# Trek Session 88 weight (thought it might be lighter but.....)



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

09 Session frame (medium) with 400lb Ti spring
09 Fox 40 (blue ti spring)
09 Saint cranks (165mm) with 38T E13 G Ring
09 Saint brakes with Goodrige hoses (203 fr and rear)
09 Saint rear mech (Super short)
09 Saint shifter
MRP G2 chainguide
Deemax front wheel
Chris King 150mm ISO hub on 823 rim (DT DB spokes & brass nipples)
Thomson X4 stem (50mm)
Azonic B52 bar (1 inch rise, uncut)
SDG Formula FX Ibeam saddle & post
Straitline pedals
Outland lock on grips
Michelin DH16 2.5 (tubeless with 2 scoops of Stans)
Dura ace 11-28 cassette
SRAM PC 991 chain

All in weight 39.79 lbs










Ho Hum, might be of interest to someone. Thought it might be a bit lower, but not too bothered.


----------



## rmb_mike (Jun 12, 2007)

I'm not a big fan of Trek, but damn that's a nice looking bike. A lot more fluid and curvy than the boxy, angular Session 7 or 77. 
Instead of worrying about how much it weighs, why aren't you out there shredding on it?
:thumbsup:


----------



## Nagaredama (Aug 2, 2004)

First 39.79 lbs isn't heavy. Second you could drop a ton of weight in the wheels but they wouldn't be as strong.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

I'd say the heavy wheels really tipped the scale.

But it's a great looking bike, man. You should feel very lucky!


----------



## ender (Jan 12, 2004)

Beautiful bike bro! Super sexy. Yeah, 39.75 IS light. 

You could save a lot of weight by going XT instead of Saint cranks, a tiny bolt on seat clamp (unless u need the quick release), lighter bars?, lighter direct mount stem (Point One is really light), lose the stacion bumpers and put a couple tiny bumpers on the frame, maybe an XT shifter?, Syncro Mag Pedals (expensive and don't last long but, I like em) and maybe a PC 991 hollow point chain. All that would probably bring it down to 38. I would never go lighter wheels especially on a DH bike like this one where you would sacrifice strength. 

Just a thought. I really like toying with my bike too so, hope you don't mind


----------



## westman (Jul 13, 2007)

Swap out the tires. Intense 909, WTB Dissent or even Maxxis High rollers are lighter.

Other than that, you've got full DH light components on there, whilst Trek has put AM components on the stock race model to minimize weight. It just goes to show that Trek has compromised with the stock components/tires to achieve a low weight. We'll see about long term lasting.

VERY nice bike though!


----------



## huntandride (Sep 29, 2007)

sick bike. Under 40 is great!


----------



## Cable0guy (Jun 19, 2007)

Nice build. I wouldn't change a thing, unless you are willing to sacrifice performance to save a little bit of weight. Maybe the new Deemax which will save you a pound or so. If you are racing and willing to change taco'ed wheels often, you can go with lighter wheelset and thinner rim.

How does it compare to other DH bikes you had?


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

nice bike !!


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

Cheers for the comments guys.
Very happy with it as is really.............

Although mmmm, new Deemax, Point one 

Must resist, should probably feed the kids now


----------



## MaxBS (Mar 30, 2008)

Dont think hes really complaining...but it isnt as light as all the hype was. The hype was about the pics with it being 34 lbs. But I could build a nicolai to 36 lbs. Nice ride thought


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

MaxBS said:


> Dont think hes really complaining...but it isnt as light as all the hype was. The hype was about the pics with it being 34 lbs. But I could build a nicolai to 36 lbs. Nice ride thought


It exactly as light as all the hype is. He put on heavier wheels, tires, bars, and stem. It comes stock at 38 lbs, but its got really light rims (king earls are like 540g or something) and single ply tires.

Plus, the one they built to 32 lbs had XC rims/hubs, modded BB for lighter 73mm cranks and plenty of other things. There are bikes that are 36 lbs out there that could drop even lower if they moved to xc hubs/rims.

Anyway, along with the sun, moorewood, and socom, the frame is one of the lightest out there.


----------



## MaxBS (Mar 30, 2008)

William42 said:


> It exactly as light as all the hype is. He put on heavier wheels, tires, bars, and stem. It comes stock at 38 lbs, but its got really light rims (king earls are like 540g or something) and single ply tires.
> 
> Plus, the one they built to 32 lbs had XC rims/hubs, modded BB for lighter 73mm cranks and plenty of other things. There are bikes that are 36 lbs out there that could drop even lower if they moved to xc hubs/rims.
> 
> Anyway, along with the sun, moorewood, and socom, the frame is one of the lightest out there.


Agreed i didnt mean theyre lying bout the weight. I meant that people were hyping how light the bike was, but as soon as you put tougher parts on the weight is far from like the stupid 34 lbs. Sure its light i just think the hype was unjustified as they had really light parts on it. Ofcourse, it is still light.


----------



## RTG (Feb 22, 2008)

Uhm, holy shiit? Best looking Session so far...


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

RTG said:


> Uhm, holy shiit? Best looking Session so far...


There's a giant thread over on RM worth checking out. That one was "cool" by that RM thread's standards


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

I'll be blunt here. For such a hyped up and expensive bike, 39 lbs sucks, sorry. My friend built a Chumba F5 on a super short budget and that weighed about 37.8 lbs. I went through your parts spec and the only place I saw legitimate weight drops could be new wheels (Mavic 721's to Hope Pro II's) and Handlebars (Sunline V-1). 

However, that build, is flipping awesome. Depending on how you view weight as a factor, that bike should tear it up. I really like it, don't let my above comment discourage you.


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

Your build is a very realistic one, congratulations on getting the weight down to what it is and that looks like it'll be a fun bike for shredding the gnar. 

With that said, xt cranks, thomson seatpost and a road saddle, handlebar, pedals, tires, and wheels will all drop the weight... But the real question is at what cost? You will sacrifice durability to get to a lower weight. I say stick with what you have a have a ripping good time.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

his dudeness said:


> Your build is a very realistic one, congratulations on getting the weight down to what it is and that looks like it'll be a fun bike for shredding the gnar.
> 
> With that said, xt cranks, thomson seatpost and a road saddle, handlebar, pedals, tires, and wheels will all drop the weight... But the real question is at what cost? You will sacrifice durability to get to a lower weight. I say stick with what you have a have a ripping good time.


Its an 83mm BB. No XT cranks.

Anyway, not mentioning ride quality, I don't know why the session is getting crap for its weight. It could ride like piss for all I care, its still lighter then everything else. Thats a solid build right there, but there isn't really anything weight weenie on it. The frame is the lightest DH frame on the market. If it weighs more then the other bikes out there, its because of build, not frame.

Saying "oh thats heavier then I expected" and blaming it on on the frame is retarded. It just means you have no idea what parts weigh about what.

God, I can't believe I'm defending the bike, I've always been one of trek's biggest detractors.


----------



## wasea04 (Apr 2, 2007)

Dude that's how much my Titus El Guapo weighs!!!!!!! LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT for a dh bike!!!


----------



## YoungGun91 (Jun 28, 2008)

Sweet setup.
How much did that Ti Spring put you down?


----------



## Djponee (Dec 20, 2006)

damn, thats a light ass dh bike. if you're complaining about that then i dont know what to tell you.


----------



## iRider (Nov 15, 2005)

William42 said:


> Its an 83mm BB. No XT cranks.
> 
> Anyway, not mentioning ride quality, I don't know why the session is getting crap for its weight. It could ride like piss for all I care, its still lighter then everything else. Thats a solid build right there, but there isn't really anything weight weenie on it. The frame is the lightest DH frame on the market. If it weighs more then the other bikes out there, its because of build, not frame.
> 
> ...


It might be the lightest frame, but the "system" weight is similar to the Socom, which was the lightest frame before the Trek. In contrast to the Socom you are stuck with a 83 mm BB, 150 mm rear wheel and can't use an air shock without losing travel. Bummer.


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

Djponee said:


> damn, thats a light ass dh bike. if you're complaining about that then i dont know what to tell you.


Definitely NOT complaining, as others have said i just expected it to be a little bit lighter.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

iRider said:


> It might be the lightest frame, but the "system" weight is similar to the Socom, which was the lightest frame before the Trek. In contrast to the Socom you are stuck with a 83 mm BB, 150 mm rear wheel and can't use an air shock without losing travel. Bummer.


Can't use an air shock without loosing travel? I have no idea if thats true or not, but I see no reason it would be - I probably wouldn't since the damping has been specifically tuned to that bike, the only shocks I would use for it are custom tuned shocks like a pushed shock, a CCDB, an avy, or a bos. Anyway, care to qualify the "can't use air" statement? Where did you find that out


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

William42 said:


> Can't use an air shock without loosing travel? I have no idea if thats true or not, but I see no reason it would be - I probably wouldn't since the damping has been specifically tuned to that bike, the only shocks I would use for it are custom tuned shocks like a pushed shock, a CCDB, an avy, or a bos. Anyway, care to qualify the "can't use air" statement? Where did you find that out


I think he's referring to the dhx air only being available in 2.5in stroke in 8.75 length and the trek using 2.75in stroke.
I have no desire to run an air shock, but if i did i'm sure MOJO could sort me out with a custom air can.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

guitarhero said:


> I think he's referring to the dhx air only being available in 2.5in stroke in 8.75 length and the trek using 2.75in stroke.
> I have no desire to run an air shock, but if i did i'm sure MOJO could sort me out with a custom air can.


I guess that kind of makes sense, except for that 2/3 of the big air shocks (the better two IMO) make them in that size

http://www.manitoumtb.com/items.asp?deptid=12&itemid=154
http://marzocchi.com/Template/detai...#DQG#&Prgho\hdu&#@#89663&mCJ=&IDOggetto=56411

at any rate, if you have a custom tuned shock on there, keeping it that way is probably the way to go - anything else is gonna feel like a let down.

Sorry to have turned your thread into a weight debate, that bike is really sick, hope its super fun


----------



## Intenseman (Oct 15, 2004)

mine...16 kg200...35.71 Lbs




























Frame : Trek Session 88 DH, Size M
Fork : RockShox Boxxer World Cup + BOS Cartridge
ear Shock : Fox DHX 5.0 with RCS titanium spring
Headset : Canecreek Custom 1"1/2-1"1/8
Stem : Twenty6 Boxxer Direct Mount
Handlebar : Easton Monkey Lite DH
Grips : Oury Lock-On with Envy bar end caps
Brakes : Avid Elixir CR 200/1800
Rear Trigger : Sram XO
rear Derailleur : Sram XO, Short Cage
Cassette : Shimano Dura-Ace 11-23
Chain : Sram PC99 Hollow Pin
Cranks / Bottom Bracket : RaceFace Atlas FR
Chainring : Blackspire Downhill 36 tooth
Chain Guide : MRP G2
Pedals : Twenty6 Rallye with Titanium Axle
Seatpost : Thomson Masterpiece
Saddle : SDG Ti-Fly C
Wheels : Mavic Deemax 2009 (20mm/150-12mm)
Tires : Maxxis Minion FR DH 2.50 42a ST


----------



## sq225917 (Dec 28, 2008)

That is sick looking, and right in the ballpark where i want my Demo 7 to end up.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

Beauty if a Session 88. Shorten up that long front brake cable, though. It'll catch on something eventually and you'll rip it out of the fitting.

Again... BEAUTIFUL bike.


----------



## Intenseman (Oct 15, 2004)

Prettym1k3 said:


> Beauty if a Session 88. Shorten up that long front brake cable, though. It'll catch on something eventually and you'll rip it out of the fitting.
> 
> Again... BEAUTIFUL bike.


Since this pics I have cut the front Brake hose  ...& the seatpost...& Change the seat Clamp by an 2009 Hope


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

Intenseman said:


> mine...16 kg200...35.71 Lbs


How is yours 4 lbs lighter than mine, i'm struggling to see where that weight is.

1/2 lb for wheels
maybe another 1/2 lb in the tyres
1lb in the fork max
OK stem, bars, pedals, cranks are all a bit lighter, but 2lbs?

????

How are the new Deemax? Very tempted, but having bought the King/823 for a not inconsiderable amount of money recently, i'm struggling to justify the expense.


----------



## huntandride (Sep 29, 2007)

How's that bos cartridge working/feeling. Very inerested to hear about that. 
Also, as a joke, how much braking are you getting out of that 1800 rear rotor?


----------



## -C- (Oct 26, 2006)

guitarhero said:


> How is yours 4 lbs lighter than mine, i'm struggling to see where that weight is.
> 
> 1/2 lb for wheels
> maybe another 1/2 lb in the tyres
> ...


Forks, wheels, tyres, cranks, drivetrain, stem, bars, brakes, etc.

There is comfortably 4lbs in that lot.

I wouldn't worry too much about the weight side of things anyway. I've been there with the silly light Socom before (at ~35lbs) and now i'm back on on a 37lb Sunday, which rides far better for me. That seems to be my threshold point 

Unless you're a small Ethiopian child of course


----------



## spxoo (Apr 26, 2007)

yeah sweet ride dudes.

but why are you guys so quick to toss the bontrager wheels? those king earl wheels dont suck. I have always thought they were pretty worthwhile as a buddy of mine who breaks a ton of parts hasnt put as much a flat spot in those kings. We often sing songs about riding with the king.

oh wait they are big earls on the 88s, thats busch league. but I have hearding nothing but praise and love for the trek wheels from everyone I know who has them, and I dont mind working on them.


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

spxoo said:


> yeah sweet ride dudes.
> 
> but why are you guys so quick to toss the bontrager wheels?


Bought mine frame only


----------



## Orange-Goblin (Jan 27, 2008)

Those Deemax wheels.....way to make a beautiful bike look ghastly! And heavy!


----------



## AznRider (Jun 20, 2008)

guitarhero said:


> How is yours 4 lbs lighter than mine, i'm struggling to see where that weight is.
> 
> 1/2 lb for wheels
> maybe another 1/2 lb in the tyres
> ...


UST vs DH tubes(400-600grams easily, thats a lb each)


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

guitarhero said:


> How is yours 4 lbs lighter than mine, i'm struggling to see where that weight is.
> 
> 1/2 lb for wheels
> maybe another 1/2 lb in the tyres
> ...


You do realize you just answered your own question, right?


----------



## 4JawChuck (Dec 1, 2008)

MaxBS said:


> Dont think hes really complaining...but it isnt as light as all the hype was. The hype was about the pics with it being 34 lbs. But I could build a nicolai to 36 lbs. Nice ride thought


My stock size large was 36 1/2 pds with Stans and 5050 pedals. That was on a calibrated scale, how sure are you of the calibration on your scale? Just because its digital doesn't mean its right.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=474557&highlight=santa+trek


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

Raptordude said:


> You do realize you just answered your own question, right?


yes, but to be fair i was drunk when i wrote that


----------



## sq225917 (Dec 28, 2008)

Your'e kidding with the heavy....

The Deemax weigh less than just about any Dh hub set and plain gauge spoke build onto a 550gm rim...

They are only 2150gms.


----------



## -C- (Oct 26, 2006)

Thats not exactly 'light' though, when there are plenty of DH wheelsets sub 2000gms.

In fact, probably 'the' most common wheelset out there (Hope Pro 2, Mavic 721 & DB spokes) is almost 2000g on the nose.


----------



## sq225917 (Dec 28, 2008)

Yeh but it's a real downhill wheelset not an xc wheel with Dh rim. ;-)

I guess it depends on what you need, i'll survive with the new SX wheelset, but i am some sort of girl when it comes to extreme riding.


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

sq225917 said:


> Yeh but it's a real downhill wheelset not an xc wheel with Dh rim. ;-)
> 
> I guess it depends on what you need, i'll survive with the new SX wheelset, but i am some sort of girl when it comes to extreme riding.


none of my business i know but i have to ask,if your a bit of a girl when it comes to extreme riding why on earth did you buy a demo 7.???


----------



## Intenseman (Oct 15, 2004)

4JawChuck said:


> My stock size large was 36 1/2 pds with Stans and 5050 pedals. That was on a calibrated scale, how sure are you of the calibration on your scale? Just because its digital doesn't mean its right.
> 
> https://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=474557&highlight=santa+trek


Same weight with 2 differents scale : Park tools & Topeak  
Next change : Fork...for a Boxxer 2010 or a BOS Idylle or N'Dee...and perhaps an BOS Stoy (Red or Custom Polished version)

Photoshoped pics...of course :
































































Eric, frenchman with an awful english speaking


----------



## -C- (Oct 26, 2006)

Not being funny, but I would put a whole lot more faith in a Hope Pro 2 than any Deemax offering. Seem far too many spokes popped out of the hub flange over the years, not to mention awful freehub designs.


----------



## sq225917 (Dec 28, 2008)

Yeh the old ones were crap, the new ones have doubled up on the pawls and spring with wider beds and a tougher body. Under tensioned wheels ovaling on heavy impacts will always be an issue with an open back flange design, i believe they have extended the flange behind the spoke this year for that reason.

konut, it was unused brand new and only £1200.... at that price i can ride it for 6 month resell it at no loss and buy something, less......overbuilt. An 88 would likely have been a much better fit to how i ride, but the frames run to £1700 in the UK.


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

£1700 for a session frame,they wanna be made in the usa for that amount.


----------



## wookie freeride (Apr 10, 2007)

*Nice ride...*

No one should be disappointed with a sub 40 pound DH bike.


----------



## sq225917 (Dec 28, 2008)

konut, they want to come with a free years supply of blowjobs for that money..


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

I paid £1800 for mine. No free blowjobs


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

are they usa built then do you know.???

thats intense cycles money if they are not.


