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.
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.
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.
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.
9 Comments
Apr 10, 2014
Apr 10, 2014
Apr 10, 2014
Apr 10, 2014
Apr 11, 2014
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.
Apr 11, 2014
Apr 11, 2014
Apr 11, 2014
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.
Apr 10, 2014