Salsa Bucksaw - Review

Jan 5, 2015
by Mike Levy  
 
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login


With the exception of e-bikes, there's not much that stirs the pot like a fat bike will. They have their detractors, and very few riders can or will say that a fatty is their main ride, but those who talk shit about fat bikes have almost certainly never spent any time on one. Salsa is aiming to change that with their 100mm travel Bucksaw, a fat bike that isn't intended to be used solely in the snow or sand where you'd usually picture such a machine, but rather on the very rides that you'd use your traditional mountain bike for. However, with 3.8'' wide tires on 65mm-wide Surly Marge Lite rims, Split Pivot suspension out back and a RockShox Bluto up front, this bike is anything but traditional. Weighing in just under 33lb, the Bucksaw 1 retails for $4,999 USD.


Bucksaw 1 Details

• Intended use: finding fun
• Rear wheel travel: 100mm
• Wheel size: 26''
• Split Pivot suspension
• Frame material: aluminum front triangle, carbon seat stays
• ISCG-05 chain guide tabs
• Rockshox Bluto fork w/ 100mm of travel
• Surly Nate 3.8'' tires
• Reverb Stealth dropper seat post
• Weight: 32.8lb
• MSRP: $4,999 USD
www.salsacycles.com


Frame Details

The Bucksaw's classic looking lines are similar to Salsa's Spearfish and Horsethief models, but don't be mistaken, this is a new bike from front to back. The 6066 aluminum front triangle has been designed with a 50mm offset suspension fork in mind, allowing it to sport a slightly slacker head angle than it might otherwise be able to without making the handling too lazy, and Salsa have also gone with the customary tapered head tube. Cable routing is external, save for the entry port at the base of the seat tube for the Reverb Stealth that comes stock on the Bucksaw 1, and there's a somewhat unsightly stub for a direct mount front derailleur should you want to go the two chain ring route instead of a 1x drivetrain.

Salsa Bucksaw review test Photo by Mike Kazimer
  From left: a stub allows you to use a direct mount front derailleur, while a massive 122mm wide bottom bracket shell provides clearance and also serves as home to a set of ISCG-05 chain guide tabs. A rather nice badge can be found on the tapered head tube.

Things get more interesting when you go downstairs, with a massive, three-piece bottom bracket section that measures 121mm wide and accepts PressFit bearings - sorry, only fat bike compatible cranks with extra long spindles are going to fit. The added width is required for both crank, front derailleur and tire clearance, as well as to mate up to the 12 x 177mm wide rear axle spacing. All of those numbers make it possible to fit a 4'' wide tire into the back of the Bucksaw with some room to spare for mud clearance, despite having a pretty reasonable 444mm chain stay length. I have to give props to Salsa for also including a set of ISCG-05 chain guide tabs as well, thereby allowing riders to bolt on a guide if they feel the need. A RockShox Maxle Ultimate ties the back end together.


Salsa Bucksaw review test Photo by Mike Kazimer
  The Bucksaw's 100mm of travel uses a Split Pivot suspension system, with carbon seat stays driving a RockShox Monarch RT3 shock.


The Bucksaw's Suspension Explained

The first Bucksaw prototype hit the trails in 2011, and although the basic lines of the production bike remain the same, the design in an entirely different beast altogether. That early bike sported just 80mm of rear wheel travel, 20mm less than the bike reviewed here, and it was put together using a lot of existing parts from Salsa's Spearfish and Horsethief platforms, including a relatively basic flex-pivot arrangement at the dropout. That first mule was more of a proof-of-concept than anything, but the project grew legs when Dave Weagle partnered with the company to bring his Split Pivot suspension system to the table. And that's what you'll find on the back of the 100mm Bucksaw: a concentric axle pivot that is said to allow for active suspension when the rider is on the brakes, as well as great acceleration and sensitivity. That's pretty much what every brand claims about their design, isn't it? Of course, but having spent plenty of time on Split Pivot bikes, I'll admit to being more apt to sing their praises than some other layouts.

The custom tuned RockShox Monarch RT3 is driven by the bike's carbon fiber seat stays that Salsa claims to offer ''improved stiffness, better vibration damping, excellent toughness and weight savings over aluminum assembly,'' and the Bucksaw's rear end is said to be designed specifically to deal with how a nearly 4'' wide tire will affect the ride. That means that the leverage ratio, shock tune, and suspension geometry have been penned with this in mind, and the bike doesn't ape the exact same Split Pivot characteristics found on Salsa's full-suspension Spearfish and Horsethief platforms.


Specifications
Release Date 2015
Price $4999
Travel 100
Rear Shock RockShox Monarch RT3
Fork RockShox Bluto, 100mm travel, tapered, 15 x 150mm
Headset Cane Creek 10 ZS44/56
Cassette SRAM 11-speed, 10-42t
Crankarms SRAM X1
Rear Derailleur SRAM X01
Chain KMC X11
Shifter Pods SRAM X01, 11-speed
Handlebar Salsa Rustler 1 Carbon, 15mm riser, 740mm wide
Stem Thomson X4
Grips Salsa Backcountry Lock-On
Brakes SRAM Guide RS
Hubs Salsa Fat Conversion, 150mm/170mm
Spokes Stainless, butted, black
Rim Surly Marge Lite w/ holes
Tires Surly Nate 26 x 3.8", 120tpi, folding
Seat WTB Pure V Race
Seatpost RockShox Reverb Stealth
Salsa Bucksaw review test Photo by Mike Kazimer






Climbing

Discovering that the Bucksaw's massive tires allow you to claw your way up nearly anything is about as surprising as finding out the Easter bunny doesn't exist, but it's still going to be a revelation for those who have never been on a fat bike before. It took a few rides before I realized just what I could get away with on the blue bike, and new trails and fresh lines opened up to me as soon as I registered the otherworldly traction on hand. The Bucksaw doesn't ask you to move into an unnatural position to unlock those abilities like a traditional mountain bike does - there's not much need to slide back on the seat to keep the rear tire biting - with it simply finding purchase on everything from wet roots, slick and smooth surfaces, to loose conditions.

Once I wrapped my head around what I could chug up, it became more about actually steering the bike where I needed to go, such was the steepness that it could muscle through. If you have the ponies and the commitment, the Bucksaw has the ability, but you'll need the technical skill to guide the bike through trail problems as well. It's not a slow handling bike by any means, but it's just that you can ascend absolutely stupid things that you don't have any right cleaning, which takes the emphasis away from finding traction and places it squarely on the rider's shoulders. This means that skilled climbers will be unlocking new levels in the game, and those who just need some more encouragement are going to find it aboard the Bucksaw.
bigquotesI grew bored of making my local climbing challenges look easy and moved from mountain bike trails to climbing the much steeper, much more difficult moto trails on my local mountain. In the few months that I spent on the Bucksaw, I probably rode at least eight new-to-me moto trails that I wouldn't have considered on my regular bike, simply because I would have struggled so much more. Having the newfound ability to easily clean the large majority of them made for an exciting and fresh few months on the Bucksaw.

Salsa Bucksaw review test Photo by Mike Kazimer
  What's tricky on a traditional bike is an easy task on the Bucksaw, a fact that can open up new terrain to you.


The difference in traction between a standard mountain bike and the Bucksaw, with its 3.8'' wide tires inflated to between 8 and 10 PSI, is clear, but how does it compare to a fat bike with massive 4.8'' wide tires that are aired down even lower? As expected, it was easier to get the Bucksaw moving, and although the blue bike isn't as nimble as a hardtail with a wider yet lighter tire and rim combo, there isn't much between the two when it comes to traction. After all, does one really need more bite than what a 3.8'' wide tire run well under 10 PSI is going to give you? I don't, and I don't think anyone else does, either. The one caveat here is going to come down to snow, with the largest of tires obviously making a big difference when talking about floatation rather than knifing down through the white stuff and doing your best scorpion, and the Bucksaw isn't able to accept anything larger than a 4.0'' wide tire or an 82mm wide rim ( 65mm-wide Surly Marge Lite rims are stock) due to Salsa's aim to make their bike ride more like a standard machine.

You don't need to be a genius to know that a bike like that Bucksaw, or any fat bike for that matter, is going to feel portly and slow when the trail smoothes out or you end up climbing a gravel road. The Bucksaw rolls faster than a bike with fatter, softer tires, however, but if you're still going to feel like yesterday was a leg day in the gym if you try to really wind it up. It wasn't leg day, and the Bucksaw would rather just chill out, so I'd suggest popping up a cog or two out back and spinning to the top rather than blowing your wad before you get to the fun part. Blame comes down to the tires, not the efficient suspension, so reaching for the Monarch's low-speed compression lever won't magically fix things.


Descending

The Bucksaw really should be talked about in before-fat and after-fat terms due to how different it's going to feel for a rider who's more in tune with how they handle compared to someone who's not spent much (or any) time on such a bike. But regardless of your BF or AF situation, the Bucksaw can be summed up easier with a single word than any other bike I've spent time on: entertaining. And this will be especially true if you're sitting in the BF camp, as long as you get through those awkward feeling first dates and stick around long enough to get comfortable together. Jumping off of a traditional bike and onto the Bucksaw is kinda like the first time eating some strange looking street meat in an Asian country: you know that you like it, but you're not sure why or even what it is.

