This article says 21 lbs. Am I missing something?
I havenât read the article but Iâm assuming they are referring to the top end model. The numbers I quoted were right off Trekâs website for the mid tier bikes.
1 Like
Yup, gotta check the precise models. The mags are likely listing one of the 9.9 models. Itâs a big jump in weight when you step down to the 9.8 model (mostly from the GX group, I think).
For fun, here are the new 2020 Top Fuel models mixed in (note that these are the new XC+ Trail versions with 120/115 travel).
Supercaliber 9.9 AXS - M - 9.96 kg / 21.96 lbs (with tubes)
Top Fuel 9.9 XX1 AXS - M - 11.84 kg / 26.1 lbs (with tubes)
Supercaliber 9.9 - M - 9.84 kg / 21.7 lbs (with tubes)
Top Fuel 9.9 - M - 11.05 kg / 24.36 lbs (with tubes)
Supercaliber 9.8 - M - 11.04 kg / 24.33 lbs (with tubes)
Top Fuel 9.8 - M - 11.84 kg / 26.11 lbs (with tubes)
Supercaliber 9.7 - M - 11.74 kg / 25.89 lbs (with tubes)
The new Supercal seems a bit porky when you consider the difference in capability to the TF and what it may well gain in the real rough stuff.
3 Likes
HmmmâŚthat number for topfuel 9.9 doesnât really make sense. I believe it will be lighter than the axs version, mainly due to the AXS Reverb post, which is pretty heavy, but thatâs not 1.8 pounds. Seems fishy.
I just confirmed weight to make sure I didnât 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 donât know the weights) might explain the differences?
1 Like
Yeah you didnât make an error I saw that yesterday. But I think the Eagle XX1 is lighter and so is the Fox SC-fork. Still. Itâs far from a very light bike at this point if their tubes arenât at 300g/each.
1 Like
Redirecting...âŚ
How many cycles can the seat stays handle before they start to weaken?
My bet is a lot. Iâd assume Trek put the bike through 1000s of cycles on that rig in the video. And theyâve had the bike out in the real world for a while now. I guess weâll 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.
1 Like
Since itâs carbon fiber, basically forever. It doesnât fatigue the way aluminum does.
Most world cup level XC bikes use flexing seat stays.
1 Like
the 2019 Top Fuel has a 32 fork. Is that the source of the confusion?
Yeah, we were looking at the wrong weights for the Top Fuel it seems.
That being said, the top level Spark RC (20.94lbs) is a full pound lighter than the SuperCal.
I wouldnt say foreverâŚI have a 2016 Felt EdictâŚit has a rear flex stayâŚI have snapped two.
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
Itâs always something we will complain about
3 Likes
Thatâs hardly conclusive. Trek will have cycle tested the bike to 100âs 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.
1 Like
Anything handmade can be subject to imperfections and cycle testing on a machine cant replicate the forces of the real worldâŚnot arguing but just saying carbon does fail wether it be from a imperfection or a combination of forces that cant be replicated by machineâŚmy rear stay cracked in the same place twice and I know of others that have cracked in the same spotâŚlikely not a manufacturing imperfection but a design flaw.
2 Likes
The point I was trying to make is that the fatigue characteristics of carbon are such that as long as you arenât exceeding force expectations, you arenât going to âwear outâ the carbon by flexing it.
Carbon is like an HDMI or other digital signal cable. Itâs either connected or not. If its not connected, itâs officially broken!
Aluminum is more like a traditional metallic cable where signal can degrade over time. You can bend aluminum past its force expectation and it will still be connected, albeit weaker.
This also relates to impact resistance i.e. carbon is more impact resistant up to a point and then it breaks, where as aluminum is less impact resistant but just dents instead.
So yes, if Trek has poorly designed the seat stays or you massively exceed the force expectations, they will break. But if not, the lifespan should be longer than an equivalent design in aluminum.
2 Likes
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⌠
3 Likes
Anyone else see the max rear tire width is only 2.2â? Thatâs not a lot of volume for that little bit of suspension. Seems most of us âmortalsâ would be giving up a good chunk of traction there.
Iâll be interested in hearing what tires actually fit and whether 2.2" is a conservative estimate. Iâm running a 2.25 Racing Ralph Ralphs in the rear on my current bikes and wouldnât want to go much smaller than that.