Posts
209
Joined
11/25/2014
Location
Ancaster
CA
Some recent product announcements and specs have got me thinking: is the development and proliferation of lightweight (i.e. ~40 pound) eMTBs starting to make our regular MTB choices heavier?
Before I go on, I should note that I am a believer in "lighter weight is not everything" and recognize that ~1kg is not a big deal, though I also own a carbon mtb and cx bike...
First, Trek announced the new Fuel EXe, and then turn around and (surprise) announce a 140/150 Fuel EX that looks the exact same minus the display in the top tube. More travel, slacker, more adjustments, all cool... but it weighs ~ 1kg/2 pounds more than the last gen Fuel EX. In fact, if you were to put a Zeb on it (which is allowed per Trek) it would end up being the exact same weight as the 170/160 Slash.
The new geometry and spec of the Fuel EX makes it an attractive proposition and brings it in line with the Stumpjumper Evo, but I did find it odd that the bike got significantly heavier.
Then, Ghost comes out with the new Riot bikes and the eMTB and regular MTB look the exact same. In a similar fashion, the eMTB is sub-40 pounds and the regular MTB is 34 pounds. Same 140/150 bike, same geo, same looks, same light MTB/heavy eMTB.
Is this going to become a 'new normal'? Manufacturers making lightweight eMTBs, and then de-motor-ing them and making it mid-travel?
I do remember when having a sub-30 pound full suspension bike with more than 100mm of travel was a rarity, and 40 pound DH bikes were the norm. I don't think there's anything wrong with a 34 pound all-mountain/mid-travel/small-duro? bike, but surely it makes the sale process vs a bigger enduro bike more difficult. As much as the new Fuel EX/Riot looks fun and has some interesting features, why would I buy it over another bike in the lineup? I could get a downcountry bike that is much lighter and easier to pedal around, or I could get a full enduro bike that is more capable on the descents. I know there is something to be said about suspension kinematics and such, but if they were the same between the models why would I get the 'less capable' bike?
Before I go on, I should note that I am a believer in "lighter weight is not everything" and recognize that ~1kg is not a big deal, though I also own a carbon mtb and cx bike...
First, Trek announced the new Fuel EXe, and then turn around and (surprise) announce a 140/150 Fuel EX that looks the exact same minus the display in the top tube. More travel, slacker, more adjustments, all cool... but it weighs ~ 1kg/2 pounds more than the last gen Fuel EX. In fact, if you were to put a Zeb on it (which is allowed per Trek) it would end up being the exact same weight as the 170/160 Slash.
The new geometry and spec of the Fuel EX makes it an attractive proposition and brings it in line with the Stumpjumper Evo, but I did find it odd that the bike got significantly heavier.
Then, Ghost comes out with the new Riot bikes and the eMTB and regular MTB look the exact same. In a similar fashion, the eMTB is sub-40 pounds and the regular MTB is 34 pounds. Same 140/150 bike, same geo, same looks, same light MTB/heavy eMTB.
Is this going to become a 'new normal'? Manufacturers making lightweight eMTBs, and then de-motor-ing them and making it mid-travel?
I do remember when having a sub-30 pound full suspension bike with more than 100mm of travel was a rarity, and 40 pound DH bikes were the norm. I don't think there's anything wrong with a 34 pound all-mountain/mid-travel/small-duro? bike, but surely it makes the sale process vs a bigger enduro bike more difficult. As much as the new Fuel EX/Riot looks fun and has some interesting features, why would I buy it over another bike in the lineup? I could get a downcountry bike that is much lighter and easier to pedal around, or I could get a full enduro bike that is more capable on the descents. I know there is something to be said about suspension kinematics and such, but if they were the same between the models why would I get the 'less capable' bike?
I, for one, welcome a robust component selection. The new Fuel EX seems like a perfect bike to me.
