I can understand your confusion about the rear wheel size for a small EX. It's not clear in the specs. It looks like the LX version can take the 29er in all sizes, and it obviously shares the same frame as the EX, but the LX linkage allows longer travel so maybe there's more room for a bigger wheel for a size S in that version? I think you'd have to ask a dealer to be sure. Regarding the 38 fork, I think the lower travel EX is intended to be lighter and more trail-oriented, so the 38 would be considered too heavy and overkill for that.
Other Gen 2 Trek Fuel + (EXE) Official thread.
- Thread starter Rockhopper70
- Start date
Thanks for the above RickF. I’ve always ridden analogs 29er, and have little saddle time on mullet e-bikes, with no revelations, no problems per se with it/them. So I like that the Fuel+ has wheel size flexibility that many comparable bikes don’t. I’ll probably call Trek directly and see if they can clarify completely.
Yobbo
Member
I have had my Fuel+ EX 9.8 about eight weeks now and have done about 320 miles. Nothing has dropped off and nothing has gone wrong. Yes, I had issues with the original XT cassette crashing through gears, but I changed that to another cassette which fixed the problem. I also had real grief changing tyres, but fixed that by following the sage advice of the forum (see Bontrager tyre mounting thread).
As is my way, I have changed a few components on the bike to ones that I prefer or to get my contact points to a more comfortable position, but generally the bike is doing just great. I don't regret changing the crank arms from the stock 160mm to longer 170mm as for me they transformed the pedal action and it also meant that I could lower the saddle a little. I have not noticed any real increase in pedal strike.
The motor has been great. It is only a tiny bit more powerful than the HPR50, but I don't notice that as I rarely use the High Power setting because most of my rides are in Eco. One pleasing improvement over the HPR50 is that TQ seem to have fixed the infamous 'grinding' noise that the HPR50 occasionally makes. I have not heard it at all with the HPR60. Indeed the motor does seem to be a tiny bit quieter that the HPR50 and that was already about the quietest eMTB motor I have tried. I don't have much elevation where I ride, just rolling countryside so range anxiety is not a problem. The 580 battery is still averaging 67-73 miles on a full charge (108-117km) which means I only have to re-charge it every two or three rides.
So overall, I am very pleased with the bike.
As is my way, I have changed a few components on the bike to ones that I prefer or to get my contact points to a more comfortable position, but generally the bike is doing just great. I don't regret changing the crank arms from the stock 160mm to longer 170mm as for me they transformed the pedal action and it also meant that I could lower the saddle a little. I have not noticed any real increase in pedal strike.
The motor has been great. It is only a tiny bit more powerful than the HPR50, but I don't notice that as I rarely use the High Power setting because most of my rides are in Eco. One pleasing improvement over the HPR50 is that TQ seem to have fixed the infamous 'grinding' noise that the HPR50 occasionally makes. I have not heard it at all with the HPR60. Indeed the motor does seem to be a tiny bit quieter that the HPR50 and that was already about the quietest eMTB motor I have tried. I don't have much elevation where I ride, just rolling countryside so range anxiety is not a problem. The 580 battery is still averaging 67-73 miles on a full charge (108-117km) which means I only have to re-charge it every two or three rides.
So overall, I am very pleased with the bike.
Last edited:
Has anyone removed the battery from a current gen Fuel +?
If so, how'd that go?
If so, how'd that go?
I should have looked at the FAQ first LOL
Why does my size Small EX have an MX rocker link?
Size Small Fuel EX and Fuel+ EX models will come with a 29” front wheel, 27.5” rear wheel, 205x60 shock, and 150mm of travel front and rear. The difference between size S EX and size S MX is that MX bikes will come with 160mm forks and are only available as complete bikes in the 9.8, or 9.9 models.Our rider research has shown that most size S riders prefer a 27.5” rear wheel for a more proportional fit, and more back-wheel-to-body clearance on jumps and descents. Since most common bike-in-a-box (non-P1) Fuel and Fuel+ models will be sold as Fuel EX, we chose to build the size S with the MX rocker link and LSM so that these riders will get the most-commonly preferred setup right out of the box, without having to buy the parts to make the swap to MX themselves.
Size S riders who prefer 29” front and rear wheels can swap the rocker link and LSM and their rear wheel for a full 29er Fuel EX or Fuel+ EX. Or they can also get a size S Fuel LX or Fuel+ LX with 29” wheels right out of the box through the Project One program.
Any size frame can be built in any of the three configurations
This vid shows a build of a Fuel+ from the frame up. Fuel+ build
AT 2m50s he fits the battery, so you can easily see how it would work in reverse. Looks pretty simple to me.
Nice video! Lots of details are shown that can't be appreciated from the website ( lame, few) still photos.
Which brough up one question for me- Are they showing that the XO AXS derailleur actually is hardwired to the motor battery? Looks that way to me, but I'm still in dinosaur cable shifting mode.
Nice video! Lots of details are shown that can't be appreciated from the website ( lame, few) still photos.
Which brough up one question for me- Are they showing that the XO AXS derailleur actually is hardwired to the motor battery? Looks that way to me, but I'm still in dinosaur cable shifting mode.
Yes it is hardwired, you can see it in the video. The cable from the battery adaptor is running into the chain stay
.
