New Salsa Spearfish

[whitestone]

Salsa announced a couple of new models this week including the Spearfish: http://www.bikepacking.com/bikes/2019-salsa-horsethief/

They've dropped the press-it bottom bracket and the frame triangle looks much bigger. Oddly they've gone for a 157mm rear dropout spacing, so called "Super Boost" which is an old DH standard, another 13mm and you could use fat bike rear hubs. Internal cable routing, including for a dropper post. Looks like there's mounts on the top tube for Revelate's bolt on Mag Tank.

I must say it does look very nice but be prepared to sell a kidney to get one! They ain't cheap.

[Asposium]

No option for 2x up front.

Shame.

[whitestone]

No option for 2x up front.

Shame.

Even as a 1x aficionado I have to agree but I suspect the layout of the back end means that 2x isn't a possibility. My comment about going the whole hog and making the backend 170mm wide is halfway there. The old Spearfish could fit 2.25" tyres and had 5mm longer chainstays than the new model so was pretty short in the back anyway. The new model can take 29x2.6" tyres and has 12mm shorter chainstays than something like the Cotic Flare and 13mm shorter than my fat bike (Singular Puffin) in fact they are shorter than on my Cotic Solaris and they've shoved a rear suspension in there.

So the rear wheel/tyre combo has got wider and moved closer to the BB. Manufacturers like to have a minimum 6mm gap between chain and tyre (not sure if this is some legal thing or just a design constraint they stick to) which means that the only way you'd be able to fit a derailleur up front is to widen the bottom bracket - it's why fat bikes have 100mm BBs rather than the MTB standard of 73mm. Sticking a 100mm BB in there is just going to have everyone, including me, say "Salsa have turned the Spearfish into a fat bike!", I wonder if there's a number of 90mm cranksets lying around Salsa's design department but then folk would moan about another standard

My fat bike cranks also have a wider Q-factor which allows me to "flip" the direct mount chainring to get the desired clearance - the chainring actually sits over the base of the crank. If you were to do this with standard cranks then the chain would foul either your crank or your shoe.

[Lazarus]

Even as a 1x aficionado

i agree for a mtb but prefer x2 for bikepacking

When you run a smaller rear cassette as a result there is very little weight difference [ 150 ish grammes] and much nicer gear changes in the very lowest gears rather than a large step from 42 to 46/48.

all we seem to be doing with 1 x is taking the big ring off the cranks and placing it on the back

[Ray Young]

all we seem to be doing with 1 x is taking the big ring off the cranks and placing it on the back

Not a 1x user and doubt I ever will be but are the positives not having the extra weight of shifter/mech and not doubling up on gear ratios?.

[fatbikephil]

The main benefit for me is only having to concentrate on one shifter. I never liked front shifts and front mechs always clog up with mud.
Having a sprok the size of a dinner plate is quite amusing too

[Lazarus]

I have never had a front mech clog up with mud on any bike - surely the chain going through it unclogs it? I can see that it might grind /make some noise but clog up as in stop working ?
advantages are
1) weight saving
2) only one shifter so simpler gear changes
3) not as noisy depending on how well front mech is set up[ my two dont make any noise]


Disadvantages
1) large steps in the easiest gears esp 1-2
2) reduced ratio gaps across range [ though it may be a pain to go to the next ratio[see below]
3) shifting of weight from crank to rear wheel affects handling [not noticed this myself personally]

For the record i have two mtb's that are 1 x 11[ and a SS] and two that are 2x [2 x 10 and 2 x11 ]

I cannot think when i last used the granny ring on those bikes when not bikepacking [ bet it was windy]

I think its just a personal choice over whether you want a minor weight penalty to have nicer gaps on your gear ratios- the penalty being that at some point in this you need to change front rings and back rings at the same time - my approach granny = uphill or short flat sections whilst going uphill - outer = flat or downhill

Its basically personal choice,neither is perfect it s just what compromise do you want to make.

