It's been a few years since the Slash saw a revamp, and given the recent development of the Session high-pivot frame, this new take on Trek's long travel all-mountain bike shouldn't come as much of a surprise. As those of you with a crystal ball or skilled intuition might have guessed, the Slash has gone the way of the idler, now featuring a high main pivot and all the spinny bits that accompany such changes.
There's a lot more to this bike than just some extra drivetrain complexity though, with frame, specification, and kinematics all seeing broad changes for the new model. The team at Trek went through all the details of the bike in an attempt to create the most capable pedal-friendly bike they could, and the results have been impressive so far.
Slash Details• Carbon or Aluminum frame
• Full 29" or mixed wheel size
• Size S full-27.5" only
• Progression flip chip
• 170mm travel, frame & fork
• 63.5° head angle
• 77° seat angle
• 488mm reach, size L
• Size-specific chainstay length
• Measured weight: 36.4lbs w/ pedals
• $4,400-$11,500 USD
•
trekbikes.com Behold, the final boss of geometry charts. The cells highlighted in yellow are the geometries you'll get with a fully-stock complete bike. Hopefully Trek will have their geometry calculator done fairly soon, as that's a better way to play with all the options.
GeometryGiven the various adjustments you can make to the new Slash, the geometry can take a few different forms depending on where you end up in the array. Stock geo - as the complete bikes ship - is a good starting point, as it's the mode in which most people will first experience the bike.
In that stock setup, the Slash is carefully progressive, with reaches ranging from 430mm on a Small to 513mm on an Extra Large. My size Large features a 488mm reach, paired with a nice and tall 641mm stack height. 27mm of bottom bracket drop (measured below a virtual plane at the front axle, I presume) means the bike has a very upright feel to it. The chainstays grow with each size increment, landing at 434mm on the Large. It's important to remember that due to the high pivot suspension layout, that rear-center length will grow as the suspension compresses.
The wheel size adjustments do change the geometry slightly, mostly in the lengths between various points, but the key adjustment comes in the form of the press-in headset cups. Like the Fuel EX before it, the new Trek Slash now allows the end user to change the head angle of the frame by 1°, be it steeper or slacker than the stock 63.5°. Doing so creates a whole host of other small geometry changes, but the primary and most noticeable will be that steering angle.
Frame FeaturesThe Slash has no shortage of clever features, but there are a few core points worth focusing on. The first is the headset cups mentioned above, as they're a completely new addition to the Slash model range. Also in the adjustability realm are the lower shock mounts, which can be swapped out to accommodate a 29" rear wheel. Nestled in those shock mounts is the suspension progression flip chip, allowing you to tune how linear your shock progression is with one simple bolt.
Of course, there's Trek's take on the in-frame storage system, adorably named BITS. Their latch is one of the most secure I've tried, and has a fairly large opening for tools and spares to slide through. This is available on both the carbon and aluminum models.
The carbon frame features an extra protective layer of composite on the underside of the downtube, specifically engineered to keep that area safe from rock strikes and other impact damage. In addition to that, there's a dual-density rubber protector underneath the bottom bracket and downtube, as well as in a smaller area above to protect from shuttle pad damage.
The elevated chainstay is wrapped in a molded rubber creation meant to protect from chainslap noise, while also keeping the chain in line in rough descents. That piece, in tandem with the lower chain roller, should be able to tame the drivetrain as you huck your meat down the hill.
Lastly, most of the complete builds come with a little multitool that stashes away in your steer tube, and includes most of the things you might need to get out of trouble trailside. From a 3mm to a chain breaker, there's a good amount packed into that handy little gadget.
Suspension DesignTrek is sticking with their tried and true Active Braking Pivot for the new Slash, but adding the high-pivot twist they developed for the new Session downhill bike. The high main pivot location allows for a rearward wheel path, which should make for a smoother feel over trail chatter and square edge hits, as well as adding a longer balance point to the back of the bike as you get deeper in travel. To mitigate the pedal kickback that comes along with that higher pivot, they've added a 19-tooth idler wheel to the mix, which tempers that chain elongation. Trek also decided to spec a lower roller, as the chain would otherwise only contact a few teeth on the chainring at a time, increasing wear and decreasing the stability of the drivetrain.
Pedaling forces are kept as consistent as possible on the Slash, with anti-squat hovering just above 100% throughout the travel. This even-keel should make for a bike that pedals smoothly and comfortably over rough and smooth terrain alike, striking a nice balance between bump absorption and efficiency.