----------



## Muttely (Jan 6, 2009)

The session 88's are Taiwan Welded, Trek hand picked all the welders that are working on the frames to ensure they got good quality.


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

Muttely said:


> The session 88's are Taiwan Welded, Trek hand picked all the welders that are working on the frames to ensure they got good quality.


still intense cycles money,so will give them a miss for sure.


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

konut said:


> still intense cycles money,so will give them a miss for sure.


The M6 is £2300 in the U.K so £500 more expensive. For me the Trek is worth every penny. If where the frame is welded is important, the Trek is not for you. The quality is impeccable however.


----------



## 4JawChuck (Dec 1, 2008)

Intenseman said:


> Same weight with 2 differents scale : Park tools & Topeak


Two different scales is not calibrated dude...just sayin.:thumbsup:


----------



## konut (Mar 25, 2006)

guitarhero said:


> The M6 is £2300 in the U.K so £500 more expensive. For me the Trek is worth every penny. If where the frame is welded is important, the Trek is not for you. The quality is impeccable however.


see you have me all wrong,where a frame is made has no bearing on my choice what so ever,but when a demo frame will cost me £1300 the trek is pretty exspensive in comparison,i also should of stated that the m6 is to much bike for my needs but would look at the intense uzzi instead,which is within a at a guess 200 pounds of the session.

not saying its a bad bike,but i always thought the idea behind building in taiwan was we as consumers would benefit from cheaper labour costs,but it looks as though trek is gonna win big big on the session as in terms of cost and maximum profit.


----------



## sq225917 (Dec 28, 2008)

Like any business they charge as much as the market will support. Compared to some brands it's a bargain.


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

sq225917 said:


> Like any business they charge as much as the market will support. Compared to some brands it's a bargain.


U.K pricing has gone crazy with the weakness of the pound, It's certainly a bargain compared to £2850 for an anodized Santa Cruz V10.

Although a recent price increase puts the Session at £2000. I don't think i would have paid that.


----------



## guitarhero (Dec 20, 2003)

*Lighter now*

Scored some 09 Deemax off Ebay, down to 38.8lbs now.










Disclaimer: I'm not actually obsessed with the weight of my bike, i just can't ride at the moment due to an injury so i'm bored as ****


----------



## westman (Jul 13, 2007)

Your session gets better and better.

I'll be riding the BOS N'Dee, S*Toy and Idylle Pro this summer, and all I can say so far is that if you measure the weight with two decimals, don't go for them. They're all about MX style plush, not light weight. The Idylle Pro currently weight 3.75kg because it has about a litre of oil in it!

I'd get the new boxxer teams for your build, which is very sensible by the way. Light, but hardcore usable.

And I agree about the Session frame loosing the lightweight battle to the Socom due to 83mm and 150mm rear end. Unfortunate.


----------



## CaliforniaNicco (Oct 13, 2008)

what fork/shock are you running? spring?


----------



## Intenseman (Oct 15, 2004)

New Update of mine :


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

rmb_mike said:


> I'm not a big fan of Trek, but damn that's a nice looking bike.


That's along the lines of what I was thinking. Sessions are pretty classy looking IMO.


----------



## tuumbaq (Oct 6, 2005)

konut said:


> see you have me all wrong,where a frame is made has no bearing on my choice what so ever,but when a demo frame will cost me £1300 the trek is pretty exspensive in comparison,i also should of stated that the m6 is to much bike for my needs but would look at the intense uzzi instead,which is within a at a guess 200 pounds of the session.
> 
> not saying its a bad bike,but i always thought the idea behind building in taiwan was we as consumers would benefit from cheaper labour costs,but it looks as though trek is gonna win big big on the session as in terms of cost and maximum profit.


Dude stop posting seriously ! No offense but you have no idea what you are talking about,the whole"made in Taiwan"thing is much more complicated than this.There's a lot more to it than just fabrication cost.In fact I bet you a 100$ that once the bike is made, shipped and has landed in the country,Trek is probably not making much on them.I bet they're doing it as a platform to show the world what they are capable of.

I dont know what it is in the UK but here in Canada a Demo 8 frame cost more than a Session ( which is a bit embarrassing for specialized IMO )For some reason people thinks companies are going off shore to make the customers benefit from cheaper labor which is absolutely wrong.I wont get into the details because I dont want to waste 30 minutes on my time in front of my CPU but you can trust me on this, this is NOT the reason why they are doing this.


----------



## freaknunu (Jan 19, 2009)

awesome bike and under 40 is pretty damn good


----------