[FLV]

I like the look of both the spearfish and the horsethief. Nice looking bikes, I like the split pivot platform (never owned one but it makes sense to me)

But

Super Boost... urgh. Why, I cant get my head around why they have done that. Thats 135qr, 142, boost, super boost - 2 or 3(?) crank widths.. They talk about being super ver sa dil (versatile) but make it more and more difficult for me to swap parts around between a couple of bikes.

I dont understand it.

[Asposium]

Currently building a new bike (in the dining room on a work stand) was going to be 1x with an 11-40 cassette.
Couldn’t decide on the chain ring
Do I get a small ring for going up welsh hills?
Or a large(r) ring for the downhills /flat (there are a few)
In the end I thought feck it and got the 28-38 chainset.
Already have two shifters as a gravel bike.

[boxelder]

Is UK pricing released yet?

[wriggles]

157 superboost? Get in the sea Salsa.

[FLV]

Is UK pricing released yet?

Keep pedaling (Manchester) have them available and in stock. £2800 I think but I have no idea on the spec. call shona or rich for the lowdown. or find them on the social media's

(I'm not linked to the shop, but its a good shop run by good people)

[Alpinum]

1) weight saving
2) only one shifter so simpler gear changes
3) not as noisy depending on how well front mech is set up[ my two dont make any noise]

4) no chain dropping with the right chain - chain ring combo.

I live and ride in Switzerland. The Alps.
My trail bikes are 1 x. All good. For some mtb = bikepacking

Disadvantages
1) large steps in the easiest gears esp 1-2

Going from 11-42 (11x) to 10-50 (12x) I remember feeling the larger jumps in the middle range.

150 ish grammes

Very unrealistic. A Sram X9 trigger was about 120 g itself. Only the trigger.
22 + 42t chain rings, 4 arm spider, cable, hose, trigger and front derailleur.
Exchange that with a direct mount chain ring and a big cassette, sell all the other stuff to some 2 x fan.
Weight difference is more like 250 - 400 g.


Back to the Salsa;

All in all I think Salsa is heading in the right direction, at least for my likes. Just a bit late, but yeah, happy to see.

Looking at my trailbikes with regular boost and chain stays of similar length I don't quite see the necessity for anything wider than 148 mm though.

Finally Salsa decided to follow what Kona and other brands did 3 years ago, only they still are much more expensive and heavy.
Interestingly, the Spearfish is has near identical numbers to the Kona HeiHei 29, which rides superbly. I've been riding it with a -2 ° angleset lately and this has only improved the handling and capabilities in all situations. Lets wait and see when Salsa figures 66 ° head angle is even better for what folks at Pinkbike jokingly called downcountry a while ago. Now Salsa has jumped that bandwagon too, they will surely give the Spearfish a flatter head angle in another 3 - 4 years time

I like the split pivot platform (never owned one but it makes sense to me)

Works well on Trek bikes. Fuel, Slash - superb plattforms.

Do I get a small ring for going up welsh hills?
Or a large(r) ring for the downhills

The way I approach these questions are that I ask myself from what speed onwards do I want to push my bike uphill. I don't see any need to spin comfortably at 60 rpm whilst riding up a steep section I could be just as fast pushing. For the downhills the question arises how often do I want to be able to push a gear when already going 45 km/h. On roads and in races on easy terrain this may be of importance, but when thinking about what the Spearfish was intended to be good at, much less so.

32/10-50 does it for me.

Anyhow, from me a solid thumbs up on the improved geo for the new Salsa bikes.

[In Reverse]

All 3 bikes look great.

I had super boost on one of my bikes a year ago.

[whitestone]

I think having a front mech clog does depend on where and when you ride, some combinations of mud and debris seem particularly bad.

The 1x only frames seem to be part of a feedback loop: people use 1x so manufacturers produce 1x bikes then look at how to differentiate their products and see how 1x can allow them to take advantage of the other current trend, that of wider tyres. Now you've moved to a situation where you can't run anything but 1x.