Saying that the Bucksaw, or any fat bike for that matter, handles peculiar compared to your regular bike is a bit of an understatement, with the steering managing to feel both overly slow and massively quick at different points in a turn. Initial inputs at the handlebar see next to no result, and it'll just keep going straight, or continue turning if that's what it's already doing, unless you feed it some force, but then the bike will quickly switch it up all of a sudden and feel too eager for a split second. What I was feeling is the weight of the massive tire and rim, along with the traction that combo provides, requesting that I put more effort into turning, and then the whole package started to do as I was asking and promptly went light. This is not unique to the Bucksaw by any means - all fat bikes will feel this way to someone who's never been on one before - but it's a bit unsettling at first until you get used to the handling and the bike starts to feel normal after a few rides.

Salsa Bucksaw review test Photo by Mike Kazimer
  You don't need much more than a small bump to have some giggles aboard the Bucksaw - this thing is all about having fun and being a goon.

Not surprisingly, this isn't a bike that responds well to drifting through corners or using your rear brake to get your slide on. With so much traction keeping you from breaking free, you're far better off thinking more about carrying momentum than sliding through a bend. That might not match up to how I said it was a fun bike, but you'll be having a blast on the normal line regardless. Jumps and drops aboard the Bucksaw are a bit different in that you can feel the bike's weight - especially the rotational weight of the wheels and tires - and while it is harder to throw down some style, it's a comfortable bike to get airborne on. The front end does come up easily enough to make manuals an anytime sort of thing. Rough, chopped up landings are remarkably smooth, so much so that I'd guess that the bike has an extra inch or two of travel, thanks to the high-volume tires that do well to erase chatter. Watch for casing roll on steep lips or awkward landings, though, especially when running extremely low tire pressures.

And what about the Bucksaw's Split Pivot suspension? Truth be told, it almost felt as if the tires makes it a bit of a wash when it comes to what the rear end is doing. I've had plenty of trail time on other Split Pivot bikes with traditional rubber, with all of them impressing me for the most part, but the Bucksaw simply felt like a good performing, although nondescript, full-suspension bike. Slow rolling tires aside, it pedals relatively well, as it should with just 100mm of travel, and while I'd like to tell you it was both incredibly sensitive and had great support, the bottom line is that the 3.8'' wide tires inflated to under 10 PSI mask what is likely a very refined layout.

Salsa Bucksaw review test Photo by Mike Kazimer
  Forget about it only having 100mm of travel, the Bucksaw doesn't ride anything like a cross-country machine of similar stroke. Charge the chunk like you're on a 140mm bike to get the most from the burly Salsa.

bigquotesJumping off of a traditional bike and onto the Bucksaw is kinda like the first time eating some strange looking street meat in an Asian country: you know that you like it, but you're not sure why or even what it is.

Street meat usually tastes really good once you stop worrying about what you're eating, and the Bucksaw is a ton of fun once you get used to the handling and stop worrying about what people are thinking. Sure, there's four inches of travel on both ends, which would usually put a bike deeper into the cross-country category than a lot of Pinkbike readers would consider sampling, but the blue Salsa's travel numbers really don't have much to do with its on-trail manners - this is a machine that puts an emphasis on fun. It is playful, despite the weight of its wheels and tires, and there are places where you'll be going just as fast, if not even a touch faster, than on your regular bike. Chunky ground full of rocks, roots, and steps will allow you to unleash the Bucksaw, and it'll take off like a scared cat once you trust how much traction and stability you have on hand. The same goes for loose conditions, which won't be a surprise to anyone, with the Bucksaw not really being hindered by slippery surfaces in the same way a bike with tires nearly half as wide would. If there was a wet weather specialist out there, the Bucksaw is it.



Technical Report

• You'll need to be on-point when it comes to tire pressure, as running them too low will give the Bucksaw a vague and uninspiring feel at best, or put you on the ground at worst. I found that around 8 PSI was ideal, but any lower and the tires had too much casing roll and bounce to them for my liking, and going above 10 PSI began to take away from the insane bite and bump-eating abilities of the 3.8” wide Surly Nate tires. A single PSI has a big impact on performance, so I'd recommend picking up a small digital gauge in order to get the most from the bike - your thumbs aren't going to cut it.

• I've spent time on at least fifteen or twenty different sets of Guide brakes since they were released, and all of them have impressed me so far. Reliability and consistency have both been improved over previous offerings, and they've managed to up the power without hurting the modulation. That said, this is the first set where I found myself wishing for more outright power, which has to be put down to the massive wheels and tires that simply take more to slow down. Salsa spec'd a 7'' rotor up front and a 6'' out back, but I'd upsize those to at least an 8'' and 7'' combo, if not even larger out back.

Salsa Bucksaw review test Photo by Mike Kazimer
  Low tire pressure in the 3.8'' wide Surly Nate tires, along with a low gearing range on the SRAM single ring drivetrain, allow you to conquer walls that don't look doable.


• The 100mm travel Bluto is about a thousand times better than having a gigantic fat bike tire and a rigid fork up front, and it went a long way to making the Bucksaw feel like a proper mountain bike that you'd ride anywhere. Having spent a bit of time on a few rigid fat bikes, as well as a few hardtail fat bikes, and now the Bucksaw, there's no way that I would even consider one without a suspension fork. However, if you've spent time on a Pike or any of the latest and greatest from FOX, Manitou or Marzocchi, you'll not exactly be blown away by the combination of the Bluto's Motion Control DNA damper and the 3.8'' wide tire. Then again, the Bluto costs quite a bit less, doesn't it? Call me spoiled, I guess.

• A dropper post makes sense to have on nearly every type of mountain bike, especially the fun-loving Bucksaw. The bike's Reverb worked well, and I appreciate the detailed oriented touch of mounting the button on the underside of the handlebar for my left thumb - most companies use a standard left handed button that sits atop the bar, even if there is no front shifter - but I would have preferred the 125mm drop model over the 100mm post that came on the bike from Salsa.




Pinkbike's Take:
bigquotesI had more fun on the Bucksaw than on any other bike I've ridden in the last few years, which says a lot given that I've been lucky enough to ride some pretty amazing machines in that time. That fact reinforces my belief that fun has nothing to do with being on the latest race-winning enduro machine, whatever wheel size is getting the most coverage, or the low weight of your carbon fiber bike that costs three times as much as my car. That said, I don't think that the Bucksaw would ever be the only bike in my garage, simply because it's still relatively slow and ungainly compared to a traditional mountain bike. It does make complete sense as an extremely entertaining second or third ride in your stable, though, especially if you like to loosen up and just focus on having fun, which is exactly why the majority of us ride, isn't it? - Mike Levy


Visit the high-res gallery for more images from this article
Must Read This Week

283 Comments

  • + 305
 Pinkbike, you should make a choice: either speak in imperial or in metric, but a 7" rotor on a 100mm travel bike with 8 PSI tyres and 122mm bottom bracket hurts my brain !
  • + 17
 second this
  • + 187
 Blame the industry, not pinkbike.
  • + 55
 It doesn't take that much effort to adapt to other systems, although I will agree that the Imperial system makes much less sense when compared to the Metric system.
  • + 38
 PB could start a metric revolution within the industry. I know I'd like that.
  • + 55
 Bikes come in pounds, parts come in grams. That's how my brain works, the industry has been working that way for a long time. If you tell me your DH bike weighs 17kg I don't know if that is heavy or light, the same goes for a rear mech weighing 7 ounces.
  • - 37
flag uz1l0v3r (Jan 5, 2015 at 2:21) (Below Threshold)
 I can't remember the last time I saw a bike's weight listed in pounds.
  • + 28
 This could be a Canuck thing, I scuba dive in feet/psi, and use pounds/ kilos, feet/kilometres , millimetres/ inches, cid/litres depends on application, getting pretty good at conversion in my head!!
  • + 17
 So you didn't read the above review and just skipped to the comments? The bike in question being stated as 32.8lb?
  • + 9
 Yeah how is that pinkbike a fault? When have you ever seen a steer tube measured in millimeters? I would love it to go all metric though.
  • + 5
 I just have one question: What do you do if you get a flat?
  • - 5
flag zephxiii (Jan 5, 2015 at 6:24) (Below Threshold)
 Rotational weight?
  • + 8
 we're Canadian, and we use both.
  • + 4
 @mnorris122 the same thing you would normally do....

i think its cool and certainly for some more than most. especially at 5k.

and as for weights and measurements, everyone on pink bike should be well versed in all categories of these just to make your own lifes easier.
  • + 1
 JUST MAKE IT STOP Please
  • + 33
 The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.
  • + 17
 kilos/pounds are fairly easy to figure out , think your self lucky british bikes don't have the weights listed in stone !