Build KitsAs a large player in the bike market, Trek isn't afraid to drop a whole bunch of spec options, and that's very much their approach with the Slash. With seven different build kits, and prices ranging from $4,400 to $11,500 USD, there should be something for most people out there. You can also buy the Slash as a frame-only kit, with the shock, idler, and other accoutrement included with the carbon or aluminum chassis. Pricing on that will be available later, but the full-build price breakdown is below.
Ride ImpressionsI've been riding a Slash with the 9.9 X0 build for a bit over a month now, and have been mighty comfortable on the bike pretty much from the get-go. The geometry is pretty close to what I'd choose if I were slated with drawing up a bike with this application, with a nice and balanced feel in an overall aggressive package. Handling feels intuitive and easy, both on steep descents and when you're pedaling and pumping through more technical terrain.
The rear suspension works nicely, allowing the bike to move through square edge hits, and sticking to the ground when you drop the anchor and lock up the brakes. That combo makes for a very confidant-feeling ride, one that I've come to enjoy on some of the most serious trails in the area.
Climbing is a pleasant but moderately-paced activity aboard the Slash, as the bike hovers nicely between supportive and active as you spin your way up the hill. While not feeling like the peppiest thing out there, it does get up the hill fairly easily, and feels especially well-suited to more technical climbs.
The drivetrain makes more noise than a standard chainring-cassette-derailleur layout, but remains smooth and silent if you stay on top of your lubrication duties. I haven't noticed a discernible amount of drag, but according to
Seb's calculations there is probably a little bit there.
On the descents, the Slash is mostly silent, save for two noises I have yet to pinpoint. One is just some run-of the mill chain slap, which bikes of this layout seem more prone to, given the chain path; the other is only noticeable occasionally, and will take some doing to hunt down. Suffice to say, the bike has mostly been excellent, and I'm looking forward to giving it a lot more use.
Stay tuned for the long term review on the Trek Slash, as well as a multi-bike relative comparison coming in the near future.
For more photos of the Slash, head on over to the album
here.
Probably because Trek was better at forecasting a market downturn resulting in significantly reduced demand, and didn't order 10000000000000 extra bikes this year that they now need to dump asap before they're outdated.
Specialized's loss is your gain if you have the money to buy one of those puppies right now.
There will undoubtedly be a new Stumpy Evo and/or Enduro soon, and we can expect the prices to be pretty comparable.
I dunno dude, seems like they've got quite a few sizes left, as long as you're cool riding a white bike.
Aluminum comp version is also $1k off and all sizes available.
the idler, the midish high pivot, the chain guide?
Its just a four bar link bike really
That’s what you find so complicated,
So basically any current DH bike?
Sales guy told me " Yeah, those juuust came out, I'll probably end up ordering some."
a steel hardtail, or maybe an Orange might be to your liking?
we also used to ride single pivot URT's that were touted as the best thing available, same with single pivots like the Bullit. Dont see them around too much anymore.
Most people dont seem to find a standard Horst link bike too complicated, not sure why the addition of an idler has you bothered.
The lower one is just there like a chaingiude, you know, like on pretty well any DH bike ever built.
Youll be ok, maybe give one a try, you might enjoy it
good thing is you dont have to own one, but trying one, or any HP, idler equipped bike, on really rough terrain can be pretty eye opening.
If it performs, that’s what counts. Engineering should always come before design.
Otherwise, you end up with chainstay mounted u brakes, upward bowed top tubes and cable tourism.
I suspect this thing is a purebred race weapon for people who race enduros, and a decent park sled to boot. And that’s what should matter.
But what's with that fender? It looks like the one on my wife's townie.
And integrated stem/bars? pass.
That's like saying I don't care what my car or truck looks like because it performs well.
Absolutely agree, there's no reason why a HP bike needs to have that clumsy looking rear end. Deviate and Norco to a far better job as you've stated.
Dial up internet, we didnt have cell phones etc
I mean to classify us in the same group is kind of silly. Also those classifications vary depending on who you talk too.
@danielfloyd : they are not all clowns, they are just reflection of present day. Me and old geezer Snowsed341 have been iritating previous generation also,
@vinay : yup, not one of them, just checking PB pulse
In general I'd say that Fox is better for heavier riders and Rockshox is better for lighter riders. Fox has a little bit firmer compression feel and slower rebound, and Rockshox is a bit less supportive with faster rebound.
Wrong.
This bike is intriguing... I'm not usually a trek guy but this thing checks many boxes:
-no headset cable routing
-pressed in cups and threaded bb
-progressive, yet sensible geometry allowing for a well rounded bike
-smart frame details: downtube storage, good protection
-reasonably priced models available
-not offensive yet not overly boring frame colors
-
What is it exactly that makes it sub par?
That’s why the alu versions are usually pig heavy, not pretty and sometimes have design flaws that the carbon versions don’t show.