I'm not sure that I personally need the range of 10-50T given that I hardly use either the 11T or the 40/42T on my current setups. They probably account for less than 1% of all my pedalling. My Spearfish has 30T up front with an 11-42T cassette. I actually used the top gear for a significant time the other day riding along the canal tow path but that's quite rare. As with Gian, once I'm up at speed then it's usually on a significant downhill so I might as well freewheel. At the bottom end I've found that it's the long steady low angled climbs that I need the lower gears - the short sharp ones are better done in slightly higher ratios to give you some "oomph" with each pedal stroke. Generally if I run out of gears at the bottom end then I'm going slow enough that it's easier to get off and walk. I'd rather have a 12spd 11-42T cassette with closer ratios but of course that doesn't sit well with the "more, more, more" sales philosophy.

[Bearbonesnorm]

I'm finding them (a) quite hard to tell apart and (b) very dull looking. I'm sure they work really well, are dead efficient, etc but they look quite boring. Other opinions are available.

[voodoo_simon]

I'm finding them (a) quite hard to tell apart and (b) very dull looking. I'm sure they work really well, are dead efficient, etc but they look quite boring. Other opinions are available.

Isn’t that full suspension bikes in general?! Most look boring or probably more precise, un-bike-like...

[Bearbonesnorm]

Isn’t that full suspension bikes in general?! Most look boring or probably more precise, un-bike-like...

Perhaps so Simon. Maybe it's seeing these two models side by side that makes them look bland and lacking any identity?

[voodoo_simon]

Isn’t that full suspension bikes in general?! Most look boring or probably more precise, un-bike-like...

Perhaps so Simon. Maybe it's seeing these two models side by side that makes them look bland and lacking any identity?

Are you sure you linked two different bikes?

I did see one of the new salsas in blue and that looked ace, but think it was the colour attracting me to it

[boxelder]

Not dull, but not wide boy garish.

I like 'em. Opinions and arseholes eh? (to be clear, I'm not calling anyone naughty names, but we all have both)

Edit - ah, knackers. Never did get the pic hosting thing https://www.bicycling.com/g26587757/sal ... /?slide=17
Edit2 - and it's not a Spearfish

[ScotRoutes]

There's a limit to how creative you can be with two triangles. Strip the paint off a bunch of steel-tubed bikes and you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart. At least these have some creative shapes (though they both look a bit gangly to me). I always fancied an original Spearfish for bikepacking but being short of leg basically ruled it out for luggage carrying.

[Bearbonesnorm]

Granted, it does look a bit better in this colour.

[jameso]

Manufacturers like to have a minimum 6mm gap between chain and tyre (not sure if this is some legal thing or just a design constraint they stick to)

ISO standards / legal.

Interesting bike, partic. the Horsethief. I'm not much of a fan of really long Enduro geometry so it looks good in that aspect. And split-pivot can be a great system. Not a fan of Salsa's boxy carbon frame look but no big deal.

Out of (rainy Sunday morning levels of) interest, looking at how 157mm rear end chain lines work out vs 148, makes effectively sod all difference to chain angle over a 435mm chainstay. Moves things over about a gear's worth as you'd expect. So though I hate the way standards keep moving, if you have the heel clearance space etc and you need the space, why not. Wider hubs have more advantages than disadvantages and I'm fine with owning one bike that has hubs specific to the frame.

[boxelder]

why not. Wider hubs have more advantages than disadvantages and I'm fine with owning one bike that has hubs specific to the frame.

+1. New stuff (not that 157 is new especially) always gets largely negative reactions, but I can't see any real disadvantage to this, if you're not going to be swapping stuff about. I've a Solaris and two wheel sets (29 x 2.3" and 27.5 x 3") and swap all the time, but on a full bus bike I'd want 29 x 2.4" and an option to go 2.6". I'd be reluctant to buy a bike/frame that couldn't accommodate at least 2.4" comfortably.
But do I want/need a Horsethief or the Fishy number........

[fatbikephil]

I have never had a front mech clog up with mud on any bike - surely the chain going through it unclogs it? I can see that it might grind /make some noise but clog up as in stop working ?

We must have particularly gooey mud up here! A mix of mud and ice always works to grind everything to halt as well