Bike Review
The Quiet Overachiever: The 2025 Trek Top Fuel
Abandonment of Ego
This isn’t so much a wrap-up as it is a mid-test chin wag.
I had high hopes of some eventual profound revelation during my time aboard Trek’s latest twist of the venerable Top Fuel saga; that the bike would unlock my inner Superman, or that I would discover some incredibly damning character flaw in the bike and be able to emphatically state that there were far better choices out there for people looking for a 120/130mm “all world” mountain bike.
But my inner Superman never surfaced. And I can’t really think of many bikes that manage 120mm of rear travel with such businesslike capability. I can’t fault the Top Fuel for not turning me into a better rider. That’s on me. And it is unfair to wish that there was some sharpness of character, some brutality of intent, some rowdy edginess that this otherwise understated bike exhibited while quietly and efficiently bagging thousands of feet of climbing and hundreds of miles of singletrack. I mean, do bikes really have character anyway, or is that all just part of the wordy hyperbole that marketing departments and journalists come up with to try and craft differentiation when splitting metaphorical hairs between very similarly designed, very similarly capable bikes?
For the record, the Top Fuel is an excellent bike. I had some absolute peak experiences aboard it this summer, and never once needed to take a wrench to the pivots or chase down errant creaks and rattles, and it got the job done without a hint of trouble everywhere from heat stifled sand washes to hypoxic ribbons of singletrack far above timerline. But when there is a lack of things to complain about, when the desire to fiddle and modify and adjust is close to zero, this can make for a pretty boring bike review. TL/DR; it works, you’ll like it, well done.
Unsurprising Excellence
To recap, this 7,000 USD Top Fuel 9.8 GX AXS arrived back in July, and was given a first look then slotted in amongst some other bikes of rowdier intent. The miles began to add up. The options for adjustability were explored, some minor tweaks were made here and there, but ultimately this stealthy little rig just got ridden, and ridden, and ridden some more.
Trek’s efforts to broaden the Top Fuel’s appeal and capability paid off. They took a bike with an exceptional “pedal all day” pedigree, retained that superb ease of pedaling and climbing, and managed to balance heaps of tractability and maneuverability with just enough chunk and chunder munching ability that this can legitimately be viewed as a natural evolution of cross country into trail riding. Compared to other 120mm travel bikes, it is right in there with the Yeti SB120 and the until-recently Horst-Linked Rocky Mountain Element, in terms of blending pedaling efficiency with XC-plus trail manners. As with those other stellar lightweight all-rounders, the Top Fuel sacrifices some accelerative edge to the current crop of flex-stay XC race bikes, and all the way at the other end of the spectrum begins to show its limitations when the going gets really steep and really rough. But it’s otherwise a superb bike for 90% of the trails on this planet.
The Top Fuel’s 4-position flip-chip allows some geometry steepening and sharpening, as well as some ramping of the rear shock. After futzing with all four positions, I opted to leave things in the slackest, lowest and least progressive of the four settings. 30% sag, middle of the road low speed compression, and as the saying goes, Bob’s your uncle (but no real pedal bob to speak of). This offered what felt like the most predictable and surefooted stability at speed while still maintaining excellent climbing manners. Going steeper and higher helped slightly in techy climbs but made things more nervous in general. Adding more progression felt like it helped a teeny bit with what was already pretty damn good pedaling behavior, but not enough to justify less plush mid-stroke comfort. So, really, all I did after that initial futzing around was maintain 25psi of air in the tires, try to remember to keep the damn derailleur battery charged, and ride.
The word that keeps coming to mind when trying to define this latest Top Fuel is "cohesive." Light, but not whippy, the frame is just stiff enough for the amount of travel the bike has. The Rockshox Pike fork and Deluxe shock are really well matched to each other, and again, there's just enough progression at either end to get as rowdy as the frame and tires want to. The riding position is probably conservative by contemporary standards, with the skosh under 76 degree seat angle matched by a 65.5 degree head angle and 477mm of reach on this size L test bike, but it feels just about perfect for getting the tires to stick in corners and for pedaling hours on end. The fit and finish of everything is clean and really well thought out, from the pivot hardware to the cable routing to the shape of the grips. Everything feels balanced, there's nothing radical or weird to try and ride around or get used to, and it all feels very... cohesive.
