Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
I typed quads, meant glutes. That's what I get for trying to quickly post at work
Mooooooom they're talking about chainstay length in the tech romours thread again!
The bunched up ball isn't the strongest power position, it's weak core giving out and you still pushing with the hamstrings that makes it feel like it's a power position. It's a closed off hip angle.
A more open hip angle and upright position allows for more power. Modern TT positions are placing the hands up higher to get this better hip angle so they can put in more power but still hit the same aero drag.
If you were to set up a set of aero bars up high at the ideal hip angle and lean forward on those (removes the need to rely on the core muscles) you will put out more power than the low forward position leaning on aero bars.
Sprinters nor powerlifters do their job in fully upright position or with open hip angle, being upright means low glute activation and low glute activation means low overall power production. Obviously there is other end of that scale when you are kneeing yourself in the stomach but I don't think even the craziest xc setups would be doing that. Power leaks though relaxed core is not that relevant here I would say, fighters for example can keep the core tight in flexed position no problem, on the other hand some athletes are struggling to keep it tight even in very upright position. In one of sleeper co edits this year there is a women starting from the gate and the amount of side bend in her torso is painful to watch. So much power wasted. I will try to find it just for the fun of it.
i love riding mtb in a tt position, which is ideal for flat roads not for climbing and descending hills. there's a reason they swap back out to road bike for climbing tts. I understand your point, but its irrelevant for mtb.
Not talking about fully upright. This is more like a hoods vs drops positioning. Look at the seated climbing position of a tour pro on steep grades, here aero is not a factor and it's all about putting out efficient power, they won't be hunched over in the drops, they will be sitting up taller and on the hoods. Back to Robot's comment about "balled over" position in XC with the lowest stack possible isn't the power position.
Any bike I have owned if I accentuated my body position I could get more out of it on the climbs. I’m sure for the average xc rider if you are putting yourself in that position naturally then that’s the golden ticket. For me a lot of that always came from pushing down and in on the handlebars. I’d imagine tilting your entire body to do the pushing down part naturally is a huge relief on the hands and forearms. I get my hands as jacked by putting an extended effort on a climb as any downhill.
Only on vital can I start my day with a coffee and a debate about glute activation.
Back to 32 inch wheels and growths on Zeb lowers please.
Evil said they had "a preview of things to come" at the Northwest Tuneup event this past weekend. Anybody get a glance at new bikes/frames?
You've made some accurate but incredibly nuanced observations about the finer points of road bike fit, but I think you missed my point. What I'm saying is that any competition road bike or XC bike is inherently "balled up" and "hunched over" compared to an Enduro bike or really most bicycles on the planet. Hoods = hunched over. Drops = hunched over. Pros riding the top of the bar with their jerseys unzipped climbing Alp d'Huez = still hunched over compared to how ~90% of the people in the world ride their bikes.
Pro road and XC racers adopt that hunched over/balled up position I'm talking about because it's powerful and metabolically efficient for high intensity efforts. 90% of the world's cyclists don't adopt that position because it's uncomfortable at lower intensities. That's what I was saying. And yes, of course it's possible to be too hunched over or balled up. No argument.
To bring this back to tech rumors, I'm assuming that world class XC racers have already navigated all of the little physiological nuances you mentioned to arrive at their current bike fit, and I'd be surprised if any of them would be willing to significantly compromise the power and efficiency of their ideal bike fit for the benefit of bigger wheels. I just don't see 32" wheels happening for anyone who isn't very tall. But I've been wrong before. All the short XC racers are currently on 29ers, so maybe I'm wrong and the tradeoff is worth it.
It’s got a different kind of linkage as per the leaked Push picture, with the 2 big bolts holding the flip chip vs current 3
No badge yet, no clue of anything
Doesn’t look like it’s got the stupid cable tourism but I can’t see any port for the dropper/moto brake routing like before?
I hope they didn’t do anything completely stupid like Santa Cruz and Specialized by cutting out cable ports
I hope it’s more of a proto frame missing that stuff in a non final mold
And they’ve got internal frame storage for sure
So your friend just jams in a hub that is 9mm wider than the chainstays are designed for?
What shop does he work at? Just so I can make sure I never go there.
