to Mavic 317s. It weighs in around 28.5 pounds. I doubt that there is any weight difference between the Alpha and ZR aluminum frames, so I guess its all components. I just checked Treks website and couldn't find any mention of weight anywhere.

I have been debating changing out a few parts on mine to get it even lighter. I love climbing with this bike, but my spindly legs can only do so much...
 

·
Hup, Hup
Joined
·
536 Posts
Phil said:
33 pounds, are you sure? I have a small 02 frame that I built up with a few fairly heavy bits (Vanilla fork, Thomson stem/seatpost, Shimano XT/XTR drivetrain, Avid mechanicals, and Shimano hubs laced to Mavic 317s. It weighs in around 28.5 pounds. I doubt that there is any weight difference between the Alpha and ZR aluminum frames, so I guess its all components. I just checked Treks website and couldn't find any mention of weight anywhere.

I have been debating changing out a few parts on mine to get it even lighter. I love climbing with this bike, but my spindly legs can only do so much...
Yea Trek doesn't post weights on their site. My Fuel 90 was at 24 lbs before I switched it to disc brakes. I have not weighed it yet with the disc though. 19.5" frame BTW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
Fuel_95 said:
Yea Trek doesn't post weights on their site. My Fuel 90 was at 24 lbs before I switched it to disc brakes. I have not weighed it yet with the disc though. 19.5" frame BTW.
Is there that much difference between the 90 and 80? I have an 80 and its tipping in at around 31-32 lbs (via bathroom scale). No discs.
 

·
Weiner Dog Connoiseur
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Phil said:
33 pounds, are you sure?..... I have been debating changing out a few parts on mine to get it even lighter. I love climbing with this bike, but my spindly legs can only do so much...
I did the bathroom scale test and then used my old Klein Pulse Comp as a benchmark. I'd say at the lightest, the bike is around 32 pounds. The big ticket item on the 70 is the Manitou Axel Comp fork. At 6.3 pounds, it's a boat anchor. The Maverick Disc wheelset is pretty heavy, too. By switching to the Skareb, you can shed three pounds right off the bat and probably knock another pound off with a lighter wheelset and lighter tires, that would bring us down into 29 pound range.

The Klein, which was my main mount for seven years, tipped in at 25.5 pounds. I've gotten used to the extra weight of the Fuel 70 and found that it probably helps with the bike's remarkable stability. I've ridden it in the snow and ice and I'm just blown away at how well it handles under such severe conditions. On dry trails it's even better.
 

·
Weiner Dog Connoiseur
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
CheapTrek said:
Is there that much difference between the 90 and 80? I have an 80 and its tipping in at around 31-32 lbs (via bathroom scale). No discs.
I think the 90 has a Carbon rear triangle, hence the significant weight savings. If you try to lift a 70 or 80 from the rear, you'll see how heavy it is back there. On the upside, the heavy rear end gives you some remarkable traction and also allows a lot more rear wheel drift without reaching "the point of no return" where the bike comes out from under you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
SaxMan said:
I did the bathroom scale test and then used my old Klein Pulse Comp as a benchmark. I'd say at the lightest, the bike is around 32 pounds. The big ticket item on the 70 is the Manitou Axel Comp fork. At 6.3 pounds, it's a boat anchor. The Maverick Disc wheelset is pretty heavy, too. By switching to the Skareb, you can shed three pounds right off the bat and probably knock another pound off with a lighter wheelset and lighter tires, that would bring us down into 29 pound range.

The Klein, which was my main mount for seven years, tipped in at 25.5 pounds. I've gotten used to the extra weight of the Fuel 70 and found that it probably helps with the bike's remarkable stability. I've ridden it in the snow and ice and I'm just blown away at how well it handles under such severe conditions. On dry trails it's even better.
I have to change my last statement, I reweighed my bike after my Summer/Christmas spree. It's about 28 lbs. I had the RS Pilot and went to the Marzz MX Pro ETA, changed the Shimano alloy brakes and levers to all Avid SL's, Bontrag bars and stem to RF carbon bars and Deus stem, Deore and LX derail's to all XT, standard headset to Chris King, had my rear triangle replaced with CF (warranty). I also removed the seat bag and water bottle cages (Camelback for Christmas). What should i do next, rear shock?

Sorry to stray from the point, but see if your happy with the frame just swap some of the componentry and you could make your bike better; although i will admit i went a bit overrboard, i probably should have bought a better setup right from the getgo. But, i didn't have $2000 to drop at once. I only paid $980 for my Fuel 80 in August '04.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top