I just confirmed weight to make sure I didn’t make a copy/paste error.
Notice the fork change too, as another factor between the 9.9 models. So post, fork and maybe AXS RD weight with battery (guessing on that one as I don’t know the weights) might explain the differences?
Yeah you didn’t make an error I saw that yesterday. But I think the Eagle XX1 is lighter and so is the Fox SC-fork. Still. It’s far from a very light bike at this point if their tubes aren’t at 300g/each.
My bet is a lot. I’d assume Trek put the bike through 1000s of cycles on that rig in the video. And they’ve had the bike out in the real world for a while now. I guess we’ll see tho.
I just dont see the value. I think the rear end travel is probably great for XCO races. Heck, thats what a Spark RC goes to when in the middle mode of the twin-loc- and people rave about it.
My issue is the cost and proprietary-ness of it. To pay that much for a bike to weigh that much is a little crazy to me. Especially when its kind of a 1-trick pony. Looking at the value compared to the aforementioned Spark RC, or Specialized Epic, etc, they blow it away. And are more versatile bikes, unless you only ride XCO only.
I think the concept is great, but theyve over priced it.
the 2019 Top Fuel has a 32 fork. Is that the source of the confusion?
Scott has the carbon spoked syncros Wheels. they are really light.
One thing i was thinking about was the oppritunity to have 2 bottles inside the triangle. Specialized, cannondale, canyon has that as well, but 100mm front and rear.
Specialized had the brain
Cannondale does not have boost
Canyon has steep headangle
Trek has 60mm rear
It’s always something we will complain about
That’s hardly conclusive. Trek will have cycle tested the bike to 100’s of thousands (and quite possibly into the millions?) in order to meet expected life. If they are like many others, they will deliberately exceed the required minimums.
All that means that the pure cyclic use will be very long, and will likely exceed the typical life/use that most people will apply.
Your failure could have come from pure cyclic issues, a flaw within the frame (possible if not likely since they are all hand made), or even damage from impact during a crash. The truth of a precise failure is often a blend of issues.
Well, then you have Orbea Oiz. Two bottles, 100/100 front/rear, no brain, boost, same headangle as Supercaliber. For LTD weight is 21 lbs (9.6 kg). Price for Oiz is $8,299 vs $10,999.99 for Supercaliber. Easy… 
Anyone else see the max rear tire width is only 2.2”? That’s not a lot of volume for that little bit of suspension. Seems most of us “mortals” would be giving up a good chunk of traction there.
I’ll be interested in hearing what tires actually fit and whether 2.2" is a conservative estimate. I’m running a 2.25 Racing Ralph Ralphs in the rear on my current bikes and wouldn’t want to go much smaller than that.
Seems most models are using the 30mm wide Bontrager wheels, which will give the tires a wider layout, but maybe that’s still not enough when compared to 2.3" or 2.4" options?
I was intrigued by the concept of the Super… but the reality we see falls a bit short when viewed in the context of the category as a whole. It just about seems that Trek took away two popular bikes:
And replaced them with single bike:
It’s like the intended marriage between two awesome bikes (PC+TF) ended in a less than perfect hybrid.
To me, this Trek bike is fruitcake. Fruit is good, cake is great, put them together and… I’ll pass.
Yeah, I would want to demo one but I doubt many shops will demo out 9.9’s so I think I will stick with my 2019 TF that is 22.11 lbs and 100/100m.
Per Trek - “We suggest a max tire of 2.2" to leave ~6mm of clearance between the tire and frame.”
That 2.2 limit is actually more off putting than the weight. Thinking of 2.25 Aspen’s (or any XC tire 2.25 or bigger) not fitting on a modern XC bike is ridiculous.
They also took away the 2017 Fuel. My 9.9 is 130mm front and rear and 25lbs. Good for Leadville and Moab. The new Fuel is more than I’d want, and the Top Fuel not quite enough.
Indeed, totally agree on the happy medium missing between the 2020 TF FEX, and it really bugs me too. The new 2020 Fuel EX became a light Enduro machine and really isn’t a Trail bike any more.
I am looking for a real, all-around trail bike and am about to pull the trigger on 2019 Fuel EX closeout model. It has a great blend of agility and ability that is really only matched by things like the Stumpy ST, Ibis Ripley and a few others.
The light, do it all Trail bike is harder to fund than I would have ever guessed.
I agree that Trek is making this odd model shift and it’s effecting the whole lineup. Each one getting longer and slacker, which is fine up to a point. But they have fixed some things and broke more in a way.
Go for it. It’s a great bike. I’ve had my Fuel for 3 years and in that time, have not gotten sufficient bike envy where there is another brand/model I’d want in its place.
If I had to buy a new bike today, I’d probably get the Canyon Neuron.
Yep. And If I was looking for a light enduro bike, I’m not sure I’d pick the new Fuel. More likely the Yeti SB130
They no longer have a do it all trail bike. Seems like their product strategy is “if you want to ride XC and also have fun on more technical trails, we’re going to force you to buy 2 bikes”.
I don’t ride gnarly trails very often, so don’t want to buy an enduro bike. I ride XC races for fun, but not serious, so don’t want a dedicated race machine. I want something in the middle that is perfect for 80% of my riding, and when needed for the 10% on each end, can also work for XC and more tech stuff
Thanks, 
I appreciate the feedback. I’ve been waffling between the Ripley and '19 FEX. I get a better deal and like the spec a lot (X01 is a nice mid-high level group) on the FEX. I just have to choose between boring black or hi-viz yellow 