Makes us sound so primitive , " how much do you weigh ? " , " about 12 rocks ... " , welcome to the stoneage
  • + 2
 @mnorris122 - if you get a flat do the usual to get the tire tube assembly to a point where it will hold air, then, using your pump, fill until the pressure reaches 55.15 kpa. Then ask yourself WTF that means. It should be about 8 PSI. Patrick9-32 has it figured out; but one standard would be nice, preferably the metric system.
  • + 2
 If having two different measuring systems "hurts" your brain, then I feel sorry for you. I work in the bike industry and not a single company uses any one particular standard of measurement. We have to deal with mm and inches every day, but you get used to it. Honestly it's never bothered me.
  • + 3
 Why not create a new system? the bike measure system how about that all bikers out there? haha just kidding
  • + 5
 where does it measure on the lame idea scale?
  • + 2
 @Seraph Imagine if you never had to do that shit. Would be pretty nice, eh?
  • + 2
 The metric system is the tool of the devil!! oh wait.. @superfunhappyland already said it.. never mind.
  • + 6
 26 inch wheels are to blame for having imperial measurements in mtb. It all started with them. Thankfully we now have 650b wheels and we don't have to figure out how many b's are in an inch
  • + 1
 @deadbeat - good question, just how many Bs are there in an inch? Wait, maybe its 650b/27.5
  • + 1
 A kilo is a thousand grams, easy to remember.
  • + 4
 A pint is 568ml, but its easier to order a pint after drinking 1.704 Litres.
  • + 2
 @iffy it's easier to order a pitcher, then you don't need to go back to the bar so often !
  • + 3
 Being mountain biking, what I propose is that we should invent a new standard for measurements. Then just once everyone has got used to that, we can introduce a new one, which is just marginally bigger
  • + 2
 It also strikes me that having a single universal basis for measuring head angle and seat tube angle is far too straightforward. As a proposal, may I suggest imperialists use something more antiquated, like clock time. 66 degrees could be 02.12 and every degree either way from there is 2mins.
  • + 1
 Or you can just do as your told
  • + 0
 i would run it with lefty
  • + 1
 twebeast 66 degrees in Celsius or Fahrenheit? lol
  • + 59
 $5,000 for a bike that I won't use everyday but every now and again for a laugh? Knock a zero off the price and give me x5 gears and shit shock. It's just simply too much money for a bike that doesn't really meet a requirement my others don't....
  • + 11
 I would love a fat bike, but feel exactly the same way. I don't think I really need a 1x11 setup or a shock. Put the money where it counts, brakes and tires. And wide bars.
  • + 3
 @rAtty-c
+100500!!!

Seems it doesn't matter what is in the bike, the price just has to be $4000-6000.
And this time the price justification seems the FULL SUSPENSION FAT TIRES.

But the bike is interested me.
I was sure 2.35" tires is enough fat for me, even a little too much. Now I'm doubt Smile
  • + 53
 Why would you not use it everyday? As soon as someone has a DH bike and an AM/ENduro bike, he highly probably has a 5k bike that he does not use everyday Big Grin
  • + 0
 @WAKI LOL Smile
  • + 3
 i dont have near 5000 in my "primary" bike and my dh bike put together. and they arent crap either. built, not bought.
  • + 10
 Not everyone is poor on this website...
  • + 10
 Plenty of fat options out there with lower builds, including the Bucksaw IIRC. No company will want their mid/bottom level product reviewed when it takes so much to get Front Page anyway. That's why there aren't tons of low level reviews. Its not that they don't exist.
  • + 3
 yeah terrafire. you are right, they have to put their best foot forward. same with car magazines. they always end up with the top loaded out model. this 5000 secondary bike would be a great find used though.
  • + 4
 diego-b, thanks for the assertive comment. 5000 is a lot no matter how much income you have. dont kid yourself
  • + 42
 @keystonebikes and @diego-b - I think there should be a special profile type for people who can afford 10k+ bikes, with special emblem by their username, like there is MOD and PLUS. I'd call it POSH. It would be given only basing on a receipt from a shop, no sneaky buying stuff from ebay, second hand stuff or on online deals. Those people would be given a special right to post "you are poor" emoticon, they would be unnegproppable and every negprop they give to someone would be multiplied by 5.
  • + 1
 FWIW, there's a $4000 version that still comes with the same suspension, wheels, tires, & dropper, and frame only MSRP is $1900(allegedly, I only did a cursory google to find that price.)
  • + 8
 love it waki haha! funny thing is, i can go out and get any 5k bike i want and any 10k bike is a visa card swipe away. its just that a 5k fatbike would be so far down the priority list that it will never happen. i think a lot of people are in that boat too.
  • + 2
 LOL priceless @WAKIdesigns I can not afford any of them
  • + 1
 not afford any of them
  • + 1
 hey waki, can i get a profile that says old grumpy cheapskate hater? that would be awesome. i could whine about cost with no neg props and no one could tell me to shut up. oh wait, there would be quite a line for that privelege.
  • + 2
 No you can't, that would be too long to read, it would undermine anything you write instantly - you have to come up with 3 or 4 letter sticker. 4 letter words rule. Most of people who write on internet are grumpy haters anyways.
  • + 1
 man i was trying to come up with one, but couldnt. i was really hoping u would be ready with one, but if u insist, how about HATE?
  • + 3
 HITR
  • + 5
 If you haven't figured it out yet, this bike is like a DH bike in that it's not a bike you use for everything. Why people complain about spending $5000 on a secondary or tertiary bike is beyond me....different purposes require different tools. This is no different. Lots of us have XC bikes and trail bikes....which arguably you could have one bike that does both to a modest degree, but no...we don't have one bike for both. And that's the case here, a fat bike for THE WINTER and/or just messing about. What's so hard to grasp about that?
  • + 6
 If I had money and time on tap this year... I'd design and build a 160-180 Fat bike and try it out on grassy ski slopes in the summer as well as in the woods. I assume and purely speculate that a fat bike with lots of travel could be better than a DH bike in off trail riding and if it would be so... we'd have a revolution in MTB
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns I've been saying for a while now, that what we all ride 10 years from now will be a lot closer to "fat" than what current bikes are.
  • + 8
 Bike aside, I may be closer to fat myself in 10 years just like many people here Big Grin
  • + 1
 @groghunter
I doubt that.
It should be invented really innovatively-LIGHT material for tires to use them FAT for all bike kinds.
The rubber stands still for making the tires many decades.
  • + 1
 Doesn't anyone remember Hannebrink racing a fatbike down the Kamikazee back in the day?
  • + 57
 I love how fatbikes are "fun" to ride, they're also slow, handle like shit and won't be winning any races any time soon.....yet a 26" bike that is fun to ride, handles amazing, is not much (if at all) slower than a 27.5 or 29" wheeled bike, yet fat bikes are selling like crazy and the industry won't even make a 26" bike anymore, which was/is a perfectly functioning bike/wheelsize.....thanks bike industry for being drunk.
  • + 17
 I read this and the clouds opened, light poured in, angels sang...

You're so right. A very interesting point you come to. The final key to the industry drunk-nundrum is being marketed on bikes that are 'fun' when blatantly they're largely nonsense for most people in most places, most of the time. Unicycles, great fun... No point. Apart from one. The circus.

I mean, what are they saying..... Get bigger wheels because they're faster, sell your 26 that's obsolete, change it for a clownbike coz you won't be having much fun anymore anyway when you're having strava dreams about the extra 1.5inches. But you can get out your stupid obese bike once a month to put a daft grin on your face!?

Nah.. wheres my mountain bike gone.. the one with wheels that took you everywhere and did everything.
  • + 11
 I feel the same as you guys. Looks like fat bikes are seen as 'fun' because what they basically do is making a difficult obstacle that needs skill and practice surprisingly easy. A guy even commented above that he deliberatlely takes poor lines because the bike makes them easy. I don't know for everyone else but the feeling of overcoming a difficult and scary obstacle has got to be the best feeling that made me fall in love with mountain biking. That's where the ''fun'' people feel on fat bikes comes from I believe. I prefer getting that feeling of accomplishment from practice, effort and progression, but that might be just me. It's kind of like a cheat code in a video game, sure it's funny for the first 20 minutes but you're goind to go back to normal pretty fast.
  • + 5
 ha ha yeah! if i want to have "fun" ill get on my mountain bike.
  • + 2
 They have no purpose?!?! I read an article recently that was talking about how they're coming up with Fat Bike Races! There! Now they'll have a purpose!

Seriously though, I'm right there with ya.
  • + 4
 @ tobiusmaximum, that go everywhere and do everything mountain bike still exists, but the bike industry doesn't really want you to ride it forever.

The industry bike stable includes a regular hardtail for "throwback" fun, dirt-jumper for "in my Vans" fun, a carbon-fibre cross-country full-suspension for "VO2 max" fun, a downhill bike for "lift assist" fun and a fatbike for "I'm bored with the rest / winter" fun.

What's that, you don't have a bike shed the size of a small airplane hangar? Well you can buy a new do-everything mountain bike, but the specs on this bike are changing. After a two-year period when at least 6+ inches of suspension was required, now 100 to 120mm bikes with slack angles are the most fun.

The good thing about current trends in fun is that my steel hardtail with the bar ends and a 50mm Rockshox Judy, that I use for commuting, may turn out to be one of the most fun bikes ever.
  • + 4
 repeat after me everyone: different and new=fun. got it?
  • - 2
 Chad you should meet Jordan. Jordan rides for Borealis, won a pro CX race, multie xc wins, oh and top10 at iceman on a fatbike. I'd beg to differ on handling like crap and slow. I'll beat you every time at xc I'm my fatbike
  • + 4
 Tyler, in comparison to your 29'er XC your fat bike handles as well? I've ridden a handful and didn't get that impression at all. I think they are "fun" to ride as well, just like I think my 26" trail bike was super fun to ride, even if it was "slower" than 27.5 and 29" wheeled bikes. No doubt you are faster than me on XC, you ride further in a day, then I ride all week.
  • + 3
 and a fatbike for "I'm bored with the rest / winter" fun.

