Fuel EXe Official Trek Fuel EXe Megathread!

[Mteam]

Does anyone know the torque spec for the lower shock bolt? Also, can you get the service manuals with torque specs anywhere? I went to Trek’s website and nothing comes up. I’ve mostly owned Specialized bikes and they have great manuals with all the specs easily downloadable on their website.

Yep,it's 15nm, there's a pdf on the trek website with the torques of all the bolts,and a whole load more info, it's in the support section.

 

[DugT]

Yep,it's 15nm, there's a pdf on the trek website with the torques of all the bolts,and a whole load more info, it's in the support section.

Here is a link to the Fuel EXe Service Manual

https://retailerassetsprd.blob.core.windows.net/techassets/TK_FuelEXe_ServiceManual_MY23_EN-US_Rev2_2022-11-02.pdf?sv=2018-03-28&ss=bfqt&srt=sco&sp=r&se=2062-03-20T02:32:45Z&st=2019-03-19T18:32:45Z&spr=https&sig=UogJIteiFltPX66np2M0a3esSu1uZzABYHTFInUlT/o=

 

[SusXT]

All i've used of the original 9.5 is the frame, motor, seat and seat post, tyres and electrics. All the rest is in a pile waiting to be sold.
The bike has following upgrades.
Fox Factory 36 with 160mm travel
Fox Factory Float X shock
Sram GX AXS derailleur
Sram XO1 Polar Grey Cassette
Sram XX1 Gold chain
Bontrager Line Elite wheels
Deity Skywire Stealth Carbon bars
Deity Supracrush grips
Wolf Tooth ispec dropper remote
Wolf Tooth top cap
Ethirteen 40mm stem
Carbon stem spacers
XT Brakes
RT86 brake rotors, courtesy of Trek
Look X-Track enrage pedals.

I took it out for its maiden voyage this morning. I did 44km with 640 meters of climbing. I used a mix of eco and mid, both modes have been turned down form the default setting. I finished with 8% battery left. This bike handles extremely well, but she's a slow old ride uphill compared to my Rail, but when it levels out and and you keep your speed up, it's very fast between the trees. My suspension settings need a bit of work to get it working how i want and i think it would benefit from skinnier tyres as the 2.6's are just too big for it i feel. Overall it's a very impressive bike and it's nice to ride a bike that doesn't sound like it's going to fall apart going downhill.

View attachment 98305

A thumb up for posting this, but I don't like it....44km and 640hm's isn't anough for me. I have a Levo SL and without range-extender I can do 60km's and 7-800km and still have battery left.
I'm also suprised nobody has any comment on the max. speed. 25km/h will make my acoustic bikebudies laugh. The Levo gets up tot 31 km/u. The only shitty about that bike is the noise and the suspension. The last I can change, the first not unfortunatly.
I've ridden a Fuel EX 10y ago and the suspension I top-class. Never had anything better. So yes, I hope Trek will make some changes that realy convince me.

 

[Mteam]

I'm also suprised nobody has any comment on the max. speed. 25km/h will make my acoustic bikebudies laugh. The Levo gets up tot 31 km/u.

You know it's not an actual speed limit? The bike will go as fast as you can pedal or as fast as gravity will allow,that limit is just the speed that the law dictates the motor must stop assisting,and it's the same for all e bikes.

 

[dannyb]

My last bike was a high end Stumpjumper with custom CYC X1 Pro motor conversion (best money can buy - 5000W/50mph capable).

That bike could absolutely destroy any off the shelf e-MTB in terms of power, range etc. I customized the power settings to have various lower power modes one-push accessible on demand (250w,750w,1500w,etc.)

I don't miss it one bit. Power is overrated IMO and can even be a negative (less satisfying). The Fuel Exe is perfect where you get the true acoustic MTB experience without feeling like you've compromised your fitness gains or overall ride satisfaction.

The only thing that was kinda nice about it was that I could "drive" it to the closest trail instead of use the car. From lights it could out-accelerate lower spec Porsches, etc. The looks on drivers faces seeing that regular looking mountain bike pulling ahead of them was priceless. That reminds me, I need to list that kit for sale now that I know I'm keeping the EXe.

 

[Endoguru]

Thanks for the info on torque values and manuals. For some reason my Ipad won’t open the links. I will give the old desktop a try.

