2024 Trek

Fuel EXe 5

The Trek Fuel EXe, dubbed "user friendly" during our lightweight E-MTB head-to-head test, is designed for riders seeking the same handling as a non-pedal assist bike but with mild assistance for extra power, although riders should be prepared to exert additional effort when riding with friends sporting larger drive systems.

Read Review

Back in 2022, Trek was the launch partner for the ultra-compact TQ-HPR50 motor. The bike in question was the brand new Fuel EXe, and in many ways the TQ eco-system was a major step forward in terms of noise reduction, power delivery, display metrics and ultimately, discretion. – Short of time? Click here to skip to the verdict – Two short years later, and the market for the best lightweight, mid-power e-bikes has changed beyond recognition. And with the TQ-HPR50 motor delivering a very light touch to the assistance level, can 50Nm of torque and a claimed 300 watts peak power convince anyone to part with their hard-earned cash? Especially now that there are much easier ways to “earn” your turns? A few examples of which also feature in this MBR SL E-Bike of the Year test. In short, maybe. But I’ll get to that later. Frame and geometry While the TQ motor has been reframed within the mid-power e-bike class, not much of anything has changed to the Fuel EXe since I last tested it. Travel on the frame is still 140mm, and all models use 150mm forks, even if I think the geometry and handling would be better with a 160mm travel fork fitted as standard. That’s unlikely to happen now though, as Trek recently introduced the Slash+ enduro bike, which also uses the TQ-HPR50 motor, albeit with a much bigger 580Wh battery. But let’s get back to the Fuel EXe. Trek offers the bike in four frame size and you have the option of a full carbon or aluminium chassis depending on price. It comes with full 29in wheels as standard, but the frame has Trek’s signature Mino-Link asymmetric flip chips at the rocker-link assembly for geometry adjustment, or for partial correction of the BB height and angles when switching to an MX wheel format (27.5in on the rear). The bike ships in the low/slack setting, and unless you’re running the shock too soft or swapping to MX, I recommend leaving it there. The alloy frame mirrors the carbon one, and both use Trek’s signature ABP (Active Braking Pivot) suspension layout. In simple terms, having the rear most pivot concentric to the rear axle transforms the seatstay into a floating brake mount, which, in turn, allows Trek to define the braking characteristics more independently from the suspension behaviour. In fact, there’s a similar suspension configuration on the Orbea Rise LT in this test, but the shock is horizontal rather than vertical. The main disadvantage of the vertical shock position on the Trek, at least on an e-bike, is that you can’t position the range extender low in the frame to help offset the additional weight, like you can on the Orbea, Specialized or Whyte. Why is this so important? Well in our range test, the TQ-equipped Trek with its 360Wh removable battery, had the worst range. But how bad can it be? How about 811m of vertical, compared to just over 1,200m on the Fazua-equipped Santa Cruz …Continue reading »

Read Review

The most common question about this bike was, "Is it enough?" Is there enough power, enough range, and is it light enough? These all represent trade-offs...

Read Review