Rocky Mountain's Suzi Q Carbon Fat Bike - Press Release

Dec 24, 2016
by Rocky Mountain Bicycles  
Press Release

Rocky Mountain Suzi Q images

We're getting hammered with snow here on British Columbia's coast, so it's perfect timing to share our new carbon fat bike with you.

Suzi Q -90 RSL

We designed the Suzi Q's lightweight carbon frame and narrow Q-factor to be more efficient and comfortable than traditional fat bikes. Short chainstays and extended reach make for a stable and balanced ride that still feels agile. From local singletrack loops to fat bike racing and everything in between, it's FA(S)T.

Rocky Mountain Suzi Q images
Rocky Mountain Suzi Q images

Rocky Mountain Suzi Q images

Suzi Q -90 RSL

Details

• Full carbon and aluminum models available.
• 192mm Q-factor is 20mm narrower than standard fat bikes to improve pedaling performance and comfort.
• 27.5x3.8 tires for improved rollover and lower rotating weight.
• Fits up to 27.5x4.2 tires (when available, with safe clearance from 770mm x 104mm).
• Next generation fat bike geometry is longer, slacker, and more agile.
• Integrated chainstay protector and downtube protector.
• Di2 electronics-compatible with internal stealth battery port.
• Full carbon monocoque fork on the -90°, -70°, and -50° models.
• Lightweight bolt-on axles save 100g per bike compared to a Maxle.
• Suspension compatible. A 100mm Bluto at 20% sag maintains the ideal stock geometry.
• Two bottle cages on the fork, plus two in the front triangle.
• Front triangle rivnuts for custom, bolt-on frame bags (not included).
• 1x specific.
• Stealth dropper post compatible.
• Internal cable housing.
• PressFit BB107 bottom bracket, ZS44|56 headset, 177mm real axle spacing.
• Sizing: S/M/L/XL.
• Weight: 25.3lb (Suzi Q -90° RSL, size Large, tubeless, no pedals).

Suzi Q geometry chart

Geometry

The Suzi Q has a stable and balanced ride that still feels agile, thanks to super short chainstays and a lengthened reach. During the bike's design and testing phases we evaluated a wide variety of geometry and offset combinations to hone its steering dynamics. The result is a bike without any of the "autosteer" instability that plagues other fat bikes.

Rocky Mountain Suzi Q images

Wheels

We worked with Maxxis to design a high performance 27.5x3.8 tire and wheel system. Compared to a traditional 26x4 "race fat" system, our 27.5x3.8 tires have a larger outer diameter. That means better rollover performance and plenty of traction, without the added weight and rolling resistance of 26x5 systems. In ski terms, 26x4 tires are traditional camber skis, and the larger diameter 27.5x3.8 tires are early rise tips. No, 27.5x3.8 tires won't let you carve turns in waist-deep powder, but they do roll up over soft snow more easily.

Rocky Mountain Suzi Q images

Pedaling

Designed specifically to have a narrow Q-factor, pedaling the Suzi Q is more efficient and comfortable than traditional fat bikes. Whether you're racing the 1,000-mile Alaskan Iditarod Trail Invitational or going for a quick rip on your local single track, the result is a more natural feel with less fatigue and knee strain.

Rocky Mountain Suzi Q images
Rocky Mountain Suzi Q images

Suzi Q -30
Suzi Q -30°
Suzi Q -50
Suzi Q -50°

Suzi Q -70 RSL
Suzi Q -70° RSL

Suzi Q -90 RSL

Suzi Q -90° RSL


See all the Suzi Q models here. Available in stores now.


86 Comments

  • + 64
 All that Neil Donoghue wants for Christmas.
  • - 12
flag gonecoastal (Dec 24, 2016 at 14:14) (Below Threshold)
 I heard that Simmons guy is washed up now.
  • + 2
 @gonecoastal: ya if ur not sending to nose Manuel out ur pretty much done nowadays! Lol
  • - 9
flag gonecoastal (Dec 24, 2016 at 17:15) (Below Threshold)
 @bohns1: Build a Wall! Keep those dirty Spanish cyclists out of the forest. #Makemtnbikinggreatagain
  • + 2
 @gonecoastal:

I got it Smile
  • + 22
 I can't be the only one who didn't know, so LMGTFY:

