2017 Trek Fuel EX ride review

Earlier this year, the Fuel EX received rapid fire updates that first introduced a 27.5+ version then quickly made it the standard model by adding 29er wheels and tires for most of the stock builds. The frame was all new for both, bumping travel to 130mm, and it effectively did away with the standard 27.5 version except in a few smaller sizes for the women’s models.

Most of the stock 2017 Fuel EX builds come as 29ers with meaty 2.4″ wide Bontrager tires, and that’s what I rode here. The Fuel EX 9.8 comes spec’d with Shimano XT drivetrain and brakes, Fox Performance 34 Float fork and EVOL Float rear shock with the Trek-exclusive RE:active damping, Bontrager Line Comp wheels and XR3 Team Issue tires. Here’s how it rode…

2017 Trek Fuel EX ride review

Imagine taking the heart of an XC race bike and giving it the soul of a trail bike and you’d have the Fuel EX. A long time ago, before Bikerumor, I bought the Trek Fuel as my race bike and rode it for many years. Then, shortly after starting this site, I met up with Trek’s southeastern rep to test the new Top Fuel, which had just switched from their pivotless rear triangle design to the Full Floater suspension platform with concentric rear pivot/axle design. The difference between the two was stark, with the new FF/ABP design nearly levitating over the bumps in comparison. And it did so with no loss of efficiency.

Fast forward about eight years and the latest generation continues to have that ultra plush suspension that makes the Fuel feel like it has more travel than what’s printed in the catalogue. The trick here is that they’ve kept the Top Fuel’s efficiency while bumping travel into the full-on Trail Bike range.

2017 Trek Fuel EX ride review

Part of the story is the inherent efficiency offered by the concentric rear end pivot/axle design. Another part is that the Full Floater design, which sandwiches the shock between two moving arms rather than a fixed mounting position on the frame, mostly isolating it from pedaling forces. But, it’s still a suspension and you still bounce when you pedal, so they needed something more. That ‘more’ is the RE:aktive shock co-developed with Penske and Fox. Essentially, it uses a high volume piston that backed by a spring and has several small ports in it. Under slow compression, like when you’re pedaling, oil flows through the small ports, limiting movement for a more efficient “platform”. Under higher speed impacts, like when you actually hit something or land a jump, the added pressure easily overpowers the valve’s spring and lets a much larger volume of oil flow through, letting the shock instantaneously open up to track the terrain.

2017 Trek Fuel EX ride review

The effect is instant, and it keeps the bike pedaling like a race bike but taming roots and rocks like a trail bike. It’s a good combo that makes for a versatile ride that could easily be a one-bike quiver for many folks. Add in the Mino-Link that lets you adjust head angle by 0.5º and BB height by about 10mm and the ability to run 27.5+ or 29er wheels and tires, and it’s a bike that’ll handle quite a variety of riding styles and terrains.

2017 Trek Fuel EX ride review

On my test ride, I hit more of the aggressive sections with gnarly climbs (like the root infested lead in to Goat Hill shown at the top of the post, so named because you need to be nimble like a goat to climb it) and fast, swoopy and chunky downhills. The Fuel EX’s suspension lived up to my expectations by tracking true, shrinking bumps and cushioning impacts like a bike with more than 130mm of travel.

Stand up to power through a section or climb and it feels like a shorter travel bike. That’s aided by a stiff downtube that keeps power transfer going where it should, which also aids overall handling predicability, too.

There’s always some question in the back of my mind about big brands’ popularity. Are they everywhere because they’re good at business and distribution, or because their bikes are that much better. With Trek, there’s certainly some business acumen that’s gotten them where they are, but the bikes we’ve ridden justify their success and the Fuel EX is no exception. If you’re looking for a solid performer that can keep up with the XC dorks and hit the drops with the All Mountain kids, this bike’s worth a test ride.

TrekBikes.com

13 comments

  1. contrarian on

    Would be really curious to know how one might be able to run something in the 275×2.6 range on this bike. Would running a longer fork and BB in the high position be enough?

    Reply
  2. Giver eh! on

    Nice looking bike. Would ride. I have never said that about a Trek. This bike ticks of most of my wants for a trail bike. Nicely done Trek-aroo!

    Reply
  3. atlbikeshop on

    Trek’s popularity is definitely two fold (distribution and substance) – but their top tier bikes are certainly bench marks for the industry. Madone, Fuels, Procaliber/Superfuly, Slash, Session – it is really hard to argue with the success and popularity of these bikes!

    Reply
  4. Tom on

    Based on a full season of thrashing a 2016 version in endurance races, I can echo Tyler’s comments. I haven’t had a chance to check out the longer travel 2017 version, but it looks like a heck of a One Bike Quiver.

    Reply
  5. Bill on

    Hang on, no one is ripping on either the bike or the review. And it’ s almost ten comments in! A first. Trek you done gud…and you too T.

    Reply
  6. Doug on

    Help me out here friends. I ride XC and some rooty/rocky trail. I don’t jump off anything more than 3 feet high. I am much more interested in a snappy, light feel than a bike that can absorb any jump. Also in the interest of keeping weight in check, I have reverted back from 29er land to a 26″ wheel and am loving it. So much more responsive in any way. I am not 6 foot 4 inch tall so those huge hoops are wasted on me.

    So now the industry is pushing a two-in-one sales pitch to have one bike frame that offers your choice of heavy 27.5 PLUS tires in ~3 inch widths or 29er tires (slightly less heavy in general) in ~2.4 inch width.

    My experience for a person my size and ability on the trails I ride tells me that 2.4 inch is wide enough and I want to run 26 or maybe 27.5 rims. But won’t that screw up the geometry and cause lots of pedal dragging due to an unacceptably low bottom bracket?

    I really really like Trek’s suspension, but if all they sell are huge hoops with fat heavy tires, then Pivot Mach 5.5 remains the go to bike.

    What am I missing here?

    Reply

COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.