@eggsandb

This is the problem. People are spoilt. (Me included) Kinda what I was saying about the bored reviewer. If you're ever so bored of the other 4 supposedly fun bikes in the quiver that you want a fatbike without needing one, then maybe that's the problem. Sounds like you use one for snow though so this isn't directed at you.

Disclaimer: winter. Any use of these bikes in their intended environment renders debate obsolete, that what it's for. Bit like wearing a snorkel and flippers down the pub could, by some, be considered fun, it's not what it's intended for.
  • + 1
 @ tobiasmaximum, my list of bikes was a theoretical bike collection, not my bike collection. It was kind of tongue-in-cheek. I have a relatively inexpensive Stumpy FSR and the steel hardtail ratbike.
  • + 8
 It is extremely difficult these days to reach a state of mind where you truly could not give a slightest shyte what someone else rides or wants, no matter how much he brags about it, even if million of people around you ride that thing - that you don't. But when you get there, it is absolutely awesome! In fact if people cared less, would not need to sustain their opinion tortured egos, such thing as hype would not exist, dumb ideas would die by themselves. So I advise you to seek that state of not giving a F that someone made a Fatbike or 148x12 axle or upside down fork. Just watch it like a boat passing by. Sure it can be a sailing boat like n/W chainring or a HMS 650Bitanic roaring with syrens about science and reason of roll over and contact patch but... it's just a boat. Wave and smile, show a finger if you like, but don't throw anything at it, you may lose balance and fall into cold water. if you like it - Don't hesitate - jump on board!
  • + 2
 Fatbikes are 26inch
  • + 6
 Trying to decipher whether y'all are trying to convince the reviewer that what he *thought* was fun- was actually un-fun. Or trying to convince your wallet that fatbiking cannot be fun. Or whether you're just the fun police- here to squash everyone's fun???
  • + 4
 "it takes away the feeling of overcoming a difficult obstacle" Says the people who ride 160+ mm travel bikes on trails that really only necessitate a hard tail.

If you want to cry about feeling accomplished on your trails and going faster, go ride a fully rigid single speed bike and do faster laps. THEN you have right to say "it takes away the difficult...and sense of accomplishment..." nonsense.

It's not always about the difficulty, it's about putting that smile on your face because it was like a cheat code to get over obstacles that were previously un-fun to ride over.
  • + 1
 I don't think anyone has said anything is unfun. (Love that btw.... UnFun. Oakley should trademark it) More that we had bikes that were fast and fun. Now we have even faster bikes, they bring us something 'fun'. Well.. I know that's not how it began. Can't speak for anyone else but I have no issue with fatbikes beyond saying 'great, fun bikes, but when did every other mtb become so strava second serious that we need a 'fun' expensive bike third in the garage? I've nothing against impractical bikes, at six four I've ridden stupid little dj bikes some good distances. Fun? Maybe. But yeah, it's not really a comment on fatbikes, more a comment on 'hold on, I thought 'bikes' were fun. Damn it, I think a shopping trolley can be fun. Lets all get scooters, inlines, fatbikes, trikes and ebikes. Because what people need is more 'stuff' and new shit to have fun?
  • + 3
 this is simple. if doing things the fastest and easiest way possible is fun for u then do it. its like cars. yes a formula 1 car is like the fastest track slut on the planet, but is it as fun to drive as a miata or old datsun z or mg? i doubt it. thats why rigid SS and fatbikes for fun even exist. its just a simple diversion to forget about record times and podiums for a little while. fun for me is a 6" travel 1x9 26er and i doubt that will change anytime soon. what is fun for you?
  • + 3
 'its just a simple diversion to forget about record times and podiums for a little while' That's the point... Ride the bike you have and stop thinking about seconds and podiums. I'm not saying don't buy one.. buy a 40ft inflatable pineapple if it makes you smile. I'm just against people needing another rig in order to chill out and have fun. And I suspect I'm not totally alone in that.
  • + 3
 im with u. i plan on keeping my main bike for as long as i keep my car. hone it in and see how good i can get on it. become one with it. for me thats fun.
  • + 1
 But why are you against people needing another rig? Let them eat their own crap, the more they eat, the sooner they will get sick and start to think clearer for the rest of their lives. I always knew that an ultimate bike will never make me substantially faster but I still needed to buy one to have that experience. I know now, that I will never buy a carbon frame again, unless it is dead cheap in a great shape. Thanks to buying carbon rims I know that if you don't pedal and accelerate out of corners, if you don't commit, it is pointless to have such thing. That if you don't do it they just make your ride rough. Sure if I would not have money for all that stuff, I wouldn't bother either but... I learned something. I will take first occasion to try that bike, in the summer, off the trail
  • + 3
 Ahhh, and I forgot to say, that I don't mean that fat bikes are crap. I find them a far, faaaar lesser evil (even though I don't believe such thing as commonly understood evil exist) than buying nearly exactly same bike with a different brand on it, with a few dimensions changed. Thinking you need a Bronson, cuz Enduro is a bit outdated? Or that you will be better off with Nomad than with a Rune? That you can more on Pike than on Lyrik? That's the true delusion in my eyes. Fatbikes are more original in my eyes.
  • + 2
 People who hate on fat bikes have never ridden one for any real length of time. Sure, they're slow and unpractical most of the time, but so are monster trucks....and you never see those guys with a frown on their face when they're rolling over everything.
  • + 1
 yeah waki. im not against having many bikes. lord knows i have waaaay more than i need. but yes they are all for different purposes. trail, DH, ss rigid cuz it was free, bmx cuz ive had it since i was 19. fatbike interests me cuz in PA, winters are looooooong, but i would never bother putzin around on it in the middle of summer. and i could never see dumping more than even 1000 in something im gonna beat in the snow and slush.
  • + 6
 Fat bikes look like fun. What is not so fun is the premise that fun on this bike is more fun than the fun on that bike. If I want to buy a bike because I think I'll have more fun, I am already having less fun wondering about whether I could be having more fun.
  • + 1
 yup, we need to stay grounded and not stare over the fence at that green grass bro.
  • + 2
 @eggsandb

Had to read that twice but that's pretty much the best thing I've read in months.
  • + 1
 The grass is purer on the other side.
  • + 1
 The grass is fatter on the other side.
  • - 1
 Fat bikes are like when guys bring their vintage BMW's and Ducati's to my track days. They may be faster on maybe one really slow speed corner of the track, and they're a fucking obstacle everywhere else.
  • + 2
 SlowdownU - faster? Wow, that is actually interesting - Don't you guys think that it it groundbreaking that fat bikes are the first trend where nobody says that they are faster than what you already have? I am shocked and stunned!
  • + 1
 I'd only like a fatbike to make riding in the winter less annoying.
  • + 1
 Well Wak, next time one of your buddies shows up on a epic group ride with a fatbike because he believed the interwebs, how much fun will that be to have to wait for him everywhere? I think thats the analogy I was trying to make.
  • + 4
 mmm... I know a few blokes in my town that would still wait for me if they rode Fatbikes and I was on Endurest bike out there
  • + 6
 lol
I guess you don't ride with many guys on fatbikes then, cause I have found you will not be waiting for them because of the bike. You will be waiting for the same guys you always wait for. The rider matters, not the fatness or the diameter of the tire. Fat bikes can be ridden very f'ing fast by a fast rider. On that same epic ride, Especially in wet conditions with slick rocks and roots covered in wet leaves and a lot of pedaling and climbing (or anytime traction or flotation is a major commodity), your gonna be wondering why the fat tires are all in front of you and out of sight, or breathing down your neck sounding like a 4wd mudder about to run you over. I've been there. On those long rides with guys on fat bikes, and others not. The fast guys are still fast, and the slow guys are still slow. But the fat tire does not really slow them down like you think it would even in the dry. It only makes them faster when the conditions allow. How often you encounter those conditions in a ride is up to the terrain and the weather.
Its no wonder racism is still so prevalent in the world today, when something as insignificant as your Mountain Bike Tire Width or Diameter can lead to wild presumptions, angst and even discrimination of the person aboard the bike. SMH lol.
Not trying to sell anyone an a fat bike, just trying to encourage people to see these things for what they are. Its not hype, its not marketing, it is a bike tire. Some work better for some things than others, but the rider is still paramount. Hell!, Line choice is still paramount!
  • + 2
 amen.
  • + 1
 Equating a bike tire debate to racism, now that right there is some funny shit. I actually ride a lot, my friends ride a lot, and we've all ridden fat bikes (few in the crew have them). You all like to cite physics so much here in tire debates, well there is way more friction going down with wide tires at 8psi. So no, unless they are real adverse conditions like snow and ice, I will not be looking at the back of any fat bike wheels. Not to say that they aren't fun (riding any bike is fun), but my mountain bike is fun too, and I ski in the winter.
  • + 1
 I guess it is some funny shit really. It was meant with sarcasm and humor, and a bit of seriousness in that the presumptions people make about a product or object they are not at all or not entirely familiar with shares a lot in common with the presumptions people will make about an individual person they are not familiar with. Based on countless variables and prior experiences that mold our perspective, we instantly make conclusions about things before we even have a chance to experience them for ourselves. It's normal. Right and wrong depends on your perspective. What is generally conceived and accepted as right and wrong depends on how many others share the same perspective, and is not static.
Maybe the comparison is unfounded and wasn't the right place or way for me to speak about that observation, but it was an observation nonetheless.
Maybe its more similar to a witch hunt? It's huge tires turned my friend into a Turtle! Yeah and they turned me into a Newt! Burn Her!

