Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 103
  1. #1
    jrahm
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    67

    Bucksaw or Fatmoth?

    If any of you have been thinking about this, I'd be interested in your observations. I am migrating to an FS fat bike...Bucksaw or Fatmoth. It may be a can't-go-wrong kind of decision, probably would love either. At the moment I am on a 2007 29er ti racer-x, 4" bike, pretty light and nimble but not so stiff and actually a bit too small. I am selling it.

    I enjoy aggressive descending and expect either bike would serve in terms of grip and travel, but what I am newly interested in is bushwhacking. I live in the Ponderosa forest, the high desert of Oregon, often big scattered trees with relatively open ground below. To just get on the bike and go, that's the dream. That said, there's 400 miles of great singletrack of all kinds within 30 miles of where I live (Bend/Sisters OR).

    I suspect the Salsa will be a bit more agile, shorter wheelbase and chain stays. Maybe a little bigger tire patch, so more float in snow or sand. Lenz rolls over stuff better and may climb better (bigger wheels) and with more travel probably bombs rough descents better. I have heard from the Krampus guys about the grip of the Knards.

    Both brands have stellar reputations and make great bikes. Lenz is $500 more. Maybe this is mostly a wheel size decision. Any thoughts?

    thanks
    John

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133
    Do you want a fatbike or a 29+ bike? Looks like the bucksaw won't be 29+ compatible. The Lenz will certainly be a better trail bike.

    FS 29+ makes more sense to me than a FS fatbike. I don't know if either would be ideal for bushwhacking, though. Where are you putting a frame bag on a FS rig? Get a Pugsley or ECR for bikepacking.

  3. #3
    jrahm
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    67
    I want one bike for all things, in my case mostly trails (usually flowing, moderately technical) with sides of day trip bushwhacking and trackless exploration, and then snow riding. I think either bike will do all these things. I wonder most about the relative nimbleness of the two bikes, likely will not get a test ride on either. Pretty sure the fatter Salsa's the better winter bike, but how good in summer? Sea Otter reviewers really liked it on the trail.
    If I could get a ride on the bikes, all my semi-informed cogitations would mercifully end

  4. #4
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Just in case anyone else was wondering.

    cogitation[ koj-i-tey-shuhn ]
    noun
    1. concerted thought or reflection; meditation; contemplation: After hours of cogitation he came up with a new proposal.
    2. the faculty of thinking: She was a serious student and had a great power of cogitation.
    3. a thought; design or plan: to jot down one's cogitations.
    Last edited by bdundee; 07-12-2014 at 06:40 AM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    175
    Go with the bucksaw. It will give you more options. Fat wheel set in the winter and 27.5+ for the summer. Imo the variety of options coming down the pipeline will make fat bikes the stable killer.

  6. #6
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Owning a FatMoth as I do, (as well as a few fatties including an early FS) I can say that it's become my go to bike. My fervent wish is for more aggressive tires, but those are coming.

    That said, a fatbike, it is not, nor will ever be.

    If more of your riding is fat prone, sandy, explorative, loamy, make your own way type stuff, then the Bucksaw makes sense.

    If more of your riding is trail bombing, railing corners, small bump munching etc, the 'Moth will be fantastic.

    Basically, fatbikes are great, but if a lot of your riding is high speed, climbing, firmer surface, etc, you don't need the width as much as the roll, and 29+ rolls like a bat outta hell.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,091
    I have often thought that a FS fatty could be a jack-of-all-trades bike. I love my 9ZERO7in the summer with Hudu and Knard on RD, and in the winter w/ Bud and Nate. I am a larger fella @ 235lbs and love the ability to lean that b!ch over in the corners, climb whatever, and float over whatever.

    I really feel like the big tires are just "right"! You can ride them on the road, then drop the pressure and ride them on the trail, then drop the pressure a little more and ride in some nasty river bank type stuff. When he snow rolls around just switch the tires and BAAM, you are ready to ride snow.

    I am just now building up a Banshee PRIME, and I hope I love it. Other wise I might consider having only one bike. But fear that with the frequency I break things, I will miss having a backup.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    251
    [QUOTE=jonshonda;11319680] I love my 9ZERO7in the summer with Hudu and Knard on RD, and in the winter w/ Bud and Nate. I am a larger fella @ 235lbs and love the ability to lean that b!ch over in the corners, climb whatever, and float over whatever.