Given that nothing at all broke, and that nothing very surprising occurred during the summer, I am going to keep this short for now and truncate this review into two parts: Things I Didn’t Like, and Things I Want To Try.
Things I Didn’t Like
Much as I am a fan of the new school stubby saddles, and in spite of initially thinking that we were going to be friends, my ass never really got onto comfortable terms with the Trek Verse Comp that came on the bike. I am willing to chalk that up to personal preference. Staying in the same neighborhood for a minute, the Bontrager Line dropper post actuated well enough, but there was enough fore and aft play that it would sometimes feel rattly on rough descents, marring what was otherwise an incredibly quiet and composed ride experience. Also, while 170mm of drop is adequate for my stumpy legs, that’s not enough for most people who ride large frame sizes these days. 180mm rotors front and rear were a sensible spec for the intent of this bike, but at high speeds and on longer descents I never really felt like the SRAM Level Bronze brakes had the kind of bite that I wanted. Maybe a swap to metallic pads would help in this regard.
I love the aesthetics of the RSL integrated bar/stem, and really loved the feel of the grips that came stock on the bike, but my hands tended to feel kinda hammered and crampy at the bottom of rough descents. These are 820mm wide bars, so it’s extra surprising that they feel so stiff. Maybe it’s just a matter of needing a few degrees of roll in one direction or another, but since experimenting with bar position is impossible, this is how it is unless I swap in a new stem and handlebar completely. Finally – the wheels. They did their job. They stayed round. But a close to 2000g wheelset with alloy rims on a $7000 carbon fiber bike is a tough pill to swallow. Especially when they are a major contributing factor to the almost 30lb weight of the bike. Given the weight of the wheels, and the bike overall, it is amazing that the Top Fuel climbs and accelerates as well as it does.
Things I Want To Try
Trek made no bones about the Top Fuel being an adaptable and versatile bike, and went so far as to send out a 185x55 RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate to swap in. This will bump rear travel to 130mm. I’ve got a Pike air shaft here that’ll let me stretch the fork out to 140mm travel. So that’s the next order of business. I know, I know. I’ve been banging the “just ride the damn thing the way the designers intended” drum a lot this past year. But in this case, the designers were the ones who sent me the new shock to try out. So, may as well see what happens.
Next, I am gonna try and make the brakes a bit more bitey. Pads first, then more drastic measures if warranted. Ideally, I do not want to go to bigger rotors because I really don’t want to pretend this bike is something more than what it already is; an excellent all-rounder.
I have a set of wheels that I have been hoarding from one lightweight bike to the next for the past couple years. They are Roval Control SL Team LTD wheels. They weigh 1245g for the set. This is kinda cheating, but it’s cheating with a known quantity. In my mind, this particular model of Top Fuel should have come with a set of 1500-1600g wheels to begin with, and that the down-spec to the boat anchors that were on it was one of those internal budget/profit decisions that really feels like a poke in the eye. Shedding a couple pounds of rotating mass will be fun. This will wait until after the suspension gets lengthened, so that I can get an apples-to-apples read on how the extra suspension impacts the pedaling and climbing manners, if at all.
As it sits right now, I really like the Top Fuel. It sits right there neck and neck with the SB120 as one of my favorite pedal all day anywhere bikes. I want to find out if the extra suspension will make it more able to hang in the rough stuff with something like the battleship stable Transition Smuggler I just reviewed, or maybe put it into the same super-fun realm as the Mondraker Raze. And IF these changes do manage to up-category the little Trek, will they come at the expense of that wonderful pedalability? Only one way to find out...
Comments
Cooper Quinn
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Aaaah, falling for the classic "I bought a light little bike and now I'm gonna turn it into a bigger bike" trap like Johnny Cash.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 2 weeks ago
All bikes are All Mountain bikes, Cooper!
In my defense though, if you're going to be hitting double black jump lines and old DH race courses throughout Quebec and Eastern Canada on your cross country bike because it's the only bike you brought on your cross Canada road trip, perhaps some up-speccing of suspension isn't the wrong move!