And as a moto rider, I'm like: "Dang I can get a lot of motorcycle for that money, and just ride and older bicycle.
Also, I need to replace my 25 year old truck someday, haha.
I was looking at new Triumphs and they’re the same or less than any of these higher spec’d bikes
Like, how is something that’s got a gazzilion rotating parts centred around a controlled explosion the same as a bicycle?
Personally I think it’s been years of slick marketing by companies like Trek and Specialized that have slowly driven up the subjective value of these toys and now no one bats an eye over spending 10k plus on a 30 something lb piece of plastic and all other companies have followed suit
Weight without chain stay protector = 32lbs
Every company seems to be experimenting with “their own” version of a high pivot which is cool to see but
I think the majority of trail bikes don’t need it. Will be interesting to see where we end up 5 years from now.
I owned an “older” Slash 8, and as good as it was it never pedaled as good as FSR bikes. The enduro even though “old” is a far superior pedaler.
Add pedals real tires toss the bar and stem and you got a 39.9999 lb bike just like every other 170mm bike.
All my components are equivalent or stronger than any of the above builds levels.
I just don’t see carbon as necessary seeing as saving weight isn’t the aim, do the planet a favour and make it out of one the most abundant and recyclable materials we have… aluminium.
Edited to add: just checked the Trek website. Though it's not present in the pictures here or on the offical page, the spec sheet says that the XX also comes with a flight attendent fork, which, uh, okay. That still doesn't come close to justifying the price delta. Does anyone even want front-only flight attendant? Seems super dumb.
But you are bang on with length, don’t go too long on the overall wheelbase & reach and it all works real nice.
Come on trek….the bike looks like it’s been built by my grandfather in his ghetto shed..
It’s looking like a Santa cruz to replace my loved slash
Geometry looks sensible and it seems reasonably burly. But I couldn't be bothered to deal with that high-pivot idler nonsense even if I was paid for it. Plus, the bike is not exactly pretty. And those prices. Oh boy. Every single spec level looks like terrible value for money compared to the competitors offerings. I'm sorry, but if the cheapest bike in your line-up is $4500 and the cheapest with reasonable specs is almost $8k, you're out of your god damn mind.
All in all: Hard pass.
- very rich,
- very fit,
- very willing to sweat your climbs.
Pass.
Should be a good privateer’s choice.
Props to Trek for sticking to a high(ish) end aluminum bikes-from the Émonda 8 to this!!!!
With GX AXS and a Zeb “Select+” upgraded to an Ultimate.
And an AXS Reverb Dropper, and a fully different cockpit…
Still for less money!!
#WINNING
at min 08:01 jack jams out!
A linkage-driven single-pivot places the brake on the swingarm (chainstay), therefore having no independent control over brake jack (AKA brake anti-rise). A four-bar places the brake on a floating element (seatstay), giving independent control over brake jack.
Trek's ABP places the brake on the seatstay, therefore making it a four-bar, albeit a "trivial case" in which the offset between the axle and the lower fixed element (chainstay) is zero.
And since we're nerding out, I propose the terms "direct drivetrain" and "indirect drivetrain" to denote the absence or presence of an idler (or similar), rather than having to argue over whether it's a "high pivot", "mid pivot", "kinda high, but not as high as [bike X]", etc.
There are only two members that influence the axle path aka movement of the rear wheel, making this a two-bar single pivot system.
When the axle is concentric with the lower rear pivot, there is no longer a distinction between a four-bar and a single-pivot with linkage-actuated shock and a floating brake. The key distinction between ABP and a linkage-actuated single-pivot without floating brake is that ABP provides separate control over the brake jack parameter. This is also true of a four-bar, which is how we know ABP is a trivial case four-bar, rather than a single-pivot with linkage-actuated shock.
First, imagine a single-pivot with linkage-actuated shock, like a Kona. Imagine moving the nearest-to-the-rear-axle pivot closer and closer to the rear axle. You can try this for yourself on Linkage. Move the pivot infinitesimally close. If you've studied any calculus, this is like taking the limit.
Next, imagine the same, but with a Horst design, like a Specialized. Again, move the pivot closer and closer to the rear axle. Infinitesimally close.
So, when the pivot is concentric with the axle, which is it: a single-pivot or a four-bar? It depends! Specifically, it depends where the brake is mounted.
If the brake is mounted on the fixed link (the chainstay), the system is a single-pivot with a linkage-actuated shock because the brake anti-squat parameter is tied to the fixed link, as it is with all single-pivot designs that do not use additional links (ex. floating brake). If the brake is mounted on the floating link (seatstay), it is a four-bar (albeit a trivial case four-bar) because the brake anti-squat parameter is tied to the floating link, as it is with all all four-bar designs that do not use additional links.