For what it’s worth:

I bought the 9.5 and put my good parts off another bike on.
Fox Factory 36 160
Hayes Dominion A4 brakes
OneUp 210mm dropper
X01 drivetrain
I9 35mm stem
Protaper carbon bar
Santa Cruz Reserve Carbon wheelset
DVO Topaz 205x65 shock that I just installed so haven’t ridden that yet

I only have one ride but my initial impressions are that I really like this bike. I hear people complain about the lack of power, but that’s exactly why I own this bike. I’m trying to keep the experience as close to a non ebike as possible. My tired old body just needs a little help these days to get in the kind of rides I like to do.
I absolutely love how quiet the motor is and lack of resistance when you hit the speed limiter. I ordered the shock because I want the added travel in back, but I was very impressed with the stock shock. Especially considering it is the semi-bottom feeder model. I’ve never owned a Trek before, but I think they have their suspension dialed based on this bike.

 

[Swingset]

This morning. 10 mile climb. 2300 vert. 90% in Eco, rest in trail. 50% battery at the top. Back down the same way. Very interesting to look at the real time wattages of man v machine. Pretty impressed one week in. It's quiet and very smooth.

 

[SusXT]

You know it's not an actual speed limit? The bike will go as fast as you can pedal or as fast as gravity will allow,that limit is just the speed that the law dictates the motor must stop assisting,and it's the same for all e bikes.

0n the Levo I can adjust the wheelsize to 2000mm's so the bike it runs 25km/h but actualy goes faster. If I'm informed correctly that's not possible on the EX-e?

 

[Emailsucks98]

Would be interested to. Let us know if you have it and feel free to write some review about it how it feels on the trails having a spare battery with you etc.

Will admit that I pulled the battery from my Fuel, put it in my osprey hydration pack and wore it around the house for a few minutes and concluded it was a non-issue. The pack has a typical 2.5L bladder, which is 2.5kg when full. The 360wh battery weighs 1.8KG.

In other news, today's ride was 3300' in under 10 miles. Nice & steep! 20% battery left at the end. Put a Zeb on and very happy with it.

 

[levity]

Will admit that I pulled the battery from my Fuel, put it in my osprey hydration pack and wore it around the house for a few minutes and concluded it was a non-issue. The pack has a typical 2.5L bladder, which is 2.5kg when full. The 360wh battery weighs 1.8KG.

I would assume if you need 720Wh of battery that you'may also need 2.5L of water. That's 4.3kg (9.5 lb. here) on your back not counting the pack, tools, gear, food, etc. The weight adds up. Back in the day I carried an extra 500Wh battery for my Levo a few times. I felt it, even with a sturdy, supportive EVOC pack. Ended up getting a new Levo with the 700Wh battery The EXe battery isn't quite as bulky or heavy and should be less cumbersome. Let us know how it works out.

 

[Emailsucks98]

I would assume if you need 720Wh of battery that you'may also need 2.5L of water.

Ironically the reason I never wear said hydration pack anymore, is I started carrying a water filter if I needed more than 32oz. We're lucky up here that nearly all rides have good water sources. Will still have my WB cage too.

Anyways I won't really the 2nd battery much until the snow melts out next year. We got into snow today.

 

[wizard604]

I am thinking of upping the fork travel to 160mm and wanted some feedback from others who have done this. How does the ride compare vs the standard 150? Do you prefer it in 160 or 150? How much does the head angle change by going longer?

 

[Endoguru]

It changes it by roughly 1/2 degree. I can find no downsides to the added 10mm of travel. Full disclosure, my other bike is a Kenevo SL so like longer, slacker bikes already.

 

[DancingWithMyself]

Thnaks, this is consistent what I am finding with bikes here. Definitely much lower than the quoted 342mm (LOW). I would contact Trek.

At least one "problem" is Trek's bottom backet height numbers in the geo chart.

I haven't had a chance to measure anything else or call Trek, but I did look at the geo chart and do some thinking. I'm ashamed to say that I missed this the first time around. But none of the "professionals" pointed this out either.