Just don't ask why I didn't bring a bigger bike to begin with. I don't want to talk about it.
Reply
Cooper Quinn
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I've been down this rabbit hole... I'll add beefier tires. Ok, and brakes. Hrm, now I'm pushing the suspension and dampers limit. Maybe I'll beef that up. and what about....
It's just Ship-of-Thesus-ing your way to a bike Trek already sells.
Now, that's not to say you can't/shouldn't occasionally tweak components to suit terrain, or a trip, or what have you. But it's just something I like to poke fun at.
Reply
Christian Strachan
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I see your ship of theseus and raise it with scope creep. My solution has been to get an extra set of light wheels with DC/XC tires for my Hightower 3. Probably about 500g heavier and everything you’ve been looking for. Or, to extend the spectrum, get a cc link and overfork 10mm and you’ve got basically what used to be enduro down to DC/modern XC.
Reply
Tehllama42
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Yes, scope creep has gotten me pretty good. For all the carbon parts I've thrown at my current whip, the answer is that I've grown the weight by 500g (mostly in cushcore and DH rear tire) overall and wound up with something that is less responsive but piles more capable. I really should see what it feels like with lighter tires, but then I'd just be carrying more speed into places.
I think the over-fork is probably a bigger net win for more people if they really prefer snappy pedal response but just want some more performance/plushness overall.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 1 week ago
Absolutely Cooper, buy the bike you want and that is capable on the 80-90% of the trails you normally ride, but one that is capable of on the odd times wearing a more robust build without worry of it riding like shite or breaking.
As Christian said, a second set of wheels with lighter/less tread tyres can transform a heavier, harder to pedal bike into something not too horrible for a 50+ mile death march type ride. Alternately a lighter/easier to pedal bike can gain a lot of confidence on much bigger stuff with a burlier wheelset (maybe a fork/shock change) much cheaper than buying a second complete bike, it's why the dual position forks were quite popular in the past, just they never did really get them to feel as good as single travel ones and so they kind of fell by the wayside, would love to see someone revisit that idea with how suspension tech has progressed.
This is why I love my Phantom so much, so versatile just with a stock build and the ability to alter the geo within a few minutes by up to a degree, if you so desire - say a long hour climb followed by long descent. A second or even third set of wheels and tyres and a great all round bike that can handle pretty much anything. Over fork it to slack it out more with the real trail tyre/wheels and she's a beast, just remember she's only got 105mm outback. I have thought of purchasing a longer shock to take the travel to 130mm, but haven't found a good enough deal yet to warrant it.
Reply
Cooper Quinn
1 month, 1 week ago
There's a big important difference between expanding the envelope of your bike's capabilities (in any direction, like adding light tires and/or wheels to a trail bike), and slowly bludgeoning your bike into something it wasn't supposed to be.
Reply
AndrewR
1 month, 1 week ago
More likely to ask why you only brought one bike?
Reply
Coiler
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I feel so seen. I have a blur TR and really striving to improve descending capabilities without turning it into a trail bike. It is amazing how capable these little xc bikes can be with some thoughtful upgrades. Better brakes and slightly grippier tires have seriously levelled up the riding experience without going too far away from the bike design intent.
Reply
Tehllama42
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Yeah, I can see how that's clearly a trap, but owning and riding a 150/130mm bike that pedals well really is an impressively good solution for the 'most anywhere I'm willing to pedal a mountain bike' unknown question, provided the tires can back up my terrible decision-making. If the penalty is exclusively weight, that's something I'd be for, but I do know the very real risk of dulling the ride response in the process.
Reply
taprider
1 month, 1 week ago
which Johnny Cash song?
not the 55 56 57 58 59...Cadillac song?
Reply
Cooper Quinn
1 month, 1 week ago
That one. Because this change happens as you walk out of a bike shop, One Piece at a Time.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 1 week ago
I'm not holding very tightly to expectations on this one. As it sits, the TF is pretty damn good, and is right in there with the Horst Element and SB120 as a really good light-ish XC-more kinda bike. As you well know, this kind of experimentation can end up expensive and fruitless. I tried the same with my Epic Evo, and can't say the "gains" were really improvements - they dulled the edge that made the bike so fun and only marginally grew the range of the bike.