They’ll tell us it’s needed strength with minimal added weight & so it will continue, &
Acoustic Bikes forever
I'd bet the increase in weight between the previous to the new EX is a result of creating a bike that leans a tad more towards descending performance than it once did. Shifting a bike from 130/140mm to 140/150mm + slacker geometry should come with some weight penalties to match the bike's abilities once pointed downhill. Looking at the weights provided by Trek on site, the mid-range XT build still weighs under 32-pounds, which I think is reasonable for a 'trail bike.' (I also like the term small-duro haha)
I'm glad that short travel bikes are more capable and that long travel bikes are more efficient/pedal-able, for sure. I'm just not sure I'd buy the Fuel EX, I would either get a Top Fuel or a Slash.
Mid-travel bikes like the Fuel EX now end up using pretty much the same componentry as long travel bikes save for Zebs/38s, which aren't that much heavier anyways. They even have the same tires most of the time, DHFs and Minions. If the frame weight is now being increased by eMTBs and a focus on suspension curves and pedalling platforms (switches and electronics) for 'enduro' plus long/low/slack geometry across the board, there's less reason to get less travel. It's probably not more efficient at this point and it's just less travel and capability.
Going from the other side, short travel bikes are getting much more 'capable' geometry. I don't have a ton of time on recent bikes, but I'm not sure there's a huge difference in capabilities with a one degree head angle change which seems to be the only difference between short and mid travel bikes. However, the short travel bikes are trying to limelight as XC race bikes so need to have lightweight frames with efficient platforms, and they typically get lighter weight but still capable components like a 34/Pike, somewhat lighter wheels, and faster tires. Maybe you can break wheels, but the limited travel will probably stop most people from sending it down rocky black diamonds. You can still ride flow trails and blue tech with your friends but you can blast past them uphill.
I suppose a similar question comes up with steel hardcore hardtails. It's a thing some people like and there's nothing wrong with that, but for me I can't justify getting a 30 pound Chromag when I could have a 30 pound full suspension that's nearly as efficient on the road but probably more efficient on bumpy terrain.
The Top Fuel overlapped the old Fuel EX a lot. New Fuel EX would've overlapped the Remedy a lot, probably having a lot to do with its discontinuation.
Last time i checked a bike needs to weigh at least 32 pounds to survive even 10 minutes of modern, brutal trail riding. Good brakes and survivable 29” wheels aren’t light.
If you can actually survive a ride on a 28 pound fs bike in 2022, congratulations, your trailcrew has worked mighty hard to eliminate the good stuff, or your trails suck.
Which is it?
The reason I thought maybe the Fuel EX was secondary to the EXe was the complete build weights between the trail bike lineup. They all have the same wheels (except Supercaliber) and drivetrain at a given spec, and all the same cockpits and dropper (except the Supercaliber with Transfer SL post), and the XC/DC bikes get two piston brakes and 32/34 with the two bigger bikes getting a 36/38 and four piston brakes. In XTR trim, weights go 21.5, 24.7, 30.2, 30.98.
I suppose the Fuel EX is not meant to be raced so a bit of extra weight is fine, but it's Trek's most popular trail bike and I'd say the average MTBer (which is almost certainly not anyone who is posting on this forum) cares about weight.
Since the frame weight is relatively the same, I guess this also highlights where components have gone. It used to be that there was a light build kit (wheels, cranks, bar/stem, brakes) for XC, a heavy one for DH, and a middle one for all else. Now every bike in Santa Cruz's lineup pretty much comes with the same Reserve carbon wheels, SRAM basically makes one aluminum and one carbon crank for everything (Truvativ and SRAM editions basically being the same), and similar story with the rest of the kit. There's no real parts difference anymore between bikes, so any total weight difference is made up through the frame.
Also, I can find you a few 32+ pound full suspension bikes from a box store that probably can't even survive a good flow trail.
^^ it’s that simple. Expectations for what a mtb can do and has to survive has changed. Long travel = more weight. More Speed = More weight. More durability = More weight.
I'm clearly not okay with your point.
My old bike was a 2016 Canyon Spectral Al Ex. 27,5", aluminium frame size L, 140mm with CCDB Inline, Sram X01 Eagle with carbon cranks, Mavic Deemax Pro Sam Hill, High Roller/Minions, Pike Ultimate RCT3 150mm and MT7 with 200m rotors. It weight 13,5kg/29lb ! I've ridden it everywhere, from chill sunday laps to gnarly bike Park, enduro race, marathon race, Shuttle, etc. It NEVER fails, nor the components.