As far as the bike in the review? I think it looks amazing and must be a riot, but I don't think I personally have a place for it currently even if I could call it my own. I am however stoked that a bike like this has seen the light of day and look forward to seeing what else it inspires.
Cheers.
  • + 1
 SlowdownU - ehm, in many ways you can compare that because it is the same mechanism. You make assumptions based on a few clues which may be meaningless, like "29ers are gay", because XCers use them, and XCers are almost like roadies and that means they have bad technique, so if you own a 29er you have bad technique, that means that you ar a sunday warrior, dumb conclusions can go on and on, until they start perpetuating themselves, where in reality there is no way that a product can tell much about his owner. Shadow work theory points out that such behavior often points out at something the prosecutor is ashamed of, so it is likely that bloke that shouts that "29ers are for bad riders", is not happy with his skills and projects the guilt on undefined group of people.
  • + 1
 Goes to show people spend money on stuff that is fun
  • + 1
 Still though, as a 29er owner:

That photo of the bloke holding up the "29ers are GAY" sign up while Nino Schurter flying through the air on his 650b was freakn awesome!
  • + 1
 Are we really classifying ourselves now as "29'er" owners.....I have a 29'er, who cares. (of course I also find it boring and uninspiring)
  • + 21
 Love the fact that you guys look into all directions that offer fun while riding a bike. I'm far away of actually buying a fatbike as my trails here in Australia just dont justify it but as a guy who loves all kind of bikes I very much appreciate that you are open to new stuff. I hate the haters and do agree that most of them have never actually ridden what they hate so much. Just like the hate for 29ers, if you've actually ridden one that makes you smile you forget about the wheel size and you'll forget about the hate. Same with fatbikes, dont hate what you dont know or what you dont understand. No one forces you to ride one but no one gives you any reason to hate it either.
  • + 14
 I'll admit, I'm a skeptic. But I'm looking to reviews like this to convince me to try a fat bike. "More fun than any other bike I've ridden in years..." is a serious claim, like you said, given that you've ridden all the latest and greatest. But I'm struggling to see why it's so fun. I see that it has a ton of traction when climbing and monster-trucking ability in the chunder, but beyond that I see leg-burning pedaling, awkward handling, and muted jumping and dropping. All three of those are the opposite of what I look for in any bike. It sounds like it's more novel than fun. After all if it's really so fun, how could it be relegated to second or third string in the garage? Should I want one because it makes a specific type of trail more fun or because it's a novel experience on the trails I typically ride? While riding other bikes, do you actually think, " this is fun but I'd be having more fun if I were riding the Bucksaw..." Because of so, I'd better drink the Kool-aid. But it doesn't seem like that's actually the case.
  • + 3
 Been feeling the same, lots of hype but little convincing... and I've been asking to be converted. It seems like it's all about the novelty. I'm kinda failing to see where it would really shine other than loose surfaces and quite frankly most bike trails are already designed to be ridden without fatbikes so what do they bring to the table?

I don't want to question mike's skills at all as he's most likely leagues ahead of me, I admittedly suck at climbing and I know pictures can be deceiving but the picture with the tricky climbing caption doesn't look like anything hard to climb on a regular bike. I guess that my point is that I'd like to see stuff being done on a fatbike that would make me go "wow!" and it hasn't come anywhere close to happen yet.
  • + 1
 "More fun than any other bike I've ridden in years..." is a serious claim

You're right. I think it's untrue. I think you're right with novel. Imagine someone who gets the best bikes chucked at them routinely, tests them, has 'fun' and finds them largely a similar experience. Spoilt for choice? Not much left to experience? Who knows. But one thing is sure, that fatty will feel crazy when you've been riding carbon this, 27.5 that and 26lbs the other. And that kinda wake up, slap in the face feeling, if you're getting bored of riding yawn 'another amazing bike', might be portrayed as massive fun. Bearing in mind fun is just a three symbol noise we spout that can mean pretty much anything to anyone.
  • + 1
 I'd like to see stuff being done on a fatbike that would make me go "wow!" and it hasn't come anywhere close to happen yet.

Exactly! I wanna see a tight little dj fatbike for example.. coz it doesn't snow here. And kinda coz I don't see a use for a longer travel freeridey fatbike etc.
  • + 18
 I don't see why people are so adamant about saying fatbikes are pure hype. They are incredibly practical and versatile. It's a mountain bike with a big fat tire. The hype is in your head. Fatbikes are not novelty items either. They are mountain bikes with a big fat tire. That big fat tire is the key to creating a bike that excels in an enourmous variety of conditions and situations. If you try and compare a bike with big fat 4-5" wide tires apples-to-apples with a bike that has 2.1-2.5" tires then you are doing yourself a disservice. If you are certain a big fat tire is not for you or your home-base trails and conditions, then it's probably not for you or your home-base trails. If you think you like riding in conditions and places where a wider tire with huge traction and compliance could help, then you owe it to yourself to try one. They are not slow either. They are what they are. A bike with a big fat tire. It can go faster than any other bike in some situations and conditions, and slower than any other bike in others. But they are much faster and more fun all-around than you would believe. I'd say the less the trail/condition resembles a mountain bike trail, the more a big fat tire will excel.
Am I a convert? I don't think so. I'm a mountain biker. Fatbikes are mountain bikes. Certain ones have more merit than others depending on the trails and conditions. For me, a fatbike was the Best bike investment I have made because it can keep me on the bike no matter the weather or time of year.
A DH wonder sled or a XC featherweight make no sense for me and where I ride, but they are perfect machines for their intentions. Are they hype too?
  • + 7
 Ignore whether there is hype or not. Just notice that the majority of people who try fat bikes say they had a ton of fun. For a lot of people it won't be worth buying one, but they are fun. As for climbing, it is absolutely ridiculous what is possible with that much traction. I find myself choosing horrible lines on purpose, meanwhile grinning about the person on a normal bike who attempts to follow. Fatbikes won't win races but they do change the experience. Your normal trails can be ridden differently. It's like trying out a new trail system without having to drive to a new trail system.
  • + 2
 For some people, fun comes in the form of something new. For myself, getting a cross bike has made riding fun again. Full rigid and skinny tires is a throwback to the beginnings for me and a boring fireroad becomes a challenge. I don't have any plans to buy a fat bike, but I wouldn't pass on the chance to at least try one. When you spend so much time on the latest Enduro wonderbikes, something completely different might actually be more fun.
  • + 2
 lumpy & tobius hit the nail on the head, I think; different is fun! my wife and I rented fatbikes this past weekend to ride in the snow and it was stupid fun. we hardly went 4 miles, but just having those monster-truck tires under us made us grin. it's hard to explain why a 30+ lb, goofy-looking bike is super fun, but they just are.

oh, and I sure wish I could be "bored" of trying out all the latest and greatest bikes. Smile
  • + 3
 I use mine a bit different than most, but it is a great tool in our Michigan winter. Them BMX kids gave up on the local spots when the weather turned. Fatbike don't care. Fatbike don't give a shit. I hit them leaf and stick covered jumps same as summer. And when the dirt is a bit spongy, and them BMX kids can only sink into the terra firma? Fatbike don't care. Fatbike don't give a shit. I float over that spongy soil like hardpack. And when there is an inch or two of fresh powder on them jumps? Fatbike don't care. Fatbike don't give a shit. It just takes what it wants.
  • + 12
 When will you all realize that all things fat mean fun times... ...fat bikes ...fat beats ...fat cigars ...fat women
  • + 3
 can you roll a fat bike in flour?
  • + 1
 It's a fatbike, so it can't say no. Ride it hard, and ride it often. For you, though, I'd recommend a steel framed fatty, for the smaller diameter tubing.
  • + 8
 I want it... i rode a Spesh Fatboy, and it was fun splashing through mud bogs and and just monster trucking over everything, nah, won't be on it all the time, but it puts a goofy ass smile on my face, a different smile than the "i survived" smile after a gnarly run blowing through single track on my Slash
  • + 7
 Until someone offers winter seals for the rear shock (they're now available aftermarket for the fork at least), its really not a full blown winter snow bike. Anything below -15C (5F) is going to basically ruin the suspension performance, both from the shock/fork oil thickening and probably the seals leaking... and then its hello bottomed out suspension.
  • + 6
 Agreed. I am under the impression that many people think these are ideal cold weather bikes, but unfortunately the suspension is a waste of money if you are riding colder than -15C These would be so much fun above that though im sure!
  • + 4
 Local salsa shop that basically has sold more fats (total, not merely counting salsas) in Ottawa than any other brought in a SINGLE bucksaw this winter along with a few dozen mukluks and bear greases and black burroughs. They've sold thru half the hardtails and nobody has bought the bucksaw. They also sell carbon fat bike wheels and quite a few locals have ponied up the $1600 for fancy wheels for their fats.
  • + 4
 Did you even read this article @deeeight? They basically come right out and say it's not meant to be a snow bike.
  • + 0
 Do people really ride in -15 weather?
  • + 4
 -15 Celcius? Yepp.
-15 Fahrenheit? That's cold, but yeah, a lot of people where they experience this kind of cold regularly get out in those temps often. We don't get That cold where I live, but I've been out in the coldest of our winter days/nights which is generally at or just below 0 F. You dress for it. Hands and feet are obviously difficult to keep warm on the bike and are very crucial. Easiest route to warm hands are to use pogies. Proper winter boots along with gaiters and flat pedals are one of the best ways to assure comfortable feet in the coldest of cold.
  • + 1
 This is a bit damning for salsa. Most of the people who would buy a fat bike just can't ride it most of the winter due to weather concerns. And yes, to the guy from Mexico, we do ride at those temperatures.
  • + 1
 Yes, I ride in those temperatures, because I'm not a Nancy. Bikepacking in the Roosevelt National Forest, north of Rocky Mountain National Park, for example.
  • + 0
 I rode in -25 on friday, and riding in -16 today. I have thought about fat bikes for winter, but wouldn't want to spend 1500+ on a bike I'm going to be exposing to the elements and some of the nastiest grittiest salt and gravel, and since I already have a road bike and 29er I ride all summer, there's not really room for a 3rd bike...having said that, if this is what people want, you can't deny supply and demand!