Yeah that doesn't sound like a great idea at all, the strength increase of superboost is negligible and you are better off with a slightly beefier rim if you need that. Frames do not like being kept in a stressed state like that and won't be good for the frame or the bearings
again, what does it matter if the whole field loses stack height? no one has answered this question. we trade watts for rollover if the field finds 32 to be advantageous enough. people are talking like they have ran the tests but it simply comes down to the efficiency of the larger wheel vs power lost through geo changes. obviously this will be course and rider dependent but saying "less power in that position" doesn't account for the rest of the equation. and "fit" in terms of rider preference of what feels nice, well those XC bikes aint ergo so I think that some stack won't kill anyone.
edit: well shoot, just realized that if 32 is an advantage, and a taller rider is able to run the 32 without a significant loss of power, that could really suck for a shorter rider who isn't able to put out the watts in a 32 cockpit. we might turn XC into the NBA lol.
edit again: just imagining the arms race continuing with teams getting taller and taller riders to ride bigger and bigger bikes until we get to 36ers (finally!)
Weirdest thing about it? Wheel goes in there like it’s a perfect fit. Previous and current generation Sight FWIW.
And for the record, he doesn’t tell people to do this.
Mondraker team continues here in Andorra testing the prototype...
I've been fretting over stuffing a Frankenstein'd wheel with 150mm spacing into a standard boost frame for the past week. Between having a bright, trustworthy industry individual tell me not to sweat +/-1(or 2) mm at the axle, and reading your comments, I feel not so worried 🤣🤣🤣
150 mm and 157 mm hubs are not the same, the hub endcap to rotor and cassette spacing is different.
This is not the case for 148 and 157 hubs, in that case only the middle of the hub is wider (same width as a 150 mm hub).
https://www.redkitecycles.co.uk/product/trek-fuel-ex-9-8-eagle-90-gen-7/
8th August For the Trek embargo.
I cant see to find any info on the longer travel version?
sick paint, well done Trek for once, love to see a good seat, new grips, proper tyres, a proper Raceface Era handlebar instead of that stupid one piece carbon cockpit that kills your hand with stiffness, impressed
https://ciclismo.calmera.es/doble-suspension/6353-trek-fuel-mx-9-xt-gen-7--26-197216271260.html?srsltid=AfmBOopvQHejNg4yBSxAipEarSfwCuNItmSZqOT3Xqsy_08hRg33tL7k mullet 150/160
LX https://ciclismo.calmera.es/doble-suspension/6274-trek-fuel-lx-99-x0-axs-gen-7--26-197216198895.html 170/160 full 29,
the Fuel + seems to follow the same scheme, 145/150 EX, MX 150/160 and LX 160/170
https://ciclismo.calmera.es/emtb-dobles/6286-trek-fuel-ex-8-gen-2--26-197216203650.html
https://ciclismo.calmera.es/emtb-dobles/6364-trek-fuel-lx-98-xt-gen-2--26-197216272793.html the LX seems to be a great light ebike option, not sure on the battery as there's no info but it's TQ HPR60
from this other site
https://www.redkitecycles.co.uk/product/trek-fuel-ex-9-7-gen-2/
580 battery, nice
It doesn't seem like they're doing a very good job with this embargo.
Fuel+
Dumb name, if you can't put the name in the URL of your webpage tReK you've goofed.
Slash+ should of been Slash-e, it sounds like Slashy, you took that from us trek, you took that from me 🥺
I think the complaint people will bring up would be the chainstays being the same size in all the sizes and different travels, although I haven't found a geo chart for the LX yet so maybe they might be different but I would be surprised. Don't really know enough about geo to know if that's actually a problem but I do like the other adjustability options, e.g the headset cups, interchangeable rocker links to adjust travel, progression flip chip for the shock.
The travel adjusts by changing the rocker links out and changing the stroke length of the shock, e.g the EX is 205x60, LX and MX are 205x65mm. Looks like they have made the rocker links pretty easy to manufacture as well being a two piece design which generally would be easier to make two flatter parts compared to a one piece rocker which usually requires more machine time. Downside is usually stiffness but Trek uses the two piece design on the rest of their bikes and they seem to hold up well. I imagine it requires a bit more engineering work going into the frame to make sure it can take the loads through that area.
Solid update over the prior models. Should be a compelling option for people starting out who aren't quite sure what type of riding they want to be doing or for people who want a bike that suits their local terrain but can easily be changed up to go bigger for bike park use.
i hope there will be a rockshox version of the LT. if so BUUUUY!
(too lazy to faff around with shock/fork swap haha)
Trek leveraging their size and capacity to cut manufacturing costs whilst still charging premium prices.