"The Q Factor of a bicycle is the distance between the pedal attachment points on the crank arms, when measured parallel to the bottom bracket axle. It may also be referred to as the "tread" of the crankset. The term was coined by Grant Petersen during his time at Bridgestone Bicycles. The "Q" stands for "quack", a reference to the wide stance and waddling gait of ducks."
  • + 7
 I knew what it was but I never knew what the Q actually stood for. Now my favourite piece of useless MTB trivia! Thank you.
  • + 34
 I'm going to call BS on Mr. Peterson here. Before you make a quack of yourself and tell your buddies this based on a random book citation in a wiki article, consider that in medical anatomy the q angle is how your quadriceps are oriented with regard to you hips. So, a Q factor is the measurement by which you would alter your q angle. This seems like a more plausible to me then some dude convincing the industry they should call it a "quack" factor.
  • + 13
 Apparently we are living in a post-truth world now; the great Internet has turned us all into quacking muppets.
  • + 8
 @norcal101:

It's 2016. Facts don't matter anymore
  • + 2
 @UtahBikeMike: Yeah, I know, but queue up the Independence Day Bill Pullman speech about not going quietly into the night. What does that have to with q factors? Nothing, but the internet loves pep talks, and makes anything you say afterwards valid.
  • + 1
 I always thought the "Q" stood for Quality. As in the "width" and "steepness" of a bell curve. Any statistics nerds out there with a greater memory on the topic than I?
  • + 1
 People used to complain about all sorts of bikes with 68mm bsa BBs having too wide a Q. Men have narrow hips and pushing directly down is a lot better than pushing out at an angle. But then we stopped talking about Q factors and starting shoving press fit and now boost into all high end bikes. Surly started fat bikes and plus bikes, and they are a company that uses the simplest engineering that solves the problem, so fat bikes have always had these wide BB/Q factor. Now I'm baffled that people don't know about Q factor at all.
  • + 12
 I just built up an RSD Sergeant with 27.5 3.8 minions and after one short ride I'm already convinced this is a far better set up for most winter riding. If you live in Alaska or somewhere perpetually cold & snowy, a full fatty might be best, but for me there are thaws and really only 2 months of full on winter riding, which leave the need for 5.0 tires to about 5 rides a year all said & done. Plus, when the dirt reappears this bike will be far more fun to ride with more traditional geo and my 140mm fork that's not a noodly bluto.
  • + 3
 May I ask what fork can accommodate 3.8 rubber?
  • + 1
 @paulcgn: Fox Float 34 Boast with the Fit damper

forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/climax-1026487.html
  • + 1
 @paulcgn: Fox 34 is supposed to take 27.5x4.0 Wink
  • + 3
 There are plenty of places where you rarely see exposed soil from December to April. Notably, quite a bit of the Rocky Mountains. 3.8s are pretty useless compared to even a 4.6 in real snow.
  • + 3
 @LeDuke: not true. I live in Atlantic Canada and we have tons of snow here. I ride 27.5 x 3.8 and I'm no lightweight at over 230lbs. I used to ride 26x4.6, but that was too clumsy for fast riding. If there is too much snow for a 3.8, there is also too much snow for a 26x5.
  • + 2
 @Alain2: I agree with your last comment. Yes, a 5.0 tire can handle a bit more snow then a 3.8, but I found that even with huge tires and low psi snow beyond about 6 inches became unridable and that I still only had fun on more packed snow, which I used to enjoy on 2.25 tires as well. Might just be my style of riding / lack of skill, but it just seems like the costs out weight the benefit on really big tires unless conditions are very specific. For deep snow you should really be on skis anyway. 3.8s on my trails seem like a more practical middle ground.
  • + 1
 @JesseE: A bit! hahaha, a bud and lou on a 100mm rim blows away a 3.8 80mm combo in deep or slightly packed conditions
  • + 1
 @Alain2: Well there are many sides to this depending on where you live and ride. I live in the Rocky Mountains, Fernie to be exact and we get a ton of snow, but our mountain bike club actually grooms some of our trail system, Bigger is better here. I run studs too for the icy conditions we encounter some years. A 3.8 will have you knifing in in some areas where as the 5.0 will not. But I never ride my fattie out of the winter/Spring season. So I can see why a thin tire for all season riding would be nice.
  • + 1
 @Alain2: Yeah. You live in an area with wet snow that is relatively hard once it crusts over with ice. Out in the Rockies, 3.8s don't cut it.
  • + 1
 @markar: it's like powder skis. Very few places where you actually need them. Out west you can make good use of them, out in Onterrible, I think you're kidding yourself if you think you NEED 5" tires for more than 8 weeks a year. But, it's just bicycles, so whatever has people most stoked. I like a bike that is fun when the dirt / crust reappears.
  • + 1
 @JesseE: You don't sound like you have any experience with fatbikes, Or you would know that most of the top racers now use 5" tires, 5 or bigger is the future, Not smaller with a slightly bigger wheel, the diameter is already 29 with a 26" wheel and 4"tire, 4 is ok if packed enough, it's extremely annoying when conditions are deeper and not packed much, for winter, 5" is the way to go
  • + 1
 @Alain2: You must be joking? A 26"+ 5 on a 80 or definitely a 100mm rim, Blows away a 275+3.8, you'll be walking Hahahahaha
  • + 1
 @markar: Have you ever tried a 27.5x3.8 in all conditions?. I used to have a big wide 26" two years ago and would never go back!
  • + 1
 @Alain2: My friends have them and they can't keep up to me on my Dillinger 5, 26" 80mm carbon rim combo, Obviously I mean when conditions are deeper and not well packed, All the fatbike brands in Alaska know 5" is nessasary for snow, Rocky and trek are selling bikes that are obsolete, Snow performance is what a fatbike is all about, making one for all year round is a big compromise and a short term gimmick probably, The limitations of a low volume 3.8 is a big problem, The short wheelbase is is another problem, I'll stick to fatbike brands like 9zero7 and Borealis.
  • + 1
 JesseE - Do you have a fox 34 fork? Everybody is talking about the fox 34 for big tires so I suppose it ain't the same as the 36 otherwise I bet they would be talking about it!? You know what is the biggest tire that would fit into a 36?
  • + 14
 I love a fattie for christmas
  • + 12
 A fattie is for life not just for christmas
  • - 8
flag WAKIdesigns (Dec 24, 2016 at 11:17) (Below Threshold)
 Fat girls turn me on. They are so sex thirsty. Aaaaaaahwwww Laaaawd'A!
  • + 21
 @WAKIdesigns: don't be an idiot.
  • + 10
 @2bigwheels:
Too late...
  • + 8
 This cannot be!
When the Suzi Q came out in the mid-nineties, she was a beauty. I was in love and damn did she age well. One elevated chainstay, beautiful Canadian flag elements on the frame, an instant classic.
And now she is a fat bike with nothing special what so ever.

