--
SHARES
  

Today has been the day for fat biking news! Hot on the heels of the announcement of the first-ever fat bike suspension fork comes–you probably guessed it–the announcement of the first-ever production full suspension fat bike!

Salsa is naturally leading the charge in this category, with their new Bucksaw FS fat bike.

The Bucksaw features an aluminum frame with carbon seat stays and 100mm of front and rear suspension (although if you upgrade the Bluto to the 120 model, I’d wager it’d give the Bucksaw a much more aggressive trail/AM ride to it, if that’s what you’re looking for).

The frame features a “177mm symmetrical thru-axle rear spacing standard for optimal shifting, [and] maximum rear tire clearance is 3.8″ fat bike tires mounted on 82mm rims,” according to Salsa. While it looks like the stock tires will be 3.8″ front and rear, since the Bluto fork can accommodate up to a 4.8″ tire, presumably you could swap in a fatter front tire for even more bump absorption and flotation.

Photo: salsacycles.com

The Bucksaw 1 build kit pictured above, and retailing for $5k, will sport the Bluto fork, RockShox Monarch RT3 LL3 S 320 rear shock, a SRAM X01 1×11 drivetrain, a Salsa cockpit with carbon bars, SRAM Guide RS brakes, RockShox Reverb Stealth dropper post, Salsa Fat Conversion hubs, Surly Marge Lite rims with holes, and Surly Nate 26 x 3.8″ 120 tpi folding tires.

Bucksaw 1

The more affordable $4k Bucksaw 2 build kit is quite similar, but instead features a combination SRAM X5/X7/X9 2×10 drivetrain with a clutch-style Type 2 rear derailleur, alloy bars, SRAM Guide R brakes, and a Truvativ T20 seatpost.

Bucksaw 2

This rig will be available in 16″-22″ sizes (S, M, L, and XL) in the fall of 2014.

For more information on the development of Bucksaw, check out the back story on the Salsa blog.

--
SHARES
  
# Comments

  • delphinide

    Haha…too funny. I wonder if they were waiting until Sea Otter and saw the news about the Blizzard and pulled the trigger on the press release. I bet this is super fun with some Nates…I’d love to give this a roll around some of the more technical trails and see what it can do. I hope they offer a frame only version.

    • Tim Kremer

      Was just thinking the same thing delphinide! ‘3 years in development’ running a front fork that dropped today.. I feel like they had to sit on this till the Bluto got released.

    • dgaddis

      ^bingo. I bet they’ve all been waiting for RockShox to give them the go-ahead. I bet there’s more squishy fatbikes coming too.

    • maddslacker

      Or the new Panaracer fatty tires, also just announced.

  • jkldouglas

    I read the article this morning and have thought about it on and off throughout the day. The main question I keep asking is “What purpose does this bike serve?”. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the more options the better, but this bike seems to be the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

    I get why people who live in locations where it snows a lot own fat bikes or where there is a lot of sand. However, most photos I see of people fat biking show them plowing through powder or riding on groomed trails. Neither of which need suspension. The photos provided by Salsa, on the other hand, shows a guy riding the bike in the desert, but why would you do that on this bike? Wouldn’t you rather have a snappy trail/enduro bike? I know most fat bikers will say “It gives you so much more traction”, but the last time I checked, my 2.3 on the rear of my bike gives me plenty of traction wherever I go and with a lot less rotational weight and rolling resistance. For instance, riding this bike in Sedona would be like eating steak with a butter knife. Yeah it works, but it isn’t really the best tool for the job.

    I could see this being purchased by someone that lives where it snows a lot but only wants to own one bike. But other than that don’t see the point of this bike. I would love to get the opinion of someone who has a different opinion because I may be missing something and am always up for a good discussion.

    • stumpyfsr

      Many might ask the same question. You have to ride a fatbike on the rocky loose trail (Bootleg Canyon, for example) yourself to understand how much fun in riding fatbikes and how welcome suspension would be.

    • jkldouglas

      I guess the key here is one’s definition of fun. I have ridden a fat bike before and didn’t think it was fun, however for those who do this is just the next step in the progression.

      I’m sure that people think the same of me for riding my rigid SS half the time.

      The other issue I have is the price. I guess the expected low volume as well as the early adopters fee probably drives the price up, but you could buy a lot of nice bikes for what they are asking for these.

    • stumpyfsr

      Absolutely agree with you on price part. It’s more then high. I wouldn’t spend even 4k on this. The price might go down in a few years, probably. Still it is a different category of fun. I do enjoy riding my fully 29er. But when I travel across country in winter, a fatbike is a perfect do-it-all go-anywhere bike. One day you get it dusty at Goosberry Mesa and the next day you wipe that dust off with fresh Montana snow. It is slower climber, requires more skills and fitness but it is fun. And this is my personal opinion.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Trending