Dave S. wrote:

I know to ride them and form my own opinions
on how they fit, but I'm looking for some experiences and opinions on
components.

Dave,

I bought a Fuel 90 (non-disk) last spring. Trek products in general don't
get many great reviews here in AM-B, and some for apparently good reason.
None-the-less, I've been extremely pleased with mine. I did spend a couple
hundred bucks extra to upgrade the cranks, brakes, and put SRAM shifters on
it, though I recall that the disk option is Avid mechs which would be my
choice. I'm not overly impressed with the Rockshock Duke on the front (and
you won't find too many defenders here), but price was a key issue for me
and a figgered I could survive with the Duke until I save up my "allowance"
for entry into the vaunted Bomberhood.

Bottom line for me on the Fuel: It liked the ride better than anything else
I test rode. It served me well through a 5-day jaunt in Moab last fall with
little lasting damage. It's held up well for my type of terrain and riding
style, though eight months isn't all that long a period to judge. I'm a
relatively small guy (5'9'' , 175) and not overly abusive on my rides. You
may want to look elsewhere if you're a Clydesdale rider or a hucking fool,
anecdotal reports in this NG of Trek frame problems for larger riders might
give you pause. It is after all, meant to be a XC bike. The price was
right what I was looking to spend, I paid just over $1600 with the upgrades
(had the shop put it all on so it probably cost me a bit more than if I'd
done it myself). Fit is obviously a personal issue, but was a big factor
for me when buying the Fuel. It felt good the moment I threw my leg over
it. YMMV.

It brings me joy, and I love to ride it. The rest is just irrelevent,
really.

Good luck

Tom