She’s like your high school flame who was never in reach and when you meet her 20 years later, she has not only become fat but boring and lost everything that used to be special about her.
There is nothing in common, it’s just the name. I recognize her but we’ll not speak. We’ll both pretend we don’t know each other.
  • + 6
 And to the surprise of no one the joke got lost on the German guy.
  • + 2
 @fercho25: Seriously than I don't get it, please explain.
Cheers merry christmas.
  • + 2
 @zaskarHH: I'll take this one. Looks to me like Rocky wanted to really bring attention to the narrow (svelte, feminine?) Q-factor, so they integrated Q into the name of the bike.
  • + 5
 Not wanting to spent the cash on a fat bike, I put a pair of Schwalbe Ice Spikers on my regular whip for the middle of winter. They grip really well on everything from mud to solid ice.
  • + 7
 There should be a model that comes with the Bluto fork. Rigid forks hurt my wrists just by looking at them...
  • - 13
flag DaFam4mDena (Dec 24, 2016 at 8:19) (Below Threshold)
 Blutos bottom out no matter what you do to them...hint hint rokshox
  • + 3
 Any fat bike that comes with mineral oil brakes seems like an oversight to me... If I'm spending a few thousand on a fat bike, it would be nice if the bike worked well in the freezing Canadian winters right out of the box. Maybe my situation is a very small market segment of fat bikes?
  • + 2
 I run SLX brakes on mine and have had no issues until about -15F. The pistons started sticking a bit but they were still usable, it just changed the bite points. Under probably negative 20 or so you'd want mechanical brakes. I'd bet the majority of folks on fat bikes don't ride under -10F
  • + 1
 @UtahBikeMike: would be easy if they stock some dot 5 brakes to guaranteed no problem. I have XT brakes on my MTB and -5C start loosing performance even after a fresh bleed.
  • + 2
 @UtahBikeMike: That's true that most people are probably pretty fair weather riders, but when the weeks of -30c hit here in Alberta, it's a long wait in between rides if you like warm weather. I've used XT and SLX brakes in the cold, and performance is definitely affected. They still work, but not well
  • + 2
 @UtahBikeMike: Mechanical brakes are horrible in snow & ice. DOT fluid is the only way to fly.
  • + 2
 @RobKong:

I used bb7s for 2 years and they were money. You just need to use a full length cable housing and use sealed ferrules.

Bb7s do require adjustments after every or every other ride, though.