But in this case, Trek is actively endorsing the travel increase, and I feel compelled to give it a shot. I think the Pike is a better fork than a 34 for the purpose of getting up into the 140mm travel range, and if I can do this without adding weight or areas of vague flex to the bike as a whole, it could be a fun experiment. I also suspect that even though it'll end up with the same amount of travel as the stock Smuggler, it will behave very differently, and I am curious to see if that will be a good kind of different or a not so good version.
I already have a couple heavy bikes that suck at climbing, so I have those bases covered.
Reply
Vincent Edwards
1 month, 1 week ago
So for the same money, there’s also this build:
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/mountain-bikes/trail-mountain-bikes/top-fuel/top-fuel-9-9-xtr-gen-4/p/49364/?colorCode=gold
They even give you the lighter fancier XTR cassette. All in it’s nearly 1.5lbs lighter
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 1 week ago
So yeah, this is the bike that they should have sent Mike to review, ticks all his boxes - no batteries to charge, lighter wheels, lighter overall build, better fork, but then it doesn't have the NEW and FANDANGLED electronic shifting which they're all trying to push and say is greater, it's worth 1.5lbs and crappier overall parts :skep:
Give me good, old fashioned mech shifting and better parts any day over more electronics to add the the growing list we "have" pushed on us.
Reply
AndrewR
1 month, 1 week ago
And integrated bar-stems fit one person, the person they were designed for/ by. A stupid idea for a retail sale bike.
Almost as stupid as through head set cable routing and internal rear brake hose routing (I test brakes as part of my job so this drives me wild - what should be (and used to be) a ten minute swap over is now a 2-3 hour long swear session).
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Looks nice, tend to agree with liking the top tube to flow into the seatstays, not always something easily achievable on bigger frames. Seems like as you said, a great all round bike, good for 90% of the trails around the world and people who ride them, will be interesting to hear your thoughts when you bump up the travel - I tend to think that you'll loose some of that giddy up and go when you stomp on the pedals.
Also agree on the wheels, 2000g/2kg set of wheels on a $7k bike is insane, especially when you consider that a "basic" set of Pro4/WTB Asym wheels that costs around $600-700 USD retail and weighs around 1800g, to me this would be a major let down, especially when Trek have the carbon rim Kovee Elite 30 at $1000 USD retail that weigh by their site 1585g.
I think that you should put the wheels on before you bump the travel, then bump the travel with the old wheels then new, either way, dropping nearly 800g is going to make that thing feel like you've added a NOS booster system no matter which setup it's with.
You were looking for something major to not like and you found a couple things, but seemed to not mention another you alluded to, the battery thing or need to have to remember to charge a battery. Otherwise, yeah, those integrated bar/stem combos may look neat, but unless you're Nino Shurter and Scott is custom making them to your exact specs, not a fan, need to be able to adjust the angle/roll. Dropper post having too much for/aft and being rattly on a $7k bike just isn't right, too many good options out there and if Bontrager can't do it right, Trek should look outside for one.
Saddles I really think are place holders, don't look at them as something to bag on about if they don't suit because well, everyone's ass is different and what pleases one, makes sore another, I just know I have my saddle and I'll be swapping out to that unless some miracle happens.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 2 weeks ago
The Transmission related spec-shrink is real. How do we squeeze a $1,500 drivetrain onto as many bikes as possible? Cut elsewhere, of course! I could excuse Trek's 9.8 level bikes coming with Select+ or Performance grade suspension when you got full XT kits (including 4 piston brakes) and carbon wheels for the price, but now you're getting crummy bronze level brakes and entry-ish level wheels (Trek has apparently managed to make a Line wheel below the Line comp, which is new to me) in addition to the fork. It seems to me there's a lot of sacrifices here compared to the same MSRP in the outgoing model.