You can think of the ABP as a Horst four-bar with an infinitely short offset between the Horst pivot location and the axle, if that makes it clearer for you. You could also think of ABP as a single-pivot with a floating brake that also serves as the shock linkage. These classifications are indistinguishable with the ABP design.
If the axle moves along a simple arc, with one pivot off the frame it = a single pivot.
After that it's only a non-linkage driven, or linkage-driven.
Moving the brake to different places is an interesting and meaningful point, but where you mount it does NOT change the wheel path, or suspension design.
This has a single pivot that controls the axle path. True.
This also has a linkage driven off the seats that that modifies how the shock is driven.
"If the axle moves along a simple arc, with one pivot off the frame it = a single pivot."
It is possible to create a four-bar system with exactly the same axle path as a single-pivot. By your definition, a Maestro design that precisely matches a single-pivot arc is a single-pivot. Hopefully this helps you see the arc is not what defines the system.
a 4 bar has an instant center which is a function of two Links and there position(instant cetner of the rear wheel))
So its defined by instant center not decoupling the brake. Many single pivots are simple designs and place the brake on the swingarm but there are also single pivot with floating brakes(which does not make them into four bars)
if you dont want to believe me you can listen to the strek slash episode of the bike and big ideas podcast. there the lead engineer of the slash gen 6 Matthew Yerke explains that its a single pivot.
Maestro is not designed toto match a single pivots arc (the center of instant is moving)
As I stated, the concentric pivot used by ABP makes it impossible to distinguish between a trivial case four-bar with zero offset between the axle and the lower fixed pivot, and a single-pivot with a floating brake linkage that also drives the shock. ABP is both, because those are indistinguishable in the case of ABP.
I prefer to call it a four-bar because that is a familiar design, whereas a single-pivot with a floating brake link that also drives the shock is not familiar. If ABP were to move the chainstay-seatstay pivot a nanometer below the axle, it would clearly be a Horst four-bar with an extremely short offset between those two points. Nothing changes when the points are fully concentric, hence why I feel it's easiest to understand ABP as the trivial case of the Horst design.
I appreciate your appeal to authority re: Matthew Yerke, but please understand my bikes have won more awards than his. I'm also not saying he's wrong; as I've stated many times, the ABP design fits both classifications, but I prefer to group it with the more familiar classification ... and calling it a Horst would've been a patent violation at the time ABP was launched, so Trek's marketing hand was forced on that issue!
There's nothing illogical about the infinitesimally small Horst offset. It's how math and physics treats limit cases. It's a manufacturing challenge, but the logic is sound. If you prefer, we could use more familiar numbers. Imagine a Horst with 5 cm of offset between the pivot and the axle. Now imagine 2 cm - still a Horst, obviously. Imagine 1 cm - still a Horst. Imagine 0.5 mm, then 0.1 mm ... and so on. If you believe it becomes not a Horst at some offset, what is that offset, and why?
I'm not arguing that one could create a nano scale model with the tiniest distance from the axle to the second pivot but you're being obtuse and pedantic on a silly level.
On any functional level this is NOT a 4-bar, or a Horst link in the ways that even the manufacturer claims. Using the parlance of mountain biking this is most assuredly a single pivot. And since it has a shock driven by a linkage it is a linkage driven single pivot by its very definition.
How would you define a single pivot? I always thought it was purely based off the axle being connected directly to the main pivot.
I don’t know shit about this and you’ve got the experience, it just seems like you’re defining suspension types based off brake mount position, which I don’t think anyone else really does.
It is defined by the number of pivots, whether they are short links or long links and how the shock is driven.
The fact you can play around with behavior of Linkage does not change the suspension design description.
Like take an Orange and add a floating brake arm, does that make it a new suspension type? Not at all.
The big mean lower roller wheel is there mainly because the transmission gear wouldn't work otherwise. To much chain growth on a high pivot design for the electrical gearing. Any other gear(incl standard AXS) should work fine without it.
Trek: Hold my beer
but high pivot bikes place the chain right under the crankarm at this point. are there more instances of bent chainrings on high pivot bikes? obviously these bikes aren’t meant to be mashed on so maybe they just don’t see as much torque as a trail bike would. either way, would it maybe be a good idea to install chainrings rotated 90 degrees so the strongest part of the chainring lines up with the crankarm on high pivot bikes?
Right?
"Since it's been a few years since..."
I think it's time to hire an actual "editor" or just slow down with the shotgun posting. I don't want to be "the grammar guy" but that would never make it to print, in the days or Print.
I can't see the grammar problem.
Some of us can’t help being grammar Nazis. We just…. can’t.