This won't ever be a 'standard' but rather a niche. If people are going to be angry about standards, be upset with cannondale for coming out with a new bottom bracket standard every year...
  • + 1
 Since the Bluto is a fatbike specific I would have hoped they made it more cold weather tolerant than normal fork...

My rockshox front and back suspension (and Shimano brakes!) got pretty f*cked up when I rode in -1F a week ago. Frown The good thing I guess is that the best snow riding is often to be had in warmer conditions.
  • + 2
 @maxlombardy

Yes I read the article, and they actually said... "a fat bike that isn't intended to be used solely in the snow or sand where you'd usually picture such a machine"

However, for those not comprehension impaired that means that it is ALSO taking snow/sand into consideration supposedly, except really they did a poor job of that. Had they put any thought into the bikes being ridden in snow, and with snow you need cold temperatures, they'd have spec'ed suspension MEANT for a wider temperature range. Oh and maybe taken the changing spring curve of an air spring when the suspension fork/shock is exposed to cold ambient air with a very small internal air volume for the springs into account and made the suspension based around COIL springs instead of air springs.

fat-bike.com/2014/12/turnagain-releases-extended-temperature-range-seal-kit-for-the-rockshox-bluto

"Rockshox forks are rated to function perfectly above 32vdegrees Fahrenheit, are known to have some performance issue down to 10 degrees Fahrenheit and are not recommended at all for temperatures below 10 degrees Fahrenheit. The new ETR Seal Kit makes all that go away giving the rider full confidence in year-round ridability in all temperatures."

Its currently -18C (0F) here air temperature with a -31C (-24F) windchill, and already one friend of mine has called (at 9:52am) asking if I wanted to go out for a ride. And there are hundreds of folks riding around the region today in the same conditions.
  • + 1
 Wow amazing. The coldest i've ridden is -1 celcius, but it was a once in long while acomplishment, thats how we saw it a big acomplishment. at -15 temperature i think my main concern would be my house waterpipes not breaking. Drfinitely not biking
  • + 2
 @VanGoghsEar: "If people are going to be angry about standards, be upset with cannondale for coming out with a new bottom bracket standard every year..." you mean BB30, which has been their only BB standard for more than a decade?

One in a 14 year span = ever year? What?
  • + 1
 Heh, logic on pinkbike...why let that stand in the way of a good rant. I'm waiting for the sea otter reports where pinkbike members at large learn of the new hub standards.
  • + 2
 @deeeight Actually I was specifically referring to this part:

"The one caveat here is going to come down to snow, with the largest of tires obviously making a big difference when talking about floatation rather than knifing down through the white stuff and doing your best scorpion, and the Bucksaw isn't able to accept anything larger than a 4.0'' wide tire"

i.e. if you want a snow bike, get one that has 4" + tires, something other than the Bucksaw. Your comment references the rear shock, you said it makes the suspension useless in cold temps.
  • - 1
 Well mike is wrong... because the majority of fat bike riders don't even own bikes that can accept those tires. The majority are using bikes that can only take 4 inches. And ya know what, they work just fine in snow. I've used Nates, Larrys and Husker Dus which are all 3.8 real width (on 82mm rims). My comment actually referenced both the shock AND the fork. Having to buy an aftermarket seal kit for a brand new bike just so the fork will work properly when the mercury dips, its not smart designing in my opinion.
  • + 2
 I think the majority of fatbike owners have tires at or below the 4" mark because that's what's been available the longest. Most people in the market to buy now are looking at frames that are able to accommodate a 4.8/5" tire. The standards now exist to support them, where the earlier bikes like the moonlander had to make due by using existing stuff and then offsetting the chain-stays and make other compromises. I know I'd rather have the versatility.
I also agree that they should have built the suspension with cold weather performance in mind. Same could be said about dropper posts too. Fork, shock, and dropper on the Bucksaw will fail once well below freezing. However I think this bike would do exceptionally well in extremely rocky, sandy, unimproved terrain like high alpine, Moab, Sedona, desert type stuff.
  • + 2
 Here's my take:

Fat bikes are great all around adventure bikes. If you want to ride in variable conditions, to include non-packed snow or sand, a ~4" tire is the only way you're going to be able to do that. I've busted my ass enough times on a 29x2.25" tire to learn that lesson.

Will they win an XC or DH race any time soon? Unlikely. Will they get you across a remote area, with a wide array of conditions, better than anything else out on the market? Yes.
  • + 1
 Pretty much that's the way the bikes are used. In this area with cold weather and usually lots of snow and lots of groomed fat bike trail options, there are plenty of owners using them in the summer also. Hell KHS is calling their fat offering the Four Seasons, and its a good name choice (compared to all the brands naming after often mythical animals).
  • + 7
 I want to have fun, I want to be a goon!
  • + 3
 This is a damn good bike. And that's just it. It's a bike. It has 2 wheels. Fat ones. It lets you ride just about anywhere. It's fun. It makes you smile. So many naysayers here. I guess such is the nature of things we don't understand. Go ride one. I for one, am truly interested in the evolution of this breed.
  • + 2
 Must be winter. There sure are a lot of comments on Pinkbike today. Mostly negative and self-righteous. Take up a winter sport people! It's a bike, and a report. Buy it if you're interested. Don't if you're not. It poses no threat to you, does not insult you, and will not force you to choose something you don't want. Define your own fun.
  • + 2
 I would love to see some Strava times comparing the Bucksaw with any other Trailbike on your favorite loop. It would be really really helpful, because "is going to feel portly and slow when the trail smoothes out" or "there are places where you'll be going just as fast, if not even a touch faster, than on your regular bike" doesn't mean anything for all of us who have never tested a Fatbike.

There is no need to go crazy with power meters, RR Tests or anything like that, but it's hard to imagine how a fatbike works when we have so little info.
  • + 1
 I have a local loop that is about 12 miles, and has about 800 feet of climbing. Its a very easy ride. It takes me an extra 6 minutes or so on the fat bike, then my Yeti 575. But, I also do a lot of goofing off during those 6 minutes, like riding up stairs and such...
  • + 1
 For what it's worth, im about 6-8% slower on my 40lb cheap steel rigid 5" tire fatbike versus my 25lb carbon wonder 4" travel xc bike.

I'm not that much slower uphill, if not faster. It forces you to keep momentum and climbs like a goat. It's downhill that you loose most of your time. I'll bet when I get my bluto it closes the gap between my 2 bikes even further. The fatbike carries way more speed in loose switchbacks.
  • + 2
 I been testing fat bikes for two years now in my track I I have to say that fatty can handle better than most mountain bikes we are getting are hand on the new Foes and what I have heard that bike rocks will let you no.
  • + 2
 So much negativity from people who have probably never ridden this bike or any other fat bike. How can you claim fat bikes have no purpose, try living somewhere that has 6 months of winter, and you might start to understand. I ride every winter, sometimes on 26" studded tires but mostly on my fat bike, and I can tell you they clearly have a purpose, and you now what I also ride it in the summer and it is not about making lines easier to ride, it's about riding a bike that is completely different to "regular wheels" whatever that means, and yes it is a hell of a lot of fun. Also I actually have a bucksaw and it's rad, who else here that feels so strongly against fat bikes has a bucksaw or has even tried one! Quit complaining and ride one it might shut you up.
  • + 2
 I love my FS fat bike. I also love my Yeti 575. And I ride them both all the time. Sometimes the Yeti is funner, other times its the fatty.