Reply
Vincent Edwards
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Came here to lament this same point… brands putting on a heavier and more complex drivetrain and making up the cost by adding even more weight elsewhere. I guess we can still buy a frame only, and _most _bikes will still allow us to build that up how we want.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Our engineers worked really hard to painstakingly shave 300 grams from this frame but we put it back by choosing a Transmission drivetrain. Oops!
Reply
Vincent Edwards
1 month, 1 week ago
Well I looked up the build options… there’s a $7k XTR build that weights 27.85lb vs 29.11lb for the build tested here. Carbon wheels, XTR brakes, no batteries…
Thanks Trek for providing options for folks that don’t want to pay the ‘wireless tax’
Reply
Tehllama42
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I'm with Lynx here: anything over the $6k price point needs to come with carbon wheels (or at least as an option). They're at the point where the ride/weight justification is only beaten out by swapping out cranksets (another cheeky way to cut weight that is also a net improvement on feel, especially on the bigger rider size of things).
Same with the cockpit - if there was a cost savings attached with the integral ones they'd be great placeholders and do well on hand-me-down bikes, but I'd literally just rather them ship with nothing. Saddles and grips I get it, but bar/stem combos are getting into the 'ouch' territory of basically being eWaste.
I guess if they offered a Kovee glow-up kit for all bikes with a carbon frame (crankset, wheels, handlebars) even if it cost a full $1200, I think that would be a brilliant way to differentiate the customer options. Being able to run Fox Performance Elite suspension with carbon everywhere is where I'd choose to wind up (especially if I can keep a simpler cabled shifting setup), because that's the bicycle experience I want.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Do you remember a decade or so ago when SRAM came out with the Level brake to replace the Avid Elixir, and every reviewer ever hated them and complained about every single bike they came on?* The result was that, after a couple years, Level brakes all but disappeared as an OEM option outside of true cross country bikes. Now here in 2024, there's a "new" set of Level brakes that have seemed to gain pistons but not shed complaints, and once again reviewers are complaining about them for exactly the same reasons.
*excuse some hyperbole please!
Reply
Tehllama42
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I'm still out here riding on Avid Elixir 1's. I think I have a peach of a set, because once properly bled and supplied with a 203mm rotor out front, I can juuuuuuuust barely overcome the traction on offer from Aspen/RekonRace tires on dry dusty surfaces.
I'm not saying they should put mavens on everything, but at some point the Codes weren't actually terrible, and if you're putting real tires on a bike, it's got to be more practical to over-spec brakes and sell it as 'having rider safety be a top priority'.
I realize most people don't actually ride hard enough to really lean on brakes, but wow are the new Levels underwhelming, and you probably know what brakes I'm coming from.
Reply
Tjaard Breeuwer
1 month, 1 week ago
I absolutely don’t ride hard, yet I still bought Mavens last week, to replace the Codes on my Stumpy EVO. And I was running the Codes with 200mm HS2 rotors front and rear, and Galfer Pro pads.
I’m not crazy heavy either (but not light) at 180 lbs (81 kg).
I just had to squeeze too hard (on the front brake) to get the braking force I wanted.
I didn’t want to run 220 rotors because of warping/hitting them and because I live in the Midwest, with very short descent, so I need my brakes to warm up fast.
So Codes on a Top Fuel would seem quite reasonable to me.
Reply
Vincent Edwards
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Now that so many bikes in this category are really darn good, I suppose some hair splitting is needed.
One big question I have is around linkage design and shock placement. Most of the top-tube mounted flex-stay designs (Epic Evo, Element, Blur Tr, etc) fit two bottles handily. But do they do this at the expense of suspension quality and possible shock life? (Clevis driven lateral play that can shorten the time between rebuilds)
Do the rocker-link bikes offer tangible benefits? How about dual link bikes like the revel ranger / rascal and SB120 … what sort of rider will benefit from the extra kinematic refinement these offer?
I look forward to these ongoing explorations of the most boring and widely useful bike catagory :)
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Two bottle mounts (or more) inside the front triangle is a wonderful thing indeed. The flexstay bikes can generally allow for that, and have some benefits in terms of snappy pedaling response. But they do not offer quite as plush or as broadly tunable suspension as the bikes with more pivots (provided those multi-link bikes are well designed).