Keef
New Member
I was blown away as well. I totally agree with how the bike rides and handles (Fuel+ EX).
In 5 minutes, you can remove the battery and insert the other one. I have now driven 1000 km with the Fuel+ LX and mx (full 29 or 27.5 rear, also different fork 170-160 front, rear 205x 60 / 62.5/65 With the GX transmission, the bike is really quiet and stable. I've had a very good experience with it. 1500 metres of elevation gain is no problem either.
As you have driven the bike in both configurations (LX and MX), is the bike handling have much different between the two? And which one do you prefer. Are you changing the setup depending where you are going to ride?
I ride enduro full 29 - 170 & 160 rear. You might think it doesn't go very fast, but that's deceiving; it goes fast. The Fuel+ is very stable in this setup. (For me, anyway.) For narrow, technical, and slow trails, I use 160-205x60 rear with 27.5 wheels. I find this works well for me, but I don't know about anyone else. The sag I ride is between 25 & 30% with 80kg full gear. The Fuel+ weighs 21kg, Sram 90, aluminum handlebars, Crankbrothers DH, Maxxis Assegai, 2.4 Maxxis Minnion, 150mm cranks, Race Face aluminum Arc 30 rim, Industry 1.1 hubs. No Cush Core. 170 fox grip X2--- Rock shox 160 Lyrik / Rear Rock Shox RC2T 29 ore 27.5 wheel
I'm considering this bike in the LX set up. What size do you ride ? And how tall are you? I'm inbetween a L, XL with 187 CM tall and 89 cm inseam. The reach for the Large is 473 CM and my current bike has 480 CM reach. Does the high stack influence the shorter reach ?
I ride mostly natural, twisty enduro trails. I'm also going tot go with the X2 airshock.
dotcodotuk
New Member
I'm 183cm and having test-ridden an L it's the right size for me, but I'd be thinking about a +5mm reach adjust headset as an possible option were I to go for a Fuel+ in the LX setup so that's something you might want to consider.
I wish their configuration 'menu' gave some indication how reach was affected in each variant, but it's a good starting point to see what you can do with the combination of links, rocker and wheel size to get different travel numbers, but crucially the progression rates.
I wish their configuration 'menu' gave some indication how reach was affected in each variant, but it's a good starting point to see what you can do with the combination of links, rocker and wheel size to get different travel numbers, but crucially the progression rates.
I'm 183cm and having test-ridden an L it's the right size for me, but I'd be thinking about a +5mm reach adjust headset as an possible option were I to go for a Fuel+ in the LX setup so that's something you might want to consider.
Is this what you're looking for?
I also have a Trek Rail Gen 5 and ride at 85NM (not 100NM) 11,000km, but since I got the Fuel+, I haven't ridden the Gen5 anymore. The Fuel+ now has just over 1000km.
I also only ride narrow, technical natural trails.
The Fuel+ is very stable in LX and full29, Fox 38 Grip X2 is excellent and the RS RC2T is also very good for me. But everyone has their own preferences when it comes to suspension.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Indeed I'm alsof thinking of a 5 MM reach adjust headset. And maybe remove some headspacers tot increase reach. The XL seems just a little to big for me.
What frame color have you chosen ? I have seen the black version, looks great.
dotcodotuk
New Member
No, I want the details from the file I linked above (also here) to include the reach numbers as well.
There must be easily 10 if not 15 variants of head angle in that table, all of which will have some effect on reach, be that subtle or not. I'd just like to know what all the numbers are.
Likely won't stop me buying one as it ticks all my boxes, but I like to know stuff!
dotcodotuk
New Member
Definitely felt too large for me, but would be workable with a reach-adjust and running all the spacers low with a high-rise bar. The L felt juuuuust right and can be further tweaked with a headset if needed.
Haven't seen the black finish in the flesh, but it's what I'd want as well.
I would also like to know those things, but discovering them for myself is more fun for me
Looks great
Looks great
Looks great
Trek also has a headset cup with a different angle, but if you switch the LX link to MX, the headset angle also changes significantly. It depends on what you want to do with it; that way, you can build the bike.
Ik kan het ook in het Nederland neer zetten
Engels is leesbaar vr iedereen. Ik ben van Genk BelgiëTrek also has a headset cup with a different angle, but if you switch the LX link to MX, the headset angle also changes significantly. It depends on what you want to do with it; that way, you can build the bike.
Ik kan het ook in het Nederland neer zetten
Here a link to a review of the LX, MX and LMX Trek Fuel. Not the Fuel+ but compatible.
Idd , Engels beste . Ravels BelgiëEngels is leesbaar vr iedereen. Ik ben van Genk België
kimochi
Member
This still happening in US?
dotcodotuk
New Member
If it is, I'd hope you get a better deal than we do... it's cheaper to buy the damn bike and sell the parts off than buy the frame - which is just the frame from the listing I have seen, no battery, no motor.
Normally, that frame is for warranty purposes and exclusively for dealers, as far as I know.
dotcodotuk
New Member
That would make sense... but it was very clearly 'orderable' if you wanted to as a customer.
Even some Trek dealers list frames like the Slash+ and the new Fuel+ with the exorbitant price tag, which confuses me.