Heres a pic
i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac195/beastbike/20131102_104324_zpsc696c2c3.jpg
  • + 2
 Personally not at all interested on spending money on one of these, but stoked they're out there for the people who enjoy them. Funny things happen when weird/extreme/out there things get built and refined - the rest of the sport tends to benefit. Downhill bikes used to be extreme/weird/out there with a very narrow use case - but the industry learned a ton from making them (and making them work well), and a lot of that has benefited what trail bikes are now capable of.
  • + 2
 It's funny how bikes that are slower always seem to be more "fun". I've got a fatbike on the way which I'm stoked on, but I find my regular old fast 29er hardtail pretty damn fun to ride. Maybe the term "novel" is more appropriate.
  • + 1
 Funny, been a long time lurker, but the writing on

Pinkbike is getting so much better I felt *compelled*

to start posting. Had to be the 'Asian street meat'

comment! Next, you guys will be saying, 'Same, same!'

So, looks like the instant center starts at infinity

which should have some really awesome small bump

absorption, which explains why you can't really feel

the suspension actuating.

I really like the comment about the tire pressure. I

have been waiting for an excuse to use my digital

gauge on my bike and I guess Fat Tires actually

*require* it.
  • + 4
 "those who talk shit about fat bikes have almost certainly never spent any time on one"... yes, quite likely...
  • + 1
 Last summer, hipsters in downtown Toronto were riding fat bikes to the coffee shop. While a fixie is easy to sneak in and out of a condo, fat bikes, not so much. Maybe riding fat bikes in gentrifying neighbourhoods are code for I own a detached home downtown...
  • + 1
 i've ridden quite a few bikes, though i must say i'm really enjoying my salsa bear grease fatty. i was looking for a hardtail for dh off season... i thought, what the heck! i'll try a fatty. works well in the soft stuff and bush whacking... at 24lbs it's light, though will put on a bluto once i can get some cold weather seals. right now it's -23c with the windchill and lake effect snow squalls... look forward to riding my local trails
  • + 1
 fat bikes are mountain bikes. period. i have a beargrease, i've had 29r hardtails, i have a mojo hd with 27.5 wheels, i've owned a bunch of dh bikes and i just got a bucksaw in early nov. people can hate on fatties and that's fine because they aren't for everyone but either are dh bikes or "enduro" bikes. most of the ski industry laughed at shane mcconkey when he rode fat skis with "rocker" and look where skiing is today...
  • + 1
 I brought a fatboy and love it. I disagree with the fork comment and love it because it is so different and uncomplicated and fun. We rarely get snow and I just use on normal trails. I also use for fitness riding just pump the tyres up to 20psi and it goes real well. Drop the tyres down to 5 psi and it's a super fun exploring machine I describe it to people as the 4wd of mtb. It's the perfect second bike, and higley recommend buying one.
  • + 1
 Is this going to be like the 26-650b-29er thing? some of us get fat bikes, some us stick with normal tyres, thenthe manufacturers meet in the middle and release trail bikes with 3inch tyres and they're hailed as the best allrounders?
  • + 1
 I'd run a Fat Bike, I'd run this bike. MTB is about fun and getting out there and dirty in places that once were u reachable of rideable. Not about hating on Facebook and websites!
  • + 2
 Why a C.F brakestay? Levy's heel already rubbed off the paint, how many more licks till the center of that plastic tootsie pop?
  • + 3
 Remember when nobody wanted a fat ski, that was 20 years ago haha, look at the ski industry now.
  • + 3
 I've been thinking the same thing. Fat skis were looked at as Weird and nearly useless novelties that got pulled out twice a year when the conditions were perfect. Now they are refined and shred the mountain front to back to deep to shallow to powder to chunder to ice and yes, even groomers. Hmmmmm
  • + 1
 Well when we see dh bikes at the world cup having a new wheel size of 27.5+ and that being the "New" standard by which all others are judged you may start seeing my point . What size will it be in 2016 then??
  • + 2
 24" x 4" tyres
  • + 0
 All these novelty bikes coming out make me feel secure that my recent 6" travel, 27.5" wheeled all-mtn singletrack destroyer won't be outdated for a long time. Apparently the bike industry has done everything they can with that segment, and are moving on to ridiculous ideas to sell bikes.
  • + 2
 Fat bikes have been around much longer than 650b, just sayin, give one a try before you decide what's relevant.
  • + 4
 All of the sudden it's cool to have a 26 inch wheeled bike.
  • + 3
 I like fatbikes because they make my fairly overweight body feel skinny :-)
  • + 0
 So is a rear shock needed or even noticeable on a fat bike? Not clear from the review, but the way he emphasizes the necessity of a front shock and yet remains rather silent on how the rear feels in compairison to all the hardtails he's ridden, I'm guessing no.
  • + 3
 The reason people rode rigid up until this year is because there weren't shock options other than dyi and one boutique inverted fork. Big tires aren't really suspension. They absorb a bit of impact but then bounce. The bounce limits fast cornering on rough terrain. Seriously, the bouncing is significant. Whether rear suspension is required, there will be no agreement on that just like there isn't for traditional mountain bikes. Different riders and different terrain...
  • + 1
 He talks that the rear suspension is not noticeable for climbing but doesn't seem to indicate what difference it makes on the descent.
Wouldn't you reduce the bounce by dropping psi?
  • + 2
 Reducing psi actually produces more bounce. Not the usual getting knocked around like will happen with any bike, but actual rebound from compressing the tire and then it springing back.
  • + 0
 No way. Less air inside of anything, especially rubber, makes it bounce less. Go deflate your basketball and see what happens. Reducing psi would certainly be the equivalent of reducing rebound on a shock.
  • + 3
 That is oversimplification of theory. Sure, the basket ball example is true, higher pressure bounces higher. But tires and human riders are not that simple. Look at the fat tires as being like a trampoline. Jumping on a trampoline bounces you upward. Jumping on a hard floor does not. I can't explain the science but I think it has to do with how much force your legs can withstand and over how much time that rebound force is applied. It determines whether a rider stiff legs all the way through a longer rebound or must absorb a hard but short rebound. Seriously. Try it sometime. Do a multi foot drop at 8psi and then at 28psi. I would bet you bounce higher at the lower pressure. I certainly do.
  • + 1
 Slow and ungainly? I'll agree that it's a bit ungainly at times, but it's certainly not slow. It may feel slow at times but I've been surprised to come home and find PRs, 2nds and 3rds on my Strava.
  • + 2
 Radials will probably solve the slow steering problems and roll faster. That would be a huge thing that i would totally buy
  • + 1
 I test-rode the Bucksaw earlier this summer at a Salsa demo day. The ride is all about having fun. Once the trail turned downhill I was laughing all the way to the bottom.
  • + 2
 This fatbike has united the world in conversation... it can't be as pointless as it initially seems Smile
  • + 2
 Trying to measure the butthurt between this thread and the "AM bike of the year" thread and it's challenging.
  • + 2
 Perhaps a fat bike should be a fully rigid simple machine that brings back the rider in bike riding. It looks cool .
  • + 2
 Thing is....
I thought the whole point of fat bikes was the tyres made suspension un'neccesary?
  • + 1
 That never was the point, and I have yet to read anyone say that, actually.
  • + 1
 thats a lot of money for a bike that's "all about being a goon"

But then MTB is a sport for people with a lot of spare cash, so im sure they will sell some.
  • + 1
 @mikelevy I wouldn't mind getting one, as long as I can convert the wheel size back to 27.5 or 26" with the same geometry. Know that would be a game changer!
  • - 1
 Ignoring the pointless banter about fat bikes in general… that der mount is fugly. Just don't even bother, most anyone would run a 1x if buying a new bike, especially a fat bike. And I'm curious how many rides it took for the hoe to start wearing the paint on the seat stay and, since it is carbon, how much wear it would take for that to become a point of failure?
  • - 1
 Why does a fat frame cost 1000$ and the same frame, but not as wide cost 300$? Is this like Porsche, where not having a stereo in the car costs more than adding a stereo?
This thing costs more than a Kona Operator Carbon and offers nothing more. What gives with fat frames???????????
  • + 1
 This bike looks like a blast to ride! For a fat bike it's pretty sexy looking too! I had a chance to ride a hardtail fat bike last summer and I had a blast on it Smile
  • + 2
 Would like to see how a gearbox works on a bike like this. Seems like a fitting platform to try a gearbox on.
  • + 2
 How about a low profile Derailleur in a box?
  • + 1
 Is this not the 3 inch tyre craze from years ago being brought back to life. Yet another gimmick but a fun one I have to admit having ridden a fat bike.
  • + 4
 Looks like fun times.
  • + 1
 I have a Surly Moonlander and it is awesome. It plows through snow like a champ. Living in Wisconsin it is nice to be able to ride outside year around.
  • + 2
 ok. l have never ridden a fat bike, and l probably never will…l just don't get it, you know?
  • + 1
 If you live in an area with significant snow (CO, NorCal, UT, WY, MT, WA, OR, parts of AZ and NM) it's pretty much the only way to ride. You can ride in conditions that you couldn't previously, like snow and wet trails. I can see sights that very few people will every see. Looking out into the Rockies after a winter storm, as the sun comes up, is something that you have to see to understand.
  • + 1
 l get that…l get to see it from a snowboard perspective. here in bellingham, we can board at baker one day and ride galby the next, really no need for a fat bike
  • + 2
 Sold my fatbike after 2 seasons because I experienced almost negligible differences between it & a rigid 29" in the snow.
Still searching for conditions that prevent me from riding a 29" when fatbikes can...hasn't happened in over 20 yrs of riding in snow, the last 8 in CO.