My new bike is a Commencal Meta Trail 2021. 29", aluminium size L, 140mm with the same shocks, same drivetrain and cranks, same tires, same brakes and rotors and same components. I only change the wheels for the Mavic Crossmax SLS that are the exact same weight and the fork for a DVO Diamond D1 160mm (worst fork I've ever had. Avoid this shit) that weight 300gr more than the Pike. The 29" tires weight 110gr/0,4lb. Total weight 16,5kg/36lb !
How is it possible ?! That's 3kg/6lb heavier, that's a 20% heavier bike (2,5kg come only for the frame) which ride a tad better on the very rough and steep trails over my old bike !
So, why my trail bike is heavier ?
29” wheels, and frames strong enough to be ridden on modern trails with 29” wheels are obviously going to be heavier than 27.5” wheels and frames.
It seems like many consumers don’t believe or understand that bikes, especially the previous few versions of the carbon Fuel EX, have been woefully underbuilt for real world users for generations. As someone who has worked at a few Trek dealers over the years, the amount of time i’ve spent swapping cracked swingarms and shockstays or changing front triangles for people is hard to account for.
A big or mixed-wheel shred machine is gonna be heavy, don’t like it, try to find an old, lighter bike with smaller wheels and tighter geo and a significantly lighter frame- but it’s not 2005 any more, if weight matters to you, at all, and you want modern geo buy an xc bike. XC bikes are fast as heck now, and likely capable enough and strong enough if you even think for a moment about weight on your trail bike.
Choosing an enduro bike because it’s only half a pound heavier than a trail bike misses the point of trail bikes- less travel for more precision and feel. Want a light bike? Stay out of the trail market and let the bike industry attempt to make stronger bikes, please!
I bought a Gen 6 Fuel Ex specifically because it was the heaviest big brand trail frameset I could find.
We’ll see if they finally made a trail bike thick enough to survive the real world, but I certainly expect the frame to fail within a year or so, because the frame probably still isn’t heavy enough.
Nobody in the bike industry gets paid well enough to deal with the warranty claims if bikes were still as light as they used to be!
I figured I would chime in on this as I have just built a new aluminum fuel and am very familiar with its previous versions. From my view, it's definitely a different bike than it used to be. It's much more in line with previous remedy customers than the guy with a fuel from 2017 who wants to upgrade. It is significantly burlier than the past and a bit more confidence-inspiring for long-term use under an aggressive rider.
Visually, it is super close to the EXe, though I would say this is to keep aesthetic consistency across the brand. Just look at the old/new top fuel and you can see a similar sort of change.
I do still wish there was something similar to a Gen 4 fuel, but only because our local trails don't require the burlier bike. Maybe this is a hole only found in the midwest and not an issue where bigger trails exist.
Just curious what people think about the new Transition Relay suppossed to be launched this Spring? I'm 55 and I think it's time to join the eBike world, too many of my friends love them. Its going to have Fazua motor and already going to be light but the bike can also be ridden without the battery.
https://www.transitionbikes.com/WhatsUp_Detail.cfm;jsessionid=18D1F6F73…
The Relay sounds like exactly what I'm looking for in an ebike. I like the idea of a longer-travel lightweight ebike rather than something like the Pivot Shuttle SL or Trek Fuel EX-e.
I've demo'd a couple full-fat ebikes and I found them cumbersome on tight technical trails and I had a hard time getting used to how they feel in the air. I also don't think I need the power of a 80–90 nm motor. Having a removable battery and being able to ride trails that don't allow ebikes is another plus. Bikes are so damn expensive these days that it's hard for me to afford both a regular bike and an ebike.
Heavy trailbike update:
A little less than a month in my chainstay is cracked on my Fuel EX Gen6.
So, heavy bike, still not heavy enough for real world use. Thinking about trying the aluminum chainstay to see if that might last a couple months!
Post a reply to: Lightweight eMTBs = heavier MTBs?