Rocker link bikes versus linkages that drive the shock along the top tube - that's mostly a packaging decision since the kinematics can be made to work either way, and the chassis stiffness/dynamics and bearing load concerns can usually be addressed well enough in both scenarios. Long clevis designs can cause some extra shock loading - but not all top tube shock placement is dependent on long shock yokes. On the other hand, it may be easier to build a nice stiff rocker link frame since there is already a fair bit of meat around the bottom bracket for a lower shock mount, as opposed to halfway along a top tube.
Reply
Tehllama42
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Rocker link buys you a bit of simplicity around iteration over the rocker, and it does a better job of isolating torsional forces against shocks. TO me that would be the real advantage, and it keeps the weight fairly low (especially since you want to run the double bearings on the big pivot). It's also a bit friendlier for building multi-bike front triangles if you're running modular lower mounting points, and I feel like that's probably a big improvement if you're looking at the numbers that they need to consider in Waterloo.
As a frame this bike seems awesome, but as a complete spec I'm still somewhat mystified at how they arrive at those MSRP's that manage to only sneak under boutique brands despite clearly having some economies of scale (not to mention house brand products) that would let them make cost break into the 'pros' side of the argument instead of being a source of many value questions.
Reply
mikesee
1 month, 2 weeks ago
How much meat can be crammed into the rear triangle?
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Damn, shoulda taken a photo. There's about a centimeter between the stock Montrose 2.4 and the seatstays on either side and above to the seatstay bridge. Looks about the same below. So there is some room but not a ton. I think aggressive 2.4s are about as big as I would want to go, but I have a couple "non-aggressive" 2.6s to try when I swap the wheels that might still fit without raising too many concerns.
Reply
Kos
1 month, 1 week ago
2.6 no sweat, 2.8 probably too tight, by a bit.
Reply
Kerry Williams
1 month, 2 weeks ago
This bike seems like the next logical step when I eventually decide to replace my 2020 Fuel EX. I fully agree that Trek makes cohesive bikes. And, without any truly pointy niggles to notice, they can seem boring. But, oh man, do the trails feel good on their bikes.
Reply
Tehllama42
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I can't help but wonder how good this bike would be with the cheapest Bontrager carbon wheels...
At that price point, GX and Aluminum wheels feels like Trek isn't really interested in the value proposition, and if I want to mortgage a kidney, I suspect the Element or SB120 is going to do a marginally better job.
If they were interested in delivering value, I feel like the absolutely could, and more people could experience the performance this bike offers (and they could probably even justify having the EX version in 140/130mm and repeating that process up the product line to make the most out of a smaller number of frame sets).
As eager as I am to hear how that longer travel experiment goes (I suspect it'll be cooler than expected), the cost argument is still hard for me to bridge when the version I'd want is another $1000 away, and I suspect I'm not alone in that regard.
Then again, I'm a bit of a potato and would prefer to run an AM hardtail in most trails this would truly excel at anyway.
Reply
Kos
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Great review, thanks. I own this bike and pretty much agree with everything you say. I kind of stumbled into the frameset as a replacement for my previous-version Top Fuel. So……Yup, stock is best with the flip chip (coming from a long-time “high” position guy), pedaling is just a wee bit snappier than the old one, and flex is there, but not bad (but I go 195). All in all, this bike just kinda flows through everything with smooth energy.
Because mine was a parts transfer/build, I address a bunch of your minor gripes with XT brakes, RF Era bars, beloved WTB Silverado saddle, and Astral Serpentine Carbon/P321 wheels and hubs. All glorious — and this is season FOUR on the Astrals?!
Very curious to hear your thoughts on the extended travel experiment. May go that route this winter.
Reply
bk
1 month, 1 week ago
Love the reviews on this one mike.. keep em coming..just wish trek would sell an xt 140 130 bike stock ...that's the only thing holding me back
Reply
bk
1 month, 1 week ago
Id love to see a comparison in all capabilities between the smuggler and the TF..in the 140/130 of course..
Reply
Please log in to leave a comment.