There is no way the BB height and drop are both correct. For the EXe in low, Trek says 41mm drop and 342mm height. Trot over to the new EX geo chart (neutral HTA, 29 both ends, low setting), and its 38mm drop and 335mm height, which sound a lot more correct. Working off of the EX math, the EXe's drop should yield a height of 332mm, which sounds like what everyone is measuring. Imagine the slightly lower BB on the EXe is based on e-bike and 165mm cranks across all sizes.

If going to "high" increases the BB height by 7mm, then "high" gets you to 339mm. So what the EXe has is two settings that are something like: "really, really f'ing low" and "most-other-brand's-low."

For people like me who are waiting on a 160mm air spring for their Lyrik for big trips, this is great news (assuming it's correct). I'm just going to throw the 160mm air spring in and leave it. Just wish I had been smart enough to figure this out on the front and order a 160mm Lyrik instead of 150mm.

Does this make any sense and I am thinking about this correctly? I think I'm right to trust the drop numbers, as I think that's what the designers are worried as actual height is obviously dependent on tire choice?

Would love to hear others' thoughts.

 

[Swingset]

Did a quick sketch based on Treks published geo. The variable is the wheel diameter based on BB drop and then deriving the resulting 'BB height'. Their numbers work if the tire diameter is 30.157". I just did a quick tape measure on mine and its 29.75" (756mm) Bontrager 2.5 stock tire.

So with a 41mm drop and a 756mm wheel/2=378mm-41= 337mm in low. I guess 29'er is a useless number.

 

[Emailsucks98]

Previously I posted that my BB was at 338mm (13.3”) with the 150mm lyrik, 27.5x2.4dhr (r) and 29x2.6dhf (f). Mullt, mino-link in high
Since then I've swapped forks to a 160mm Zeb, but I'm getting essentially BB height....Weirdness!
(edit- see below for A2C lengths)
Digital caliper measurements of exposed stanchions on both forks, 160mm even for the Zeb, 155mm for the Lyrik.
Maybe my previous measurement was a bit off. 2023 Rockshox axle-to-crown lengths are hard to find so can't check my work.

 

[SusXT]

Lost my lockring of the left pedal. Pedal was coming loose. Luckily one of us had the right size imbus and I could tighten the pedal, but afterwards I heard a light grinding noise. Not the whole time, but just now and then.

I am wondering if I can ride tomorrow. I'm with friends on a weekend trip.

Battery use is perfect. 50kms en 1199hms. Mostly in eco and sometimes without the help of the Motor.

Do you need an ebike then? Eco is almost like lifting the bike's weight.
Greetings from the southern neighbour ;-)

 

[Flow81]

Did a quick sketch based on Treks published geo. The variable is the wheel diameter based on BB drop and then deriving the resulting 'BB height'. Their numbers work if the tire diameter is 30.157". I just did a quick tape measure on mine and its 29.75" (756mm) Bontrager 2.5 stock tire.

So with a 41mm drop and a 756mm wheel/2=378mm-41= 337mm in low. I guess 29'er is a useless number.

View attachment 101007

Previously I posted that my BB was at 338mm (13.3”) with the 150mm lyrik, 27.5x2.4dhr (r) and 29x2.6dhf (f). Mullt, mino-link in high

Since then I've swapped forks to a 160mm Zeb, but I'm getting essentially BB height....Weirdness!
Fairly quick/not very accurate tape measure of both forks a2c, 584mm, +/-5mm
Digital caliper measurements of exposed stanchions on both forks, 160mm even for the Zeb, 155mm for the Lyrik.
Maybe my previous measurement was a bit off. 2023 Rockshox axle-to-crown lengths are hard to find so can't check my work.

Oh no, I used you as a case study to say “there is this guy in Washington with the correct BB height as per geo chart!”

Rockshox says the a2c of the 150 Lyrik is 561. Fox 36 is 557.

It is more plausible that your previous BB (with 150 lyrik) was less. At a push, I get max 342mm in high with 29er wheels, and 332mm in mullet on a good day.

@DancingWithMyself you are very right:
29er and tyre Axle height = 375mm
BB drop high = 34mm
So Bb height high should be: 375-34=341mm
This is exactly as measured on more than 10 bikes here, and a far way off from 349mm
So the issue is that the quoted bb drop is correct, but someone at Trek got their math badly wrong.
375-34 is not 349.

