Gear News
You are looking at: Home : Gear News

Interbike 2008 Outdoor Demo: Trek Top Fuel

First riding impressions of Trek's all-new XC race weapon


Posted: 24 September 2008
by Mike Davis

ib08od_trektopfuel_1_lo (32K)
ib08od_trektopfuel_2_lo (11K) ib08od_trektopfuel_3_lo (4K) ib08od_trektopfuel_4_lo (4K) ib08od_trektopfuel_5_lo (4K)

Pics: Dan Barham

Following on from the introduction last year of the Fuel EX, for 2009 Trek has launched an all-new Top Fuel race bike. Bringing it into line with the rest of Trek's full suspension bikes, the Top Fuel's back end features all of the current Trek gizmos. The shock is driven from both ends, which gives more scope for tuning the rate curves. The top end of the shock is driven by a new one-piece magnesium EVO link, and at the back you'll find the Active Braking Pivot coaxial with the rear axle. In this incarnation Trek's suspension layout delivers a race-ready 100mm of travel, matched up front on this 9.9 SSL (presumably "Super, Super Light") model by a RockShox SID World Cup fork.

Nothing too unfamiliar at the back half of the frame, then. But the front half has a bunch of interesting features. It is, of course, carbon fibre, but in this case it's all carbon fibre without a hint of aluminium to be seen. Most carbon frames feature alu inserts in the headtube and bottom bracket, but the Top Fuel has net-moulded carbon shapes ready to take drop-in bearings.

This is most interesting at the BB, where Trek has introduced the BB90 bottom bracket. The shell is 90mm wide (hence the name) and takes a custom twin-ring 29/42 FSA chainset. This is designed to offer an extra-low Q-factor, which is the daft name given to the distance between the outer crank faces and hence the pedals. The theory goes that the narrower this is, the better, as your legs go straight up and down rather than pushing out to the side. The Top Fuel's BB90 setup has a Q-factor 11mm wider than a Dura-Ace crank on a road bike, quite impressive given that the frame has to accommodate MTB tyres.

There's more innovation at the top of the frame, with Trek's "No-Cut" seat mast. This is intended to deliver the low weight and stiffness benefits of integrated seat masts without the hassles of lack of adjustability and while avoiding that whole "having to cut off bits of frame" scenario. The system uses a stubby 34mm diameter seatpost with just enough length to accommodate the range of heights for a given frame size.

The cantilevered seat mast looks faintly precarious, but it feels solid when you're in the saddle. In fact, so does the bike as a whole, an impression reinforced by the impressively stout SID fork and quite conservative geometry - this isn't the kind of race bike that'll try to kill you if you look at it a bit funny. The 2x9 transmission setup feels very appropriate, although the narrow Q-factor isn't something that leaps out at you when you climb aboard.

It's certainly a very fast bike, but very well-behaved with it. No surprises, no weird behaviour. It looks good, too...

www.trekbikes.com


Previous article Previous article:
Win an Action Camera
Next article:Next article
Interbike 08 Outdoor Demo: Truvativ HammerSchmidt

Discuss this story

Another funny standard.

Great.


Posted: 24/09/2008 10:18

That curvy interrupted seat tube looks mad! I love it
Posted: 24/09/2008 14:05

What is the Q-factor then?

I've measured my HTI Dura-ace triple (on a 116mm XTR BB IIRC) at 153mm and my Stronglight MTB triple at 165mm. The limiting factor is the chain getting too close to the tyre and plastered in mud on an MTB so I fail to see where they've gained without making the bike unsuitable for European mud.


Posted: 24/09/2008 16:18

Sticking the BB inside the BB shell. And using FSA's 2x9 chainset helps too. It's amazing how much difference there is when you hop off a road bike and onto a mtb in the q-factor
Posted: 24/09/2008 16:27

6mm per side in my case, I can't say I notice even though I know I should be more comfortable on the narrower chainset. Using a double does help a bit but not as much as you'd expect. Being a bigger diametre than a 22 the 29 falls exactly wher the tyre / chainstay section / tyre space problem is at its worst. There are climbs around here where a 29 isn't low enough and even on a flat event like TransWales the majoriy of riders were glad of a gear lower than 29/32.
Posted: 24/09/2008 16:41

Am I going to end up like John Wayne or something if I keep riding my MTB?
Posted: 24/09/2008 16:46

 The limiting factor is the chain getting too close to the tyre and plastered in mud on an MTB.

Aye, still waiting for a front mech with a built in mud deflector plate.


Posted: 24/09/2008 16:49

What is the Q-factor then?

To be honest, I can't remember - I've got it written down somewhere. 140-something IIRC. And the double does help because the innermost chainring's further out, although you're right that vertically it's nearer to the "longest" part of the wheel, IYSWIM.


Posted: 24/09/2008 22:01

I can see where Trek are coming from but it's not like their bikes have been known for making riders walk bow-legged after an extended session I guess it means something more to the racers who want to keep the position as close as possible between their road bikes & mountain bikes. It sure is pretty.
Posted: 24/09/2008 23:45

Talkback: Interbike 2008 Outdoor Demo: Trek Top Fuel

First Name:
Last Name:
Nickname:
Email:
Security Image:
Enter the code shown:

I agree to the site's Terms and Conditions & Code of Conduct: