# 32.56 LB Session 88 DH!!!!!



## swash (Jan 24, 2008)

Just saw this on Treks web page and was blown away, thats freaking light! Most all mountain bikes weigh more then that!

http://trekmountain.typepad.com/king/2008/05/how-low-can-you.html


----------



## MattP. (Oct 3, 2005)

*Speechless*

I'm amazed that nothing on that bike is reallt that exotic. No Ultimate/Code brakes, no I9s, that's awesome.


----------



## CountryBoy (Oct 24, 2006)

I call BS!


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Looks too optimistic....


----------



## foxracing (Feb 20, 2007)

And it's a full on DH rig!!
Damn! That's light!

Let me add on the specs.
Specs:

Session 88 frame, polished, size L (BB shaved down to 73 to use the XT cranks), Fox DHX 5.0 shock with 450 lb ti coil spring

Rock Shox Boxxer WC, Sunline direct mount stem

Bontrager Duster (Rhythm) 28mm wide rims, 32 hole, King Earl Hubs, Big Earl 2.5 Kevlar tires, Stans rear, tube front

XT cranks with MRP carbon chainguide, Crank Brothers Acid 2 pedals (steel)

King Earl alum bars (full width), King Earl alum seat post, silly light racer saddle

Avid Juicy 7's (203 F, 185 R), XO drive train, 11-26 9 speed cassette


----------



## Nut! (Nov 2, 2007)

Damn, Trek is stepping it up.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

hmmm...smells fishy, but thats awesome if thats legit


----------



## dd13 (Oct 6, 2005)

those are def sick looking,im not sure if im ready to see how much they are gonna cost though.


----------



## bullcrew (Jan 2, 2005)

That means that would have to be a 6lb frame!


----------



## Rb (Feb 28, 2007)

Where can I get some of this new anti-matter stuff?


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

bullcrew said:


> That means that would have to be a 6lb frame!


i hope not! that would be a tough sale right there....

"hey guys, check out this 6 lb dh frame. yah, no, i know, normally thats an xc weight....well, 6 lb xc bikes dont break THAT often...well, it should hold up to dh just fine...uhh....maybe..."


----------



## The Tod Says What?! (Jan 20, 2007)

Dear GOD, that is one sexy bike,


----------



## mrpercussive (Apr 4, 2006)

wow... that is way impressive!!!


----------



## bullcrew (Jan 2, 2005)

William42 said:


> i hope not! that would be a tough sale right there....
> 
> "hey guys, check out this 6 lb dh frame. yah, no, i know, normally thats an xc weight....well, 6 lb xc bikes dont break THAT often...well, it should hold up to dh just fine...uhh....maybe..."


Agread ona tough sale but;

With I9s and single ply tires I am at 36.2lbs, - 200g for a lighter rims, - 1 lb for a boxxer wc and Im at 34.8 lbs and my bikes got a crapload of light stuff including an air shock!
So yeah a 6lb frame!!!
My frame is 8.5 w/out shock!


----------



## dusthuffer (Nov 30, 2006)

what a load of crap


----------



## idrunk (Oct 19, 2007)

My guess: They threw that Selle Italia saddle onto a stock Trek Remedy and snapped the picture.

Nah, I really hope they finally have the downhill scene figured out. That looks like a mean bike. They're a great company in almost all other aspects IMO.


----------



## Freerydejunky (Sep 21, 2006)

thats a damn sexy bike.

But dont buy the weight.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

Don't be fooled, there are some weight weenie schanigans going on with the build.

But it is still hot!!!!

- no paint frame
- BB cut down = lose ISCG mount? BB mounted chain retention system so no bolts?
- grips are not lock on
- latex tube up front?
- Duster rims are 450g (but have a great rep)
- seatpost cut down
- single wall tires

Regardless, outside of the rims and tires, those are all small weight savings.

It looks hot, weight is amazing, I hope the ride lives up to it's looks!

N1! Trek.

P


----------



## iwanttolookatpics (Jun 5, 2006)

Even if it wasn't as lightweight as they claim it certainly looks awesome. A comeback in polished alu frames? 

*dusts off the chrome bmx*


----------



## frisky_zissou (Jun 4, 2006)

That wheelset might be pushing the waitsavings abit far but DAMN that is a sexy sexy bike. I have always had a soft spot for chrome rigs. Can't tell certainly but it looks like they haven't done anything to wrong in the geo department.


----------



## wyrm (Jan 19, 2004)

My guess is that the front wheel is still on the ground.... 

But I like the look of the bike.


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Nice lines, and that weight is impressive. I'm surprised they didn't put a DHX air on the rear to shave another .5 lbs. I do see though that it has a titanium spring. Oh and a SUPER tiny rear cassette.


----------



## gruczniak (Jun 22, 2005)

Road cassette is ok and wise if you go only dwn hill. And you can get some light ones.
Stan is more than ok as it is meant to be used with non UST applications and weight is lower than tubes. Also reliability is better - you will be able to finish race except for situation where Tire is cutted instead of usual punch. 
No paint is even better, but it is more personall fell. 
XT is widely used for gravity so it should hold under not so heavy rider. Also shaving needs to be done properly not to disturb pedal position.
Grips - well i wouldn't go non lock.
Saddle - weak point - it is a great saddle no doubt, the name make sense thou. Friend of mine use it a lot for XC but I susspect rails will bent after first asslanding.

Overal: great bike for a light rider (and i mean weight and technique) = weight is still impresive


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2008)

rep_1969 said:


> Nice lines, and that weight is impressive. I'm surprised they didn't put a DHX air on the rear to shave another .5 lbs. I do see though that it has a titanium spring. Oh and a SUPER tiny rear cassette.


I was told that an air shock tends to heat up more than coil shocks due to air compression's friction. Aside from progressive vs linear feel of air and coil, respectively, isn't an air shock more high maintenance than coil? Please correct me if there are any inaccuracies.

That bike over all looks very nice. I would throw some 823 with UST Minions on there though, so there goes the low 30s weight. :madman:


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

i have a sgd ti fly. its 30 grams heavier then an slr and ive landed on it hard a couple times now with no bending. (im 170 w/ gear)i could see that sitting around 35, which is still a great build, im just not seeing 32.5


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

rep_1969 said:


> Nice lines, and that weight is impressive. I'm surprised they didn't put a DHX air on the rear to shave another .5 lbs. I do see though that it has a titanium spring. Oh and a SUPER tiny rear cassette.


I thought DHX 5.0 + Ti Spring weighs basically the same as a DHX Air?


----------



## Uncle Cliffy (Jul 7, 2006)

Hmmm. It's still a Trek though...


----------



## bigmike00 (Sep 6, 2007)

Uncle Cliffy said:


> Hmmm. It's still a Trek though...


Thats just stupid.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

hmmm, its still an ironhorse though


----------



## JefedelosJefes (Jun 30, 2004)

I don't believe the weight, but it is sick to see that trek has finally come out with a real downhill bike.


----------



## Uncle Cliffy (Jul 7, 2006)

bigmike00 said:


> Thats just stupid.


Oh I'm sorry... I'll be more clear; OOOO a super light downhill bike that has a lots of swanky parts and sets the bar for low weight on long travel. Too bad I think Trek is ghey and will probably never like them. :thumbsup:


----------



## essenmeinstuff (Sep 4, 2007)

JefedelosJefes said:


> I don't believe the weight, but it is sick to see that trek has finally come out with a real downhill bike.


What was the session 10 then?


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

I, too, would like to call BS.

Plus, if they had to shave down the BB shell to run the XT cranks at a 73mm, that means that the chain-line is all screwed up unless, like some bikes, you can run either a 135mm or 150mm rear end. Otherwise, you're effed as far as chain line goes.

If this is real, though, I'd actually be afraid to ride such a light bike. For fear of breaking it, #1, and for fear of feeling too "light-on-my-toes". I actually like a little bit of weight on my big bikes.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

I would like to see if that wheelset and tires hold up for regular downhill use....


----------



## oldskoolbiker (Jun 2, 2005)

Raptordude said:


> I thought DHX 5.0 + Ti Spring weighs basically the same as a DHX Air?


A DHX body and DHX air weigh about the same, but add 350g for a ti spring. So you're looking at a coil being 2/3 pound heavier.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

Raptordude said:


> I thought DHX 5.0 + Ti Spring weighs basically the same as a DHX Air?


Nah. The DHX Coil without a spring weighs just slightly less than the DHX air.

2008 DHX line-up per Fox's website:

DHX Air: 0.96 lbs.
DHX Coil: 0.82 lbs. (w/o spring)

With that said, I just picked up a Ti spring, 325#, and it weighed in at a cool 277g.

So, if you figure that the DHX coil weighs in a 0.82 lbs., or 372g, and the Ti spring weighs in at 277g, that's 649g. In other words, 1.43 lbs.

DHX Air: 0.96 lbs.
DHX Coil: 1.43 lbs. (w/ spring).

There you have it.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

For those who are curious, if you have a 2006 or 2007 DHX coil, it is 0.88 lbs., or 399g.

With a Ti spring of average weigh, you'll be looking about 1.49 lbs.


----------



## Nagaredama (Aug 2, 2004)

Why not run XTR cranks like the Athertons?


----------



## oldskoolbiker (Jun 2, 2005)

*Spreadsheet of estimated weights.*

Ok I had nothing better to do at work, so I made a spreadsheet of estimated weights to see it it truly added up to 32.5. And yes the answer is yes it does. Of course the wheels and tires are the total weight saver on this build, and I seriously doubt they would last more than a couple of runs for anybody over 150 pounds.

Anyway here is the link. I made it editable anonymously if you have better numbers. I either got weights off sicklines.com or made an educated guess. My final estimated weight ended up as 32.45 pounds.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=puMtgeu-6UG2zAj9rVNp-LA


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

XT's are stronger. More of an Enduro style crank.

XTR cranks truly are an XC crank.

Plus, your options for bashguards are limited with the XTR cranks.


----------



## Mr. Blonde (May 18, 2008)

That's pretty damn impressive. Especially since there's room to drop more weight without anything too crazy.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

Acid 2 pedals are rated at 354 grams, not 280. I changed that.

And according to username: foxracing, this bike is running a standard tube up front. So instead of the 100g Stan's up front, I edited that to say "Standard tube", and changed the 100g to 200g, as a standard Performance Bike brand 2.1-2.5 tube weighs in at 200g.

Thanks for putting that together, though. It's easy to see where the weight came from!


----------



## oldskoolbiker (Jun 2, 2005)

Prettym1k3 said:


> Acid 2 pedals are rated at 354 grams, not 280. I changed that.
> 
> And according to username: foxracing, this bike is running a standard tube up front. So instead of the 100g Stan's up front, I edited that to say "Standard tube", and changed the 100g to 200g, as a standard Performance Bike brand 2.1-2.5 tube weighs in at 200g.
> 
> Thanks for putting that together, though. It's easy to see where the weight came from!


Thanks. I was off on those pedals, I figure the stans were 68g for the Stans strip, and another 30g for the sealant, but whey would they run a heavier more flat prone tube in the front?


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Also you didn't mention the MRP chainguide.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

oldskoolbiker said:


> Thanks. I was off on those pedals, I figure the stans were 68g for the Stans strip, and another 30g for the sealant, but whey would they run a heavier more flat prone tube in the front?


Something that could obviously be changed out easily, but I'm just trying to get an accurate reading as to where this particular bike is at. Obviously other misc. parts could certainly drop the weight down lower. :thumbsup:

Also, I ran a search all over the intranetzzzzz to find the weight of the MRP System guide (either System 1 or 2) and couldn't find the weight.


----------



## gruczniak (Jun 22, 2005)

It is something different than regular DH use  
"regular" part is not intended i guess


----------



## oldskoolbiker (Jun 2, 2005)

Prettym1k3 said:


> Something that could obviously be changed out easily, but I'm just trying to get an accurate reading as to where this particular bike is at. Obviously other misc. parts could certainly drop the weight down lower. :thumbsup:
> 
> Also, I ran a search all over the intranetzzzzz to find the weight of the MRP System guide (either System 1 or 2) and couldn't find the weight.


sicklines.com has some MRP weights.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

I can't imagine that MRP guide with bash, seeing as it's carbon, would weigh more than like 220 grams.

The System 1 and System 2 are gonna' weigh different than the ones posted on Sicklines. The Sicklines ones are the heavier-duty versions.

You care to add, say, 220g onto that spreadsheet of yours?


----------



## HighTitan (Jan 26, 2007)

id love to ride that thing, id deff switch out the wheels with hope pro IIs laced to mavic 823s with tubless. it really wouldnt add much weight over what it sits now. what maybe tops 34lbs? shitttttttt id kill for that haha. my 08 glory is sitting at a heavy 45.5 right now. 

i might be on one of these by the end of the season...


----------



## 317000 (Mar 2, 2007)

Redonkulous. Not sure if I'd want a DH that light.


----------



## ryan_daugherty (Oct 8, 2006)

you can shave more total weight by not wearing a helmet, armor, shoes .. eating. at this point weight cutting is getting stupid and too many people are getting too big of boners over grams. 

lame.. 

cool frame though.


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

ryan_daugherty said:


> you can shave more total weight by not wearing a helmet, armor, shoes .. eating. at this point weight cutting is getting stupid and too many people are getting too big of boners over grams.
> 
> lame..
> 
> cool frame though.


Couldn't agree more. I've basically got the lightest parts I could possibly get on my 7point except for wheels, and going from X-9 to X-O. Even with the Ti spring, I'm still sitting (happily, might I add) at about 40.5 pounds. Lighter wheels could shave about 1.0 - 1.5 pounds, but for a DH/Freeride bike, that's getting really light.

I always wonder how many of these weight weenies have opted to spend thousands to save 5 pounds, but won't spend $50 a month for a gym membership to go from 280lbs. down to 240lbs.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Raptordude said:


> I thought DHX 5.0 + Ti Spring weighs basically the same as a DHX Air?


No, but a DHX 5.0 Coil without a spring weighs about the same as a DHX Air.

Edit: Oops, already covered 3x.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Prettym1k3 said:


> Nah. The DHX Coil without a spring weighs just slightly less than the DHX air.
> 
> 2008 DHX line-up per Fox's website:
> 
> ...


That math doesn't work because the trek has a heavier spring on it, also different length/stroke shocks will end up weighing different amounts as well.


----------



## ender (Jan 12, 2004)

ryan_daugherty said:


> you can shave more total weight by not wearing a helmet, armor, shoes .. eating. at this point weight cutting is getting stupid and too many people are getting too big of boners over grams.
> 
> lame..
> 
> cool frame though.


That's a great idea. I'm not going to wear anything but my boxers when dh'n.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

CountryBoy said:


> I call BS!


i am with you


----------



## sittingduck (Apr 26, 2005)

Fyckin' A, Trek kicks ass. I think they will finally start getting the recognition they deserve with the new bikes.
You know you've made it when the blind haters start whining.


----------



## idrunk (Oct 19, 2007)

I can't believe everyone is missing the fact that this thing doesn't even have valve stem caps on it. Gawd. That's where ALL of the weight is saved.


----------



## albertomannil (Nov 25, 2007)

idrunk said:


> I can't believe everyone is missing the fact that this thing doesn't even have valve stem caps on it. Gawd. That's where ALL of the weight is saved.


yeah, loosing the valve stem caps is gonna loose you 8 pounds... yep, that's exactly where the weight was lost...

anyone know hoy much the frame weighs?


----------



## Cabdoctor (Jun 22, 2006)

Prettym1k3 said:


> down to 240lbs.


That's almost twice my weight!


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Based off the spreadsheet, you are looking at a 35 lb.+ bike with real downhill tires (appx. 1300g). If the wheels hold up, probably will for a lighter rider, that is still pretty damn good. 

I'd gladly take the hit in weight for the security of the proper equipment.


----------



## NAYR751 (Apr 22, 2006)

When is the frame going to be available?


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> i am with you


Weight confirmed by a very reliable source.


----------



## Djponee (Dec 20, 2006)

damn, if it rally is that light, you'll fly away when you get airborne.


----------



## ryan_daugherty (Oct 8, 2006)

novato kid said:


> When is the frame going to be available?


no idea, I also want to know how much for the frame only. .. ya'know


----------



## bullcrew (Jan 2, 2005)

sittingduck said:


> .
> You know you've made it when the blind haters start whining.


How is a ?able low weight a hater. I love my Jedi and its 37lbs with DH tires and I personally dig that frame (88) Its sick looking. So Im not a hater nor is half the peeps calling bs on the weight just trying to figure out how that weight is even possible, unless its a 6 - 6.5lb frame. Its a weight issue not a haters issue.
LMAO! You officially get the ignorant statement award for the evening! :thumbsup:


----------



## sittingduck (Apr 26, 2005)

bullcrew said:


> How is a ?able low weight a hater. I love my Jedi and its 37lbs with DH tires and I personally dig that frame (88) Its sick looking. So Im not a hater nor is half the peeps calling bs on the weight just trying to figure out how that weight is even possible, unless its a 6 - 6.5lb frame. Its a weight issue not a haters issue.
> LMAO! You officially get the ignorant statement award for the evening! :thumbsup:


Calling Trek "ghey", calling people weight weenies, saying shaving weight is out of hand, claiming the front wheel is on the floor, etc. isn't hating? Maybe it's just jealousy, and hating is a bit too strong of a word... sorry to have upset you.


----------



## gruczniak (Jun 22, 2005)

Prettym1k3 and Ryan, I totally disagree with you guys. I do not mind if owner does not ride his bike and does it for a pleasure of building or he is a twice as me guy. It is all about bikes and thats the fuel for industry, speeds up progress.


----------



## bullcrew (Jan 2, 2005)

sittingduck said:


> Calling Trek "ghey", calling people weight weenies, saying shaving weight is out of hand, claiming the front wheel is on the floor, etc. isn't hating? Maybe it's just jealousy, and hating is a bit too strong of a word... sorry to have upset you.


The issues the weight and were it was dropped from not trek or the bike itself. You didnt upset me at all, so no worries on my end. I told the boys at transition last year to make a guys frame like the syrene and it would sell, body lines are real similiar to the 88.
The 88 is a super sexy machine! 2 huge :thumbsup: to TREK nice job!


----------



## Speedwa (Oct 30, 2005)

How much does the frame w/shock weigh? Thats the only # that can set this bike apart from any other light weight build.


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

How much does the frame alone weigh? I can see some weight weenie shennanigans going on but there has to be a pretty significant chop in the frame weight to get it that low. you don't lose 7.5 lbs by going tubeless and getting rid of a couple bolts. I want to believe it so much but I'm having trouble! Good god, if that is true my Reign is a fat pig! Friggin Session coming in a good 3 lbs lighter than my bike, NOT COOL!


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

Prettym1k3 said:


> Nah. The DHX Coil without a spring weighs just slightly less than the DHX air.
> 
> 2008 DHX line-up per Fox's website:
> 
> ...


Well then I'm doing this to my DHR:

...not.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Brilliant! If you pump up your propedal enough it'll act like an air spring..... right? Right?


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

Clutchman83 said:


> Good god, if that is true my Reign is a fat pig! Friggin Session coming in a good 3 lbs lighter than my bike, NOT COOL!


That is what I am thinking. lol! My Enduro is suddenly very heavy!

Time to get ahead of the curve and convert an Ibis Mojo into a DH bike.  

P


----------



## Prettym1k3 (Oct 11, 2005)

Jayem said:


> That math doesn't work because the trek has a heavier spring on it, also different length/stroke shocks will end up weighing different amounts as well.


No, it's not exact, but we have to base our figures off of what we know. Plus, I was just doing it to show what I've got on my bike.

What's the eye-to-eye on the shock. My DHX Coil is a heavier 2006 version (0.88 pounds w/o spring) and it is 8.75 eye-to-eye.

I'd imagine that the eye-to-eye on the Trek is close to what I'm running, and they're obviously using the newer DHX Coil which is 0.82 pounds. In other words, the longer eye-to-eye would probably add weight and put the entire shock, w/o spring around the same weight as my 8.75 eye-to-eye 2006 DHX Coil.

Furthermore, using lighter weights (as you noted, this bike carries a heavier spring which, obviously, will be heavier) would be giving the benefit of the doubt to Trek. So, in other words, the DHX on the Trek is probably slightly heavier than what I'm running on my bike. :thumbsup:


----------



## ryan_daugherty (Oct 8, 2006)

gruczniak said:


> Prettym1k3 and Ryan, I totally disagree with you guys. I do not mind if owner does not ride his bike and does it for a pleasure of building or he is a twice as me guy. It is all about bikes and thats the fuel for industry, speeds up progress.


I'm cool with people buying stuff for their bikes. Making them however they want, over and over again.. I have no problem w/ the guy building the trek, the way he built it or how light he made it.

I just think the discussion, specifically in this thread, was extra lame. You have a hand full of people acting cool, calling BS. Then you have another handful of people w/ their spreadsheets and boners correcting each other about the weight of a DHX coil vs. DHX air.

Really in the end I am disappointed in myself for reading all of it, then writing this. Right now I should be trying to fix my BB before riding this weekend. but instead i'm on my computer.

oh well.

I still want to know how much that frame is going to cost.


----------



## pancho4 (Jul 4, 2006)

wow my hardtail weighs 32lbs and it only has 90mm of travel....ridiculous


----------



## Jim311 (Feb 7, 2006)

ryan_daugherty said:


> You have a hand full of people acting cool, calling BS. Then you have another handful of people w/ their spreadsheets and boners correcting each other about the weight of a DHX coil vs. DHX air.


LOL

Don't forget the people who don't trust anything that doesn't weigh 40+ pounds. I wonder if people 6 years ago were saying that about any sled that didn't top out at nearly 50 pounds for downhill.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2008)

Some people must enjoy being on such a high horse. I take each and every comment on message forums with a grain of salt. 

Let's all try and remember that this is mountain biking. We're all here to have fun, not to find the cure for cancer...metaphorically speaking. Yes, I did just compare weight-weenie-ing a DH bike to finding a cure for cancer. :madman:


----------



## gratiflying (Sep 21, 2006)

my 08 Devinci Wilson DH frame is approximately 7.7lbs without shock so another 10% off that with a special tubeset, magnesium link, ti hardware, etc. would make for a 7lb frame... very possible... the issue with these light frames is flex and durability... i wish my Wilson frame was a pound heavier but not as flexy


----------



## GiantCHaDSTeR (Oct 16, 2006)

its going to be hard to find an after market fork the session and remedy

here's what I found on the trek site.

E2 is an integrated frame and fork technology. Both the fork’s steerer and the frame’s head tube taper from a lower 1 1/2” bearing and race to a 1 1/8” upper.


----------



## swash (Jan 24, 2008)

GiantCHaDSTeR said:


> its going to be hard to find an after market fork the session and remedy
> 
> here's what I found on the trek site.
> 
> E2 is an integrated frame and fork technology. Both the fork's steerer and the frame's head tube taper from a lower 1 1/2" bearing and race to a 1 1/8" upper.


Dude, its not that complicated! It's just a 1 1/8" top cup and a 1 1/2" lower cup, cane creek makes a headset that comes with a lower race that fits normal 1 1/8" forks but contacts the larger 1.5 bearings, or you can just buy the lager lower race and put it on your standard 1 1/8" fork. That boxxer they have the bike built up with is a standard boxxer, and I'm pretty sure the 40 that comes on the 88 DH is a standard 1 1/8" steerer, it would make no sense to have a E2 double crown fork.


----------



## GiantCHaDSTeR (Oct 16, 2006)

swash said:


> Dude, its not that complicated! It's just a 1 1/8" top cup and a 1 1/2" lower cup, cane creek makes a headset that comes with a lower race that fits normal 1 1/8" forks but contacts the larger 1.5 bearings, or you can just buy the lager lower race and put it on your standard 1 1/8" fork. That boxxer they have the bike built up with is a standard boxxer, and I'm pretty sure the 40 that comes on the 88 DH is a standard 1 1/8" steerer, it would make no sense to have a E2 double crown fork.


yes it iwould work but that defeats the purpose of having the frame technology? right? what's the point of them integrating that feature on the frame? I also heard that some new specialized frame wouls have the same frame technology.


----------



## swash (Jan 24, 2008)

Yeah Spech has been using it on their stumpies and enduro sl's. on single crown forks you get a stiffer fork then 1 1/8, similar to a 1.5. you also get a much stiffer frame by having larger headtube (to accommodate the lower 1.5 cup), this allows a larger diameter down tube giving you more weld area (stronger). So even without the tapered fork the frame should be stiffer and stronger. I wouldn't say it defeats the purpose, but running a standard(1 1/8") single crown fork would would be kinda silly sense fox and rock shox both make e2 forks, double crowns are stiff enough that e2 wouldn't add much. Also if trek and specialized are both using this standard you can bet you'll start seeing after market 1 1/8 - 1 1/2 taper forks. At least this is what I've gathered from my trek rep, some parts of E2 seem kinda like hype, but overall I think it's a good idea.


----------



## Moustache rider (Jun 1, 2007)

Yeti will also be using a tapered headtube soon. I bet other manufacturers will adopt it as well.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

giant has been doing it on the glory dh for awhile. its nothing new, but its a good idea


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

I think e2 headtubes/steerer tubes are REALLY REALLY dumb idea. It probably came from a marketing guy/pseudo-engineer who thought it would bring a lot of bucks in..


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

William42 said:


> giant has been doing it on the glory dh for awhile. its nothing new, but its a good idea


No, Glory DH has a 1.5 headset cup at the bottom and a standard 1 1/8 cup at the top but a 1 1/8 standard steerer tube goes through, not a tapered 1.5 to 1 1/8 steerer tube like on the 2008 Trek Remedy (?) and such.


----------



## m-dub (Apr 22, 2005)

GiantCHaDSTeR said:


> its going to be hard to find an after market fork the session and remedy
> 
> here's what I found on the trek site.
> 
> E2 is an integrated frame and fork technology. Both the fork's steerer and the frame's head tube taper from a lower 1 1/2" bearing and race to a 1 1/8" upper.


Both Fox and Rockshox will be offering them aftermarket mid summer. Decline mag said that fox will offer it in some of the 32 line along with the new 15m TA.


----------



## Nagaredama (Aug 2, 2004)

m-dub said:


> Both Fox and Rockshox will be offering them aftermarket mid summer. Decline mag said that fox will offer it in some of the 32 line along with the new 15m TA.


Great two more useless MTB standards!


----------



## VTSession (Aug 18, 2005)

so why did my Session 77 weigh 42 lbs?


----------



## Fulton (Feb 6, 2004)

ha, that is gonna have more caliper rotation with the caliper mounted on the stay like that then it would had it been mounted on the chainstay single pivot style. Atleast single pivot bike squat, that thing is going to extend.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

tacubaya said:


> No, Glory DH has a 1.5 headset cup at the bottom and a standard 1 1/8 cup at the top but a 1 1/8 standard steerer tube goes through, not a tapered 1.5 to 1 1/8 steerer tube like on the 2008 Trek Remedy (?) and such.


yah, but i was under the impression that only a select few forks were coming oem only, not available for aftermarket purchase would have tapered steertubes. is that not the case? and i doubt the boxxer/40/888 will be coming with tapered ST because they're largely unnecessary; you dont need it for stiffness in the fork itself, your just using it to make the head tube stronger/less worry of wearing out bearings and cups. I havent heard of any tapered DC forks but i guess correct me if im wrong...


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

William42 said:


> yah, but i was under the impression that only a select few forks were coming oem only, not available for aftermarket purchase would have tapered steertubes. is that not the case? and i doubt the boxxer/40/888 will be coming with tapered ST because they're largely unnecessary; you dont need it for stiffness in the fork itself, your just using it to make the head tube stronger/less worry of wearing out bearings and cups. I havent heard of any tapered DC forks but i guess correct me if im wrong...


What does it have to do with my post?


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

tacubaya said:


> What does it have to do with my post?


maybe i misunderstood? i thought we were referring to the session, thought you were saying the headtube is different, and its not. The forks are different now that they have tapered steer tubes, but the 1.5 bottom 1 1/8 top is the same


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Ah yes, but you were saying that the standard has been used for a while by Giant (talking about E2) and they are different because of the fork steerer tube. One of them is just clever thinking while the other is an industry standard.


----------



## Kevin G (Feb 19, 2007)

I think that's the first Trek I've ever even stopped to notice...


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

tacubaya said:


> Ah yes, but you were saying that the standard has been used for a while by Giant (talking about E2) and they are different because of the fork steerer tube. One of them is just clever thinking while the other is an industry standard.


ah! just misunderstanding i guess!


----------



## mtnbkerkonadawgdeluxepaul (Jan 22, 2008)

*Sick*

I was just down in VA last weekend and someone from the bike shop down there was riding a Trek Remed08. I am not sure which one it was (8or9) but it was awesome. It weighed less than my 5 inch travel rig and it looked as though it could take some mean hits. About the session 8 There was an article about it in Mountain bike action( I think it was that mag)They tested it at Whistler against some of the other top competitors and it got a great review.


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

mtnbkerkonadawgdeluxepaul said:


> About the session 8 There was an article about it in Mountain bike action( I think it was that mag)They tested it at Whistler against some of the other top competitors and it got a great review.


MBA gives every bike a great review. Thats a catalog not a magazine. I'd like to ride one though...


----------



## [email protected] (May 9, 2007)

anyone know how much just the frame costs?


----------



## glhudson (Mar 20, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> anyone know how much just the frame costs?


i've heard it in the 4000-4400 price range. ouch.


----------



## [email protected] (May 9, 2007)

glhudson said:


> i've heard it in the 4000-4400 price range. ouch.


just the frame?


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> i am with you


Says the guy who claims his M3 weighs 36 lbs with a stock 2006 888 RC2X...


----------



## LonesomeCowboyBert (Apr 11, 2008)

Is it possible to delete your own posts here?

There was a post at the end of the thread here that after I logged on it dissapeared?????


----------



## LonesomeCowboyBert (Apr 11, 2008)

Raptordude said:


> Says the guy who claims his M3 weighs 36 lbs with a stock 2006 888 RC2X...


Im with you


----------



## HTFR (Jan 11, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> just the frame?


Yes. I think the complete DH is $6300 

Friggin outrageous. But the builds are awsome! I was trying to get up some cash for the release, but I just cant drop that much on a bike. I guess I will pay off my car.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

HTFR said:


> I was trying to get up some cash for the release, but I just cant drop that much on a bike. I guess I will pay off my car.


You priorities are all screwed up!!! lol.  

P


----------



## [email protected] (May 9, 2007)

wow, I was just about to set my mind on that bike

4g's for a frame, no I don't think so, when I can get a corsair dh frame for like 1/2...and I thought that was a pricey bike

+, i'd have to get a weird fork for the bike if I got it, and that would be another headache


......I guess Trek ALMOST scored on this bike....the price is ridiculous, and the head tube is too strange to have a lot of options when it comes to forks


----------



## swash (Jan 24, 2008)

There is NO way the frame alone is $4000, the bikes are already on dexter (trek's online dealer site) they're not in stock yet. I've already got one on order for myself! Dealer cost of a frame is actually pretty cheap, and the complete bikes are pretty much on target with most of the other big company's top of the line big rigs.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

swash said:


> There is NO way the frame alone is $4000, the bikes are already on dexter (trek's online dealer site) they're not in stock yet. I've already got one on order for myself! Dealer cost of a frame is actually pretty cheap, and the complete bikes are pretty much on target with most of the other big company's top of the line big rigs.


i disagree. botique frames tend to cost that much. And according to the retail posted on dexter, the frame costs 4 with a dhx5.

M6 with CCDB for 3400 or trek session 88 with dhx5 for 4k. I bet there will be lines out the door for the session  trek is an unproven design with very little recent/real DH history (2 inch travel bikes dont count.) and costs nearly twice as much as other PROVEN offerings. The complete build is pretty reasonable given the component spec (comparing it to other builds) but the frame price is totally obscene, I know theres a price increase but thats crazy. I can't imagine how the hell trek is hoping to sell frames. I can only assume they plan on making like 5 of them and hope to sell out


----------



## [email protected] (May 9, 2007)

William42 said:


> M6 with CCDB for 3400 or trek session 88 with dhx5 for 4k. I bet there will be lines out the door for the session  trek is an unproven design with very little recent/real DH history (2 inch travel bikes dont count.) and costs nearly twice as much as other PROVEN offerings. The complete build is pretty reasonable given the component spec (comparing it to other builds) but the frame price is totally obscene, I know theres a price increase but thats crazy. I can't imagine how the hell trek is hoping to sell frames. I can only assume they plan on making like 5 of them and hope to sell out


word :thumbsup:


----------



## ledzepp4life (Jan 27, 2005)

log into dexdealer again and you will see that retail on the frame is indeed 4 grand. for the whole bike on our dexdealer it says that if you ordered a small as of well actually now its about 2 days ago you wouldnt get it until like sep 9th i think it was.i was really interested in one of these things and i would have bought one if Trek's marketing wasnt absolutely terrible.no contact phone numbers or email address even.ever since seeing the bike after the otter it seemed like it dissapeared and i was left wondering for the next month. if this bike came out on time when every other 08 bike came out and trek made it more affordable and with better options ie the dumbass E2 steerer tube the could have hit a home run with this bike.


----------



## swash (Jan 24, 2008)

wow, my bad, I hadn't looked at that 2009 price sheet yet. Still something here isn't making sense. The dealer cost on dexter is much lower then the one the price sheet. If you have dexter access go to the bikes tab and look at the price of the sessions, looking at the dealer cost I can understand the retail of the full bikes but the frame set isn't adding up. Also I would hope (HOPE) that Trek would know better then charging 4grand for that frame. I'm going to call my rep today and see what is what.


----------



## essenmeinstuff (Sep 4, 2007)

mtnbkerkonadawgdeluxepaul said:


> I was just down in VA last weekend and someone from the bike shop down there was riding a Trek Remed08. I am not sure which one it was (8or9) but it was awesome. It weighed less than my 5 inch travel rig and it looked as though it could take some mean hits. About the session 8 There was an article about it in Mountain bike action( I think it was that mag)They tested it at Whistler against some of the other top competitors and it got a great review.


That article was in decline... heh, the only time I ever bought that rag was for that article...


----------



## Calidownhiller (May 24, 2008)

swash said:


> Just saw this on Treks web page and was blown away, thats freaking light! Most all mountain bikes weigh more then that!
> 
> http://trekmountain.typepad.com/king/2008/05/how-low-can-you.html


WOw ur seat wieghs 32.56lbs


----------



## NAYR751 (Apr 22, 2006)

So can anyone verify how much this frame really costs? I can not believe Trek would try to sell it for 4 grand. That just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

it is listed as 4 grand msrp. looking at the dealer cost it is what i would expect - looking at other dealer/msrp relative prices, its pretty normal. Just obscenely high. Going to talk to my rep asap


----------



## trail'R trash (Mar 15, 2008)

*Bike Mag says it's legit*

Check out the bike mag site - seems like the bike really is 32.some lbs.

http://bikemag.com/gallery/trek_session_88_release_gallery/


----------



## freerideordie (Jan 9, 2008)

http://photos.nsmb.com/showimage.php?i=21263

I didn't believe it at first.


----------



## Mr. Blonde (May 18, 2008)

So assuming that is accurate which I have no reason to not believe one could build that thing up as a capable DH race bike under 30 pounds. That's absurd. Someone please get us a frame weight.


----------



## j5ive (Sep 24, 2005)

They also say they lost a lb in paint. F'in BS.