Rims and tyre height is fixed, and fairly universal. To get to acceptable bb height of 349 (spez turbo levo, levo sl) you can only have a bb drop of 26, not 34. So the bike dimensions is fundamentally flawed: Too much bb drop built into the frame to get to 349. No 2.4-2.6” tyre will get you to 349.

I contacted Trek and their reply was my bike is in spec. CAD dimensions is different from real world due to variable tyre stretch.

My a&&. No way the same tyres with different “stretches” can move a bike from 341 to 349 bb height.

So I am stuck. No mullet for me, and I probably will return it.

 

[Emailsucks98]

Oh no, I used you as a case study to say “there is this guy in Washington with the correct BB height as per geo chart!”

Rockshox says the a2c of the 150 Lyrik is 561. Fox 36 is 557.

It is more plausible that your previous BB (with 150 lyrik) was less. At a push, I get max 342mm in high with 29er wheels, and 332mm in mullet on a good day.

Yeah, sorry. You're probably right, my previous BB measurement was probably low. But still, going to the zeb did not seem to raise the BB much, if at all.

I got a more accurate A2c Measurements of the lyrik, 565mm. That's from the crown (no race)to center of axle. I'm guessing their +4mm is allowing for crown race.
The Zeb is lightly harder to get a true measurement from, since I have a fender installed, looks like 578mm.

 

[dannyb]

I believe this concern about the BB height is way overstated. I remember seeing the same thing with Specialized bikes.

Isn't the BB height dramatically affected by sag and tires/tire pressure which are easily changed? Plus the flip chip / Mino Link which raises it directly.

If you for example set rear shock sag to 25% instead of 30%, your BB height will go significantly higher no? To a bit lesser extent, same thing with front suspension travel & sag, and tires. Bike manufacturers recommend a wide range of "default" sag to try even when the leverage ratios and shocks are the same, suggesting its a bit arbitrary of a starting point #.

Trek could have suggested a bit lower sag, bit longer fork and/or a bit larger tires. Or default flip chip to high. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why this is really important at all.

 

[Emailsucks98]

I believe this concern about the BB height is way overstated.

I can see where people would be concerned about it being too low as a Mullet bike, because although Trek says that's approved, they haven't released geometry.

I'm very happy with it as a Mullet and would say it works great. The BB is low, but it's also relatively short travel. Clearance at BO is something to keep an eye on, and I probably won't overstroke my shock for that reason alone. I do like lower bottom brackets, and I prefer technical climbs, although our trails aren't super rocky here. It was only on Janky freeride stuff where I felt the BB was maybe too low, with the 150mm fork, minolink in high, and mullet wheels.

 

[dannyb]

I can see where people would be concerned about it being too low as a Mullet bike, because although Trek says that's approved, they haven't released geometry.

I'm very happy with it as a Mullet and would say it works great. The BB is low, but it's also relatively short travel. Clearance at BO is something to keep an eye on, and I probably won't overstroke my shock for that reason alone. I do like lower bottom brackets, and I prefer technical climbs, although our trails aren't super rocky here. It was only on Janky freeride stuff where I felt the BB was maybe too low, with the 150mm fork, minolink in high, and mullet wheels.

Wonder if you run a little less sag on the rear shock it might be perfect as that will lift the whole back end a bit and also provide a bit more travel.

 

[Emailsucks98]

Wonder if you run a little less sag on the rear shock it might be perfect as that will lift the whole back end a bit and also provide a bit more travel.

I like your thinking!
It all feels pretty great right now- but I'm maybe half-way to getting the suspension tuned in. Playing with volume spacers first.

 

[Mteam]

I notice that the official tq app (as opposed to the trek central app) is now available for download on the Android play store.

It seems to have more customisation options for the motor than the trek app, such as "extended center button functionality",and the ability to add more screens of data for the bike display,such as motor temperature,heart rate etc.

@Roman - what is the extended centre button functionality?



Edit: although it looks like I can't actually enable extended center button functionality,or add any of the other data pages,maybe it needs a newer version of the motor firmware than I have?


it also looks like the motor power numbers show lower in the trek central app than the tq app. Tq app screen above, trek central screen below for same settings.

 

[shure2]

I notice that the official tq app (as opposed to the trek central app) is now available for download on the Android play store.