Sure, fatbikes are fun, but my DH bike supplies >9000 times more fun.
  • + 2
 fat bikes are no fucking joke anymore damn
  • + 1
 Fatbikes can't be ridden hard eh!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzb8P0zScW8
  • + 1
 So a fatbike's intended use is for sand or snow, why is there the need for suspension?
  • + 1
 Because evolution. Many, many products' intended uses are distant memories as people have adapted their use into other realms. This is just another example.
  • + 2
 Want want want want want want WANT!!!!!!!!!!!
  • + 1
 makes me think of a scene from waynes world. 'She will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine'
  • - 2
 i'm seriously looking at a fatback purchase, but not this one. i think the whole point of a fatbike is to have something that'll handle snow 1st and foremost. the 3.8 tires won't do that. and it's too expensive. RM blizzard or spesh fatboy are at the top of my list. bucksaw isn't even worth a look. and i hate the name - bucksaw, what is that? take my 5000 bucks and saw them in half? stupid. no thanks.
  • + 1
 One of the nicest looking wide bikes IMHO... Still not jumping on the bandwagon, but a nice looking mount.
  • + 0
 www.pinkbike.com/photo/11778397

here is my fully suspended fat bike. Made it my self
  • + 1
 im sure they'll sell 3 of them worldwide.
  • + 0
 Why not a half past term between fat bikes and "normal" bikes? THIS i think it would be really fun and worth!
  • + 1
 Wait, what??? The easter bunny doesn't exist???? WTF?
  • + 1
 OK, I want one! But who will be first with a full sus 29er Fat Bike????
  • + 1
 I wonder what the tire size measures out to after being mounted on the wheel....probably somewhere in the 29 range. A 29er wheel would make the thing gigantic!
  • + 1
 It would be rather large, so ye your right and will prob be OTT!!. 26" is 24" rim with 2" rubber, so the Salsa is 24" plus 4", not far eh!! To be honest, ill have a full rigid 26" fat bike, that will do me.
  • + 1
 This is already a 29er effectively if you compare the outer diameter. I'm really interested in the 24" fat bikes which have an outer diameter closer to 26 or 27. But seems like there is only one right now by on one.
  • + 1
 I do like the on one fatty's, good prices too! Have a lot of time for on one, just built a 456 evo 2, great bike!!
  • + 2
 People run 29er wheels on regular fatties for summer riding, pretty much no clearance problems.
  • + 1
 Rocky Mountain's upcoming sherpa is a full suspension 650B plus. WTB is making 2.8 width tires for the 650B size rims and poof, effectively a 29er diameter but with much more air volume and floatation in a tighter handling package. Surly's offered their 29er plus krampus (700C x 3.0 width, effectively a 31er) for a couple years now as a fully rigid hardtail but nobody big has shown any interest otherwise really in the tires/rims.
  • + 1
 The really cool thing about 27.5+ is that those wheels will fit in almost any 29er frame. mid-fat enduro 29er? holy hell, do I want to try that out.
  • + 1
 Actually they won't. Many 29ers already have a lack of width room in them. The ones that'll even clear a 2.4 are pretty rare.
  • + 1
 Ahhhh, semi fats!
  • + 1
 @deeeight www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/trail-tech-exploring-27-5-42832 They fit any frame that can run a 29x2.3, dimensionally. & I'm sure there will be slightly smaller tires made for people that can't quite squeeze 2.3 in the rear.

Shouldn't be a problem on an enduro 29er.
  • + 2
 RedRain32, Framed bikes also makes a 24" fatbike, the Mini-sota 2.0: www.framedbikes.com/minisota2
  • + 0
 I've read that article and its wrong and so is WTB's assumptions on tire clearance. Most 29er frames, especially full suspension frames do not have clearance for extra meaty 650B tires, even Enduro ones as no manufacturer offers any tires with that much width. I have two salsas, a niner, and a pair of GT 29ers (including a 120mm travel trail full suspension) within steps of me to measure and none have room for the 650B plus tires WTB is offering. Again its like the people complaining about fat bikes and tires sizes/pressures without ever having used one. What someone claims on a review isn't always the case in reality.
  • + 1
 @groghunter

"In my mind, biggest advantage is that the overall outside diameter of 27.5+ fits within the same diameter as a standard 29x2.3in wheel," Koski said. "This means frames, forks and drivetrains can be designed around the same envelope as standard 29ers, with the extra width being the only additional major consideration"

And right there is the part you missed in the bikeradar article, "extra width"... and to date, very few 29er frame makers (outside of the ones doing 29+ models) have considered allowing room for extra width of tires into their frames, since no such tires requiring such width existed or were likely ever to exist for the riding most 29er users were doing.
  • + 1
 @deeeight Really? cause these guys tried em on a whole mess of bikes, & just had to run a narrower rim(than the 45mm one that WTB debuted with those tires) to make it clear: twentynineinches.com/2014/08/22/wtb-trailblazer-27-5-x-2-8-tires-exclusive-b-review-intro
  • + 2
 Lol 5k? no thank you
  • + 1
 Fat bikes need to go on a diet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • + 3
 Don't try it. I'll jack yo' ass like a looter in a riot!
  • + 1
 TOO late I am already doing it,
  • + 1
 link don't work for me?
  • + 1
 I was quoting Cypress Hill. :/
  • + 1
 I wonder how the reverb performs at freezing temps.
  • + 1
 It doesn't... That's how. Seals shrink, air escapes, oil leaks. Then after you warm it up back at the house and pump it back up to 250psi, the post will fail to stay at the top of its extension due to oil escaping, as you will now have empty air-space in the oil filled cartridge. RockShox is aware of this though, and offers the remedy of not using it in temperatures below freezing. I hope Turnagain, or someone else comes out with an extended temp-range seal kit for the reverb, as they have for the Bluto.
  • + 1
 So not a good match for a fatty since, though it is not limited to to snow, that is one of the benefits of having massive tyres.
  • + 2
 Yeah not a great match, but there's not really much else out there that would be better and stay within the OEM pricepoint I'm sure they were trying to work with from SRAM, so I can see why they chose to go with the Reverb. Thompsons are supposed to perform well in the cold, but I'm not sure exactly How cold and are much more $. Gravity Droppers are not affected by the cold but are ugly IMO and may be difficult to secure as OEM with for the kind of scale Salsa may have needed. KS's will fail in the cold. Not positive but I think the DOSS will fail in the cold as well. The Nukeproof OKLO is the most promising looking dropper post for reliability and cold weather, but they don't offer it in 30.9 yet, only 31.6 unfortunately. At the end of the day, the Reverb was probably still the best choice to offer as OEM despite the inability to use it below freezing. A rigid post isn't a big monetary commitment if you intend to ride it below freezing and get the seal upgrades for your fork, and the shock if/when it becomes available. Who knows, maybe a seal upgrade will be made available for the reverb, and maybe Salsa knew of this when making a decision... Pure speculation but I can hope! lol
  • + 1
 "It doesn't... That's how. Seals shrink, air escapes, oil leaks. Then after you warm it up back at the house and pump it back up to 250psi, the post will fail to stay at the top of its extension"

Yeah, worked well for me at -5 but at -15 I had that exact same scenario happen to me. I thought it would be a good argument for mechanically actuated telescopic seatposts but I've read forum posts of people claiming they're not doing any better in the cold (they seize too).
  • + 1
 Which mechanical posts have you heard of seizing/failing in the cold? I've heard of the gravity droppers getting stiff because of the boot, but people just remove the boot to avoid that happening in the cold. I've also heard of people putting a lighter viscosity oil in their posts to tune them for cold weather, like the Specialized command post, but not sure of the extent to which people are having success with that. The guys at CRC said they have tested it in the cold and left the OKLO in the freezer overnight and it was unaffected by the cold and continued to operate fine, so they said its fine for cold weather. Now they just need to make a 30.9!
  • + 1
 Command post and yeah, I read about the possibly viscosity fix. Apparently all the hydraulic ones do bad past -5c.

Had problems with my derailleur too on that -15c ride, had to adjust the cable on the fly to make it work good as it wouldn't go for the easiest gear anymore. Everybody seems to say that there "shouldn't be a problem" riding bikes in the cold but I don't think they were designed for -15c or lower in mind. In most cold weather riding posts, their version of cold isnt below -5c so you have to be careful when going through those
  • + 1
 I think Waki was onto something..
www.pinkbike.com/photo/11737863
  • + 1
 interesting and entertaining review mike, thanks
  • + 0
 Is this the future of 26'?
  • + 4
 Lol. Isn't it funny that 26 inch on fat bikes are totally cool but anywhere else, they don't work.
  • + 4
 because with that much tire, it's essentially a 29er.
  • + 1
 That is why 24" wheels would make a come back with 4" wide tyres
  • + 1
 Where did they go? I have a 24" bike on my stand right now. :p
  • + 1
 "anywhere else, they don't work" :::throws away 26-inch bike because it don't work:::
  • + 2
 On One offers a 24" x 4 fatty already.
  • + 1
 sweet bike=))))
  • + 1
 I WANT THIS BIKE 87
  • + 1
 beautiful Big Grin
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2017. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.130693
Mobile Version of Website