----------



## [email protected] (May 9, 2007)

j5ive said:


> They also say they lost a lb in paint. F'in BS.


yea, i was wondering about that too


----------



## dusthuffer (Nov 30, 2006)

So at Fontana yesterday, a Trek guy raced a pre-production one.
No it did not feel like it was much under 40lbs.
No I did not put it on a digital hanging scale to show you.
Yes it was lighter than some: 
http://www.whyex.com/nicolai.net-preview/frame-range/nucleon_dh.html


----------



## his dudeness (May 9, 2007)

tacubaya said:


> I think e2 headtubes/steerer tubes are REALLY REALLY dumb idea. It probably came from a marketing guy/pseudo-engineer who thought it would bring a lot of bucks in..


It could also be a great way to save weight off of a frame in a world where frame technology has already stripped a lot of frames down to as light as they can go. On top of that, the tapered forks have the same strength of the 1.5's but save weight due to less materials being used with the steerer tube. If you are a frame manufacturer and can save 100 grams off your front end of your dh frames and retain the same strength as a 1.5 wouldn't you do it? Compatibility issues? Aside from the fact that Rock Shox and Fox are already offering tapered forks, guess you could just run a standard 1 1/8 fork with a reducer in the bottom.

Think about it this way, The 2008 Specialized Stumpjumper is out, the S-works carbon (yeah I know it costs an arm and a leg, but thats irrelevant to the argument) has the house brand fork with a tapered carbon steerer along with the tapered headtube on the frame. If you check the weights on it, the Specialized fork is one of the lightest (if not the lightest) 120mm forks on the market. On top of that you have a frame strong enough to do some pretty aggro stuff on (some people living in the Santa Cruz area might have seen a rider on a carbon stumpy doing the road gap at the bottom of airborne). Yes ladies I said it... a carbon trailbike with a stiff and strong enough front end to do road gaps.

Yeah, it is a controversial technology. But let me think of a few others that are currently or have been in the past, v-brakes, Disc brakes, vpp frames, 24 inch wheels, 29 inch wheels, 27.5 inch wheels, air shocks, bicycle suspension, bar ends, bio pace chainrings, compact cranks, external bb's, tubeless, 12 inch forks and dh frames, URT frames, 20mm through axles, 135 vs. 150 mm rear ends, just about every rear suspension system ever created, hydroformed tubing, clipless pedals, grip shift, Sram's 1:1 shift ratio vs. Shimano's 2:1, freeride, slopestyle, mountain cross, heck even mountain bikes were controversial to the cycling world way back when...

I guess my point is that if there weren't people and companies coming out with new, fresh, and innovative ideas then this sport would have been dead in the water a long time ago. This sport has gotten pretty darn advanced over the 15 or so years that I've been taking part in it. A lot of things when they come out are seen as gimmicky, stupid, worthless, or otherwise not needed by the cycling community. Some of those ideas failed miserably, others succeeded. Regardless of whether you're hip to it or not, new technology is going to be constantly coming out in this sport, either be overly judgemental about it or try the new technology out. You might like it, you might not. But if all you're going to do is bash new technology I'll gladly kick you in the nuts and take whatever bike you have and give you a fully rigid hardtail with seven speed Shimano SIS friction shifters. If you'd prefer to keep your expensive, vpp/maestro/dw/fsr, hydroformed, fully suspended whatever then SHUT UP, because you're being awfully hypocritical. If you own a mountain bike these days then you've got a piece of machinery that has had some sort of controversial technology associated with it whether in the past or present.

And BTW- For those that don't know... Aside from disc brakes and suspension systems, an awful lot of technological advances that mountain biking has seen over the years is trickled down from road biking. Matter of fact, without road bikes mountain bikes wouldn't exist. Chew on that.


----------



## William42 (Oct 29, 2006)

keep in mind thats a stupid light build with xc/am wheels and single ply tires. put a real DH wheelset on it with real tires and you're up about 2-3 lbs, which makes it a pretty standard "stupid light DH build"


----------



## -C- (Oct 26, 2006)

William42 said:


> keep in mind thats a stupid light build with xc/am wheels and single ply tires. put a real DH wheelset on it with real tires and you're up about 2-3 lbs, which makes it a pretty standard "stupid light DH build"


Exactly, I could drop my AM wheelset & nice light single ply tyres on there & drop just over 3lbs off my build, to pretty much 32lbs on the nose. If I swapped out my 40 for a Boxxer WC, i'd lose another 1/2lb, taking me into the 31's.

But it wouldn't last very long with those wheels & tyres.

Frame weight sounds similar to a Socom, around 9lbs with shock. Can't understand why people are so het up about it.


----------



## Shredman69 (Apr 1, 2007)

*Trek 88*

You forgot the ti coil spring and probably ti or aluminum nuts & bolts and no seatpost QR. Still pretty sweet.


----------



## bigfish (Nov 16, 2005)

The MSRP on the Session 88 DH frame is $2999.99
The MSRP on the Session 88 DH Bike is $5799.99
The MSRP on the Session 88 FR Bike is $5499.99

Keep in mind these are the MSRP prices and not the advertised retail prices( which are 10% higher) which some dealers may choose to sell at.


----------



## TREKFuelEX8 (Dec 30, 2007)

thats SICK how much did that put you down there's not a price on trek's website


----------

