Press release for the Salsa Bucksaw...

http://salsacycles.com/culture/introducing_bucksaw



I can't help thinking the slogan should be "you don't even need the fat wheels!"

(Revelate people shared on facebook - can't help think that Charlie the Bikemonger is going to make some strange noises )

I really am struggling to see the point of these

(look nice tho...)

royAB wrote:I really am struggling to see the point of these

(look nice tho...)

Just cos I guess....

.... also something vaguely familiar about it;



Mint Sauce has much to answer for..

royAB wrote:.... also something vaguely familiar about it;



Mint Sauce has much to answer for..

:)

As for the purpose, looking back at those pics of Cavedale......

On the really rocky stuff the fat tyres do tend to become a bit "unmanageable" at a fast pace if purely rigid. I see the point of the fork though; would be handy to take the edge off some stuff around the Beacons.

I was thinking about how the sus forks would work with fat tyres.

I wonder if they would need a really soft initial part of the stroke to allow for the low pressures in the tyre. Just wondered if you'd have the tyre deformed 2 inch before you get halfway through the travel.

On the face of it it seems ridiculous

But then again so do/did fatbikes. It seems counter-intuitive to how I thought they "worked" but I don't ride one so completely accept I don't know all that much to consider it in context.

UUntil Peaty rides one I'm going to assume it's a fad

I was thinking about how the sus forks would work with fat tyres.

I wonder if they would need a really soft initial part of the stroke to allow for the low pressures in the tyre. Just wondered if you'd have the tyre deformed 2 inch before you get halfway through the travel.

I've been giving this some thought too and although the concept sounds great I think it'll be quite difficult to get the suspension to work well / feel right. IMO the biggest problem with fat tyres is the undamped rebound, the effects of which get worse as speed increases / the lumpy bits get bigger / a combination of both.

My thinking is that the forks might be better if they had a higher spring rate, high initial compression damping and a damping curve that actually tails off as the forks move through their travel ... this would allow the tyres to take care of the suspension duties for the smaller / slower stuff and then allow the forks to take over as the undamped tyre started to become an issue ... consider the bike behaving like a rigid until speed / lumps increase Something like the Terralogic thing that Fox produced might do the trick

We'll leave the issue of unsprung weight for another day

NIce looking bike ... but no mention of price?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the ideas/ethos of bike Bivi/Fat bikes was that it was a minimalist thing with as little moving parts on a bike as possible and to keep weight down?

Prices were something like $4-5000!

Theres a long flight of steps near me from cliff top to beach. Fatty rolls most of them with ease but the last 20 or so its almost buckeroo time! That's where this would come in. :D

RayKickButts wrote:NIce looking bike ... but no mention of price?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the ideas/ethos of bike Bivi/Fat bikes was that it was a minimalist thing with as little moving parts on a bike as possible and to keep weight down?

Assuming that your usage of the bike is bivi-ing in Alaska, etc. This is where Salsa say Fattys aren't just for remote exploration duties.

A bit like a mountain bike then?!

That colour is lovely.

Overkill for what I do, but as others have mentioned, the fork might be useful.

RayKickButts wrote:NIce looking bike ... but no mention of price?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the ideas/ethos of bike Bivi/Fat bikes was that it was a minimalist thing with as little moving parts on a bike as possible and to keep weight down?

As a keen fatbiker I couldn't agree more. I do think the full sus fatbikes are a step to far in the wrong direction.

Gari wrote:A bit like a mountain bike then?!

What's one of those?

26" wheels, 2" tyres, suspension?

/Looks at Fargo with none of those....

fatbiker wrote:

RayKickButts wrote:NIce looking bike ... but no mention of price?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought one of the ideas/ethos of bike Bivi/Fat bikes was that it was a minimalist thing with as little moving parts on a bike as possible and to keep weight down?

As a keen fatbiker I couldn't agree more. I do think the full sus fatbikes are a step to far in the wrong direction.

Being Devil's advocate here, how do you reconcile World Cup XC MTBs with DH MTBs & your common or garden trail bike? Who's 'right'?

While basking in the glory of another successful death march and nursing a cup of tea outside a Welsh Trail centre cafe I was approached by someone who informed me that my grubby loaded Inbred wasn't actually a mountain bike. Upon further questioning, he explained to me that mountain bikes required suspension if they were to be ridden properly 'off road'. I enquired as to whether his shiny 6" travel Moncrunge was a mountain bike and he told me "it's an All Mountain Bike". With this, I probed further and asked whether this "All Mountain Bike" had ever actually been up, down or along any mountains or had (as I suspected) just spent the last few months being minced round sanitised trails in non-descript forests ... I received no answer, he just looked at his five tens and shuffled off

^^^ I hate twats like that, I am so glad you put him in his place in such a succinct and effective manner.

Back to the matter in hand ... aside from what I said earlier about the specifics of the suspension, does it not seem that adding suspension to a fat bike starts to 'dilute' their main positive attribute?

I know that opinion has changed slightly and fat bikes are now (by some) seen as something not specific to sand / snow / mud, which surely means that a suspended fat bike used on trails that don't require the flotation properties of 3.8" - 4.5" tyres will offer no real benefit over a non-fat suspension bike.

Obviously this doesn't account for the 'smile factor' which if truth be told is possibly the most important thing to consider when buying a bike ... if you like it, you can afford it and it makes you smile, get it bought!

+1 on dealing with the nobber

Your final paragraph sums up my opinion, if you want it, can afford it and gets you where you want to go.....go for it.

Yep, if you want it, have it and if you like it, schweet

I wonder about it because (I like to think) I also have a thick vein of function-over-form running through me (not that much though, as my urge for Ti illustrates). I wonder about a FS Fatty because the form (which I feel a bit about Fatties too, TBH) seems to be heavily outweighing the function.

Bit like when slopestyle bikes were around and quite a few folks bought them as bikes-to-ride-most-of-the-time. Carting around 35 to 40lbs on a pretty average ride. Bonkers. Relatively quickly died as a fad. I wonder whether FS fat is the same?

Anyhoo, I'm vacillating about a Rooster so what do I know

I think that bike might be a guilty pleasure. I don't really see the point, shouldn't like it, but I do, it looks cool, look's like fun and I like it

(Bit like a '67 shelby mustang gt500, I bloody hate american muscle cars, but I have a real soft spot for that one considering I'm more of a JDM fanboy (but not riced!))

Kind of like this.... overkill most of the time but likely to be the last thing with any traction in some situations....

Fat bikes are really for snow or sand and not for going up and down hills, there are many other bikes for that job.

My Mukluk is perfect for both, my On One Fatty is more trail orientated and there are many other sorts of bike that do this sort of riding that don't need 4" tyres, but I could afford it so I bought it, simples.

I wouldn't fancy taking this full susser fat bike anywhere near a sandy beach, once the sand gets in the moving bit's it will just eat it away. Rigid only on sand.