I'm not even close to riding in -30f, though.
  • + 1
 @rmalexan: Here in the Yukon, it was -30C and below for about two weeks back in early December. I rode my fat bike to/from work (about 10 km each way) throughout the week and only found my hydraulic Tektro Gemini's would feel stiff when I first touched them on the initial descent. The rest of the ride they were fine; must have been the difference between keeping my bike in the garage and suddenly exposing it to the cold weather. I know guys who never bring their fat bikes inside for that very reason.
  • + 0
 @RobKong: Hahahahaha you are crazy!!! Mechanical brakes are the only way to go! that's why the top guy's use them, hydraulic brakes suck balls, they don't work in Canadian winters!
  • + 2
 Even worse - it looks like you can't fit anything smaller than 180mm rotors. Good luck keeping those warm and dry!
  • + 6
 rocky mountain just makes everything hotter,even a fat bike
  • + 0
 Still prefer the Farley looks personally! But this is cool.
  • + 5
 Oh Susie Q baby I love you, Susie Q Big Grin
  • + 1
 @rockymountainbicycles what's the difference in outer diameter between a 26x3.8, 26x5 and 27.5x3.8? I know that diameter will also depend on tire make, model, pressure, etc, but I'd like to understand how 27.5x3.8 tires "roll up over soft snow more easily."
  • + 1
 Hey @dangerousdave, we'll wait till the engineers come round from their eggnog comas to put out specific OD #s for you. The basic concept is the same reason 29ers are great at plowing over stuff: angle of attack. All else being equal, a larger OD wheel will roll up over things more easily than a smaller OD wheel. 27.5x3.8 does better in soft conditions than 26x3.8, and rolls quicker than 26x5. Cheers!
  • + 1
 @RockyMountainBicycles: Angle of attack doesn't apply to snow Hahahahaha, 26+5 is here to stay, Talk to actual fatbike brands like 9zero7 and Borealis They know what they are doing!
  • + 3
 Looks like a trek session. Sorry I had too. Merry Christmas from Utah everyone.
  • + 2
 I'm glad to see more companies going with 27.5 fat bike sizes. It would suck if only bontrager was the only choice for tires
  • + 1
 Glad to see there is no elevated chainstay as it was a failure on the original Suzie Q. But would surely make it look different and unique among the current trend.
  • + 2
 Unique? Trek Stache is already there.
  • + 2
 This thing seems to be hard to pedal. The Guy is always standing up except on one picture. Smile
  • + 3
 Looks like a Farley... Lol
  • + 1
 Makes my blizzard look like a pig. Anyone know if it's possible/good idea to sneak a pair of 27.5 sun ringles with 3.8" tires on a blizzard?
  • + 1
 Yes. Just like the farleys. 4.7x26 or 3.8x27.5" the hodag 27.5"x3.8 is lighter and grippier than the maxxis.
  • + 2
 The red one looks sweet!
Perfect bike for pub runs and poaching Nordic tracks Wink
  • + 2
 Daaaamn fatbike snow pics are so rad! You can just tell from the stance that homeboy is GETTIN IT!!
  • + 2
 No surprise, Dre hauls.
  • + 2
 Another standard axel 192??????
Why not go 192.236384763838837 would make more sense !!!!
  • + 3
 That's not an axle standard. It's the Q factor of the crankarms. This bike runs a standard 177mm rear thru-axle fat hub.
  • + 1
 Most fat bikes can accommodate 29+ wheels w 3.0" tires. I'd expect 27.5x3.8 to work
  • + 1
 The propaganda is Bullshit, When a 29er fatbike comes out 275 will be done
  • + 1
 I think there is an error in one of those pictures. Hestler DOES NOT sit down when he rides. He's a beast!
  • + 1
 Things I'll never understand on a mountain bike #1, chainstays that slope downward toward the bottom bracket.
  • + 1
 @RMB-PM: Yeah, basically moving the bottom bracket/cranks/pedals/front sprocket into a worse position to hit things on purpose. I could only see the benefits on a road bike.
  • + 1
 @Kramz: creates a more stable ride. With the huge diameter of the wheels the actual BB height is probably close to what you are used to. Get a bmx for street if you prefer BB rise instead
  • + 1
 This looks just right for the highlands
of Scotland,what about it Santa????
  • + 2
 Perfect name for a fatbike. #hostess #cake
  • + 1
 These bikes are bad ass! I just put one in my stable, and it is fantastic!
  • + 1
 Are shorts considered winter riding clothes now?
  • + 2
 £///////new standards
  • + 1
 How many wheel sizes, hub standards are there now about ten ?
  • + 1
 SRAČKA
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2017. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.095629
Mobile Version of Website