It seems to have more customisation options for the motor than the trek app, such as "extended center button functionality",and the ability to add more screens of data for the bike display,such as motor temperature,heart rate etc.

@Roman - what is the extended centre button functionality?

View attachment 101032

Edit: although it looks like I can't actually enable extended center button functionality,or add any of the other data pages,maybe it needs a newer version of the motor firmware than I have?

View attachment 101033
it also looks like the motor power numbers show lower in the trek central app than the tq app. Tq app screen above, trek central screen below for same settings.

View attachment 101034

Same with my 9.5 I bought at the weekend, doesn't activate 'Extended centre button functionality', whatever that will be.

I'm always careful with firmware updates, they can often lock good capabilities out (anti right to repair). Hopefully they release some patch notes

 

[Roman]

I notice that the official tq app (as opposed to the trek central app) is now available for download on the Android play store.

It seems to have more customisation options for the motor than the trek app, such as "extended center button functionality",and the ability to add more screens of data for the bike display,such as motor temperature,heart rate etc.

@Roman - what is the extended centre button functionality?



Edit: although it looks like I can't actually enable extended center button functionality,or add any of the other data pages,maybe it needs a newer version of the motor firmware than I have?


it also looks like the motor power numbers show lower in the trek central app than the tq app. Tq app screen above, trek central screen below for same settings.

Thanks for that feedback and your questions!

1 Extended centre button functionality means you can use the centre button for changing support modes but then need to double press for switching screens.
2 The Trek Fuel EXe requires a software update to be fully compatible with the TQ App. Update is available at your LBS since November 1st.
3 You have all avalaible data pages active already, motor temperature and heart rate are not featured

 

[mitea]

1 Extended centre button functionality means you can use the centre button for changing support modes but then need to double press for switching screens.

is this really demanded by the customer and brands? This imo only makes sense if a bike has no remote but I can't think of a user group that would like to ride like that.

wouldn't it make more sense to map some extra functionality to the 2s button press? for example switching to other profiles (different setup for 3 support modes as wished from somebody in the feature request thread). Or something else.

3 You have all avalaible data pages active already, motor temperature and heart rate are not featured

shame that the exclusive trek display is limited regarding features compared to the default. however I think I've noticed bpm on the segment display greyed out in some videos. but can't find it now. maybe some of the owners can confirm.

 

[Mteam]

is this really demanded by the customer and brands?

Someone did mention on the TQ feature request thread that they would like an alternative way of changing modes , they had experienced a failure of the handlebar switch that meant they couldnt change modes . I'm sure that TQ had already developed this feature before they read that comment on here though.

I think its useful to have the option to change modes in a different way, for exactly the reasons described above, but its quite a niche thing.

I'm interested in why the TQ app shows higher max power figures for each mode compared to the trek app, when they are each connected to the same bike. This is purely from a nerdy perspective as it wont make any actual difference when using the bike.

 

[Roman]

is this really demanded by the customer and brands? This imo only makes sense if a bike has no remote but I can't think of a user group that would like to ride like that.

Its necessary for bikes, that do not use a remote. There will be road bikes with the central display unit only.

wouldn't it make more sense to map some extra functionality to the 2s button press? for example switching to other profiles (different setup for 3 support modes as wished from somebody in the feature request thread). Or something else.

Yeah, i understand what you mean. On the other side, the product as a whole is also about simplicity and focusing on the natural ride, therefore we dont want to overcomplicate.

shame that the exclusive trek display is limited regarding features compared to the default. however I think I've noticed bpm on the segment display greyed out in some videos. but can't find it now. maybe some of the owners can confirm.

It is not, you got me wrong! Heart rate might be a future feature, motor temperature will probably never be. Both are not available for anybody today.

 

[DBSwiss]

Its necessary for bikes, that do not use a remote. There will be road bikes with the central display unit only.

Yeah, i understand what you mean. On the other side, the product as a whole is also about simplicity and focusing on the natural ride, therefore we dont want to overcomplicate.

It is not, you got me wrong! Heart rate might be a future feature, motor temperature will probably never be. Both are not available for anybody today.

Heart rate could enable a cool training functionality to allow the rider to stay within a heart rate range and have the motor modulate assistance accordingly .