    Just had my second ride on knards on my 9zero7!Big change from two years of running nates front and rear!. I am curious if you run the knard or the husker du up front??? I loved the grip of the nates but they are like a boat anchor compared to the knard.

    Are you on the 27tpi or the higher thread count tires? I am also around 230lbs so have opted for the 27tpi tires to date but I don't know if that is really the way to go. I assumed that the 27tpi tires would be better for heavier riders.

    Also, curious if you have tried running a Bud up front with a Knard on the rear? So far, so good but I suspect I will be looking for more bite up front. OTOH, got caught in a storm on the first Knard ride and they performed well overall.

    But to address the OP, maybe consider a used Pugs or better yet, Moonlander for your exploration rides and consider either a 29+ wheelset or a new FS like the Fatmoth. I love riding in the winter but it is hell on components.
    Last edited by Team Honeybadger; 07-12-2014 at 07:21 AM. Reason: keeping it on topic

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Honeybadger View Post

    Just had my second ride on knards on my 9zero7!Big change from two years of running nates front and rear!. I am curious if you run the knard or the husker du up front??? I loved the grip of the nates but they are like a boat anchor compared to the knard.

    Are you on the 27tpi or the higher thread count tires? I am also around 230lbs so have opted for the 27tpi tires to date but I don't know if that is really the way to go. I assumed that the 27tpi tires would be better for heavier riders.

    Also, curious if you have tried running a Bud up front with a Knard on the rear? So far, so good but I suspect I will be looking for more bite up front. OTOH, got caught in a storm on the first Knard ride and they performed well overall. Thx
    I have a 27tpi Hudu F and 120Tpi Knard rear, only really cuz that is what my lbs had in stock when I wanted summer tires. I would have gone 120 Hudu F if I had the option.

    I have not yet tried the Bud up front w/ a Knard, as I don't know what situation would ever require so much traction up front. Also the traction of the Bud might not work well with the traction of the Knard in back, and the overall diameter of the Bud is much larger than Knard, and might throw off the feel of the bike. But if you have the options and time, try out everything you can!

    Its the spice of life my friend.

  10. #10
    gone walk about
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,632
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Just in case anyone else was wondering.

    cogitation[ koj-i-tey-shuhn ]
    noun
    1. concerted thought or reflection; meditation; contemplation: After hours of cogitation he came up with a new proposal.
    2. the faculty of thinking: She was a serious student and had a great power of cogitation.
    3. a thought; design or plan: to jot down one's cogitations.
    you sir have far too much time on your hands.

  11. #11
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,020
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty View Post
    you sir have far too much time on your hands.
    45 years old retired with 6 kids, Yes and no.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8

    Bucksaw baby.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrahm View Post
    If any of you have been thinking about this, I'd be interested in your observations. I am migrating to an FS fat bike...Bucksaw or Fatmoth. It may be a can't-go-wrong kind of decision, probably would love either. At the moment I am on a 2007 29er ti racer-x, 4" bike, pretty light and nimble but not so stiff and actually a bit too small. I am selling it.

    I enjoy aggressive descending and expect either bike would serve in terms of grip and travel, but what I am newly interested in is bushwhacking. I live in the Ponderosa forest, the high desert of Oregon, often big scattered trees with relatively open ground below. To just get on the bike and go, that's the dream. That said, there's 400 miles of great singletrack of all kinds within 30 miles of where I live (Bend/Sisters OR).

    I suspect the Salsa will be a bit more agile, shorter wheelbase and chain stays. Maybe a little bigger tire patch, so more float in snow or sand. Lenz rolls over stuff better and may climb better (bigger wheels) and with more travel probably bombs rough descents better. I have heard from the Krampus guys about the grip of the Knards.

    Both brands have stellar reputations and make great bikes. Lenz is $500 more. Maybe this is mostly a wheel size decision. Any thoughts?

    thanks
    John


    I broke my Beargrease frame and decided to go Bucksaw because we bