Fuel EXe Trek Fuel EXe Megathread!
- Thread starter Rob Rides EMTB
- Start date
This might be the way to go if you want the new motor. Resale on your existing Fuel exe is poor. And the bike rides great already, so not gaining that much with a new gen.7
dark.Knight
Member
I don’t know anything about resale value for the Fuel EX-e or any other e-bike out there.
Is it terrible?
If so, then buying a used e-bike could be the way to go?
My 9.9 XTR (2023) is as good as new, and I really enjoy using i!
Canyon Shawn
Active member
I emailed TQ and asked them to please make a 580 watt battery that will fit into the EXe. A bigger battery would make the EXe a perfect bike. I don’t want to strap a small capacity range extender on it. I’m also not interested in carrying an extra battery. The answer I got was:
Thank you for your message and interest in the HPR50 drive system. We have occasionally received requests for a larger battery suitable for 360 Wh frames. This topic has already been addressed by our product management. So it may well be that there will be such a battery or a similar one in the future.
Best regards
Thank you for contacting the TQ-Service-Team
Bero
So please if you want a bigger battery in your EXe, please send an email to this email address and let them know what you want.
[email protected]
Thank you for your message and interest in the HPR50 drive system. We have occasionally received requests for a larger battery suitable for 360 Wh frames. This topic has already been addressed by our product management. So it may well be that there will be such a battery or a similar one in the future.
Best regards
Thank you for contacting the TQ-Service-Team
Bero
So please if you want a bigger battery in your EXe, please send an email to this email address and let them know what you want.
[email protected]
dark.Knight
Member
here as well.E-mail sent, and fingers crossed!
DugT
Active member
Should we all get a Pinner lower shock mount bolt? The stock bolts on by 9.8 EXE has not been a problem but should everybody get the better fitting bolt before the old one becomes a problem?
I got one just in case here. Nothing worse then shock play in my book.
Last edited:
dark.Knight
Member
Yes.
Everybody should change that bolt.
The stock one doesn’t fit the design, just almost.
With the stock bolt you will damage the frame over time, and the «remedy» is to apply more torque..
The threads on the stock one also covers more area of the bolt and overlaps with the mounting hardware of the shock, and that can also be problematic over time.
I just don’t understand why Trek decided to save money on this particular bolt..
Last edited:
Emailsucks98
Well-known member
I never had any issues with my 9.8, which went through several different rear shocks, always using bronze DU bushings. As far as I could tell, most people who had issues were on bikes that came with Fox suspension.
DugT
Active member
Thank you. I'm a cautious geriatric easy trail rider and my EXE has RockShox so maybe I don't need a better bolt.
Some more feedback from TQ in relation to replacing the HPR50 with an HPR60 on the fuel exe. Don’t think I would do this based on the feedback.
many thanks for getting in touch with us and for your interest in our new HPR60 system.
Yes, the HPR60 can be installed in bikes where there has been the HPR50 installed before.
However, please note that due to the size of the HPR60 and the motor cover, it might be necessary to remove the cooling fins of the HPR60.
Therefore, the maximum watt will be 300W instead of 350W – however you still get more newton meters, more efficiency and support and less noise than before.
We expect the motor to be out for sale as an upgrade option by the end of the year as we are currently busy building up stocks and supplying the OEMs.
The 580Wh battery will size wise not fit into the downtube of your Trek Fuel EXE. Therefore, the 360Wh battery cannot be upgraded.
We wish you a nice summer full of epic rides with your bike.
Thank you for contacting the TQ-Service-Team
Christina
many thanks for getting in touch with us and for your interest in our new HPR60 system.
Yes, the HPR60 can be installed in bikes where there has been the HPR50 installed before.
However, please note that due to the size of the HPR60 and the motor cover, it might be necessary to remove the cooling fins of the HPR60.
Therefore, the maximum watt will be 300W instead of 350W – however you still get more newton meters, more efficiency and support and less noise than before.
We expect the motor to be out for sale as an upgrade option by the end of the year as we are currently busy building up stocks and supplying the OEMs.
The 580Wh battery will size wise not fit into the downtube of your Trek Fuel EXE. Therefore, the 360Wh battery cannot be upgraded.
We wish you a nice summer full of epic rides with your bike.
Thank you for contacting the TQ-Service-Team
Christina
Emailsucks98
Well-known member
I think it's likely Trek will introduce an updated version of the EXe that uses the HPR60, and hopefully those new motor & battery covers will fit on the current HPR50 models. Those parts are simple, inexpensive and are available on the Trek website.
With the addition of cooling fins, it could be that Trek will do away completely with the motor cover.
If the new EXe has a 580 battery, the new motor cover may not fit the current 360wh frame.
These parts don't really do much- just plastic trim pieces to keep mud out of the battery compartment- so I wouldn't hesitate to 3d print something custom if necessary.
dark.Knight
Member
Do you believe that framesets could be available if the frame gets redesigned to carry the 580Wh battery?
Thanks for posting, but goddamn it. Really didnt want to have to buy a new bike this summer :/ I just find that that the HPR50 is missing like one more assistance level. Like 10 nm you know?!
IanP
Member
It depends on your approach. Here's a pic of the old and Pinner bolt. There is measurably .2mm difference in diameter through the carbon frame on 1 side (the other side is threaded) and the shock lower bushing. What set of other circumstances make it turn into a noticeable issue later (rider, shock, usage etc) is probably too hard to determine. If it was just the shock bush I would have left it to see as the bush is replaceable but the notion of the undersize shank on the head end through the carbon and treks solution to just tighten it was worth fixing now for me. Just my thought.
DugT
Active member
I thought about my scenario and this is the result.
With the stock bolt that is too narrow, when the rear tire leaves the ground, while jumping for example, the weight of the rear suspension would pull up on the bolt. If it was loose enough, the bolt would move up to the top of the hole. This would cause where on the frame at the bolt pinch points and would possibly dent the upper surface of the hole. Is this the essence of the problem? If it is, it might not be a problem for me because my rear tire almost never leaves the ground. Maybe it does occasionally and I don't realize it but I don't remember jumping anything in the last ten years. I'm 74 now, enough said
. My suspension drops when I put my bike on a bike stand but I think that isn't jolting enough to be a problem.
Is my theory here accurate or not? The Pinner bolt is obviously ideal but I think I don't need it.
With the stock bolt that is too narrow, when the rear tire leaves the ground, while jumping for example, the weight of the rear suspension would pull up on the bolt. If it was loose enough, the bolt would move up to the top of the hole. This would cause where on the frame at the bolt pinch points and would possibly dent the upper surface of the hole. Is this the essence of the problem? If it is, it might not be a problem for me because my rear tire almost never leaves the ground. Maybe it does occasionally and I don't realize it but I don't remember jumping anything in the last ten years. I'm 74 now, enough said
. My suspension drops when I put my bike on a bike stand but I think that isn't jolting enough to be a problem. Is my theory here accurate or not? The Pinner bolt is obviously ideal but I think I don't need it.
IanP
Member
Not entirely true - damping on both compression and rebound causes load reversal on the end points of the shock and that might happen up to tens of times per second. Your attempt to describe the problem is right enough. Standard bolts are made and sized to fit very slackly in the hole they are in because the expectation is that their job is to resist force along their length(bolting two bits of wood together) not transversely as is the way it is used in this case - thats why they should have specified a bolt with the right diameter and specific thread length.I thought about my scenario and this is the result.
With the stock bolt that is too narrow, when the rear tire leaves the ground, while jumping for example, the weight of the rear suspension would pull up on the bolt. If it was loose enough, the bolt would move up to the top of the hole. This would cause where on the frame at the bolt pinch points and would possibly dent the upper surface of the hole. Is this the essence of the problem? If it is, it might not be a problem for me because my rear tire almost never leaves the ground. Maybe it does occasionally and I don't realize it but I don't remember jumping anything in the last ten years. I'm 74 now, enough said
Is my theory here accurate or not? The Pinner bolt is obviously ideal but I think I don't need it.
Either way I wouldn't sweat it too much - get out, hit the trails and enjoy your time. If this goes badly it will only start making noise not throwing you into the scenery. I'm only 9 years behind you. Every ride is precious.
Rockhopper70
Active member
I am following this thread as an Exe is on my watch list.
Just curious about this as it appears that the design uses the bolt shank as the bearing surface for the shock mount. I’ve only experienced a hand full of full suspension bikes but all of them used the bolt only to nip up the frame mounts to “top hat“ hat style bushings. The bolts sole purposes was to pull the frame mount together, then this would hold the bushings around which the shock rotated. In theory, you could have a 1mm smaller diameter bolt, would make no difference so long as it clamped the bushings in place.
I’m really surprised to see the shock mount has been designed to rotate around a threaded portion of the bolt.
Just curious about this as it appears that the design uses the bolt shank as the bearing surface for the shock mount. I’ve only experienced a hand full of full suspension bikes but all of them used the bolt only to nip up the frame mounts to “top hat“ hat style bushings. The bolts sole purposes was to pull the frame mount together, then this would hold the bushings around which the shock rotated. In theory, you could have a 1mm smaller diameter bolt, would make no difference so long as it clamped the bushings in place.
I’m really surprised to see the shock mount has been designed to rotate around a threaded portion of the bolt.
IanP
Member
It's not supposed to rotate around the bolt, the rotation should take place in the eyelet and either the DU or metal bush in fox and rockshox. I suspect the lateral play of .2mm CAN (and might not) loosen the sleeve in the frame and then allow rotation. That's why Trek just responded by reefing it up tighter.
DugT
Active member
Regarding "Reefing it up tighter", has the torque spec changed for that bolt? It was 15Nm.
IanP
Member
I think thats the new higher torque
DugT
Active member
I have the two latest service manuals and it is the same in both of them. The first one is Rev 3 from 2022 and the newer one is Rev 4 from 2023.
dark.Knight
Member
If my memory serves me right it is bumped up to 17Nm if you experience any problems. I believe it is mentioned in this thread.
lojack
Member
Anyone had a problem with the charge port? My 9.8 XT (just bought on sale a month ago--$5700 US), won't charge from the charge port now (but did the first two weeks I had it). I can charge the battery if I remove it from the bike, so the charger works. Everything works fine (motor, display, controller). Firmware was updated two weeks ago and it charged fine twice, but now won't. I will drag it to the Trek dealer on Thursday but it would be nice to avoid that trip/hassle if I can.
I took off the inner cover and can see the splitter and everything appears connected by the motor--I don't see any dangling wires up where the port is. There is no water or debris inside the downtube or the charge port and no pins/holes are bent or clogged. I haven't yet tried unbolting the charge port yet. Maybe the cable is not fully seated on the charge port. Has anyone looked under the charge port? I would rather not take it apart if it is annoying to get it all back together. The service manual seems to indicate there is a special tool for Trek service techs to help build the bike's cable system.
Beyond some minor annoyances, I like the bike a lot. (Sealant was congealed in both tires, Trek app doesn't always pair, Firmware was way out of date when purchased, sometimes I think the drag is higher than it should be when no assist or am I just imagining that etc...). But the motor and bike are quiet. I read through all 134 pages of this megathread. Thanks everyone!
Lojack
I took off the inner cover and can see the splitter and everything appears connected by the motor--I don't see any dangling wires up where the port is. There is no water or debris inside the downtube or the charge port and no pins/holes are bent or clogged. I haven't yet tried unbolting the charge port yet. Maybe the cable is not fully seated on the charge port. Has anyone looked under the charge port? I would rather not take it apart if it is annoying to get it all back together. The service manual seems to indicate there is a special tool for Trek service techs to help build the bike's cable system.
Beyond some minor annoyances, I like the bike a lot. (Sealant was congealed in both tires, Trek app doesn't always pair, Firmware was way out of date when purchased, sometimes I think the drag is higher than it should be when no assist or am I just imagining that etc...). But the motor and bike are quiet. I read through all 134 pages of this megathread. Thanks everyone!
Lojack
DugT
Active member
Thanks! Your memory is correct. I searched this thread and there are several posts confirming that 17Nm is best for the lower shock bolt.
lojack
Member
Update: New display and new main cable have fixed the problem. Trek store manager let me borrow his Slash+ while we waited for parts. That's a nice bike on the rougher, steeper stuff.
GroundInspector
Member
Anyone know what volume spacer comes in the Float X Performance? I have an exe 8 but I can't find a tune ID on it. I checked all around.
Also, in order to change volume spacers is there a trick to keep the shock fully extended to have room, or would I need to remove it? As when its empty of air it compresses. I was thinking maybe I could wedge something in between the frame
Also, in order to change volume spacers is there a trick to keep the shock fully extended to have room, or would I need to remove it? As when its empty of air it compresses. I was thinking maybe I could wedge something in between the frame
Last edited:
Similar Threads
-
-
-
-
-
Fuel EXe Fuel Exe 8XT - Rotor upgrade RT66 to RT86? UPDATE - New rotors ordered
- Started by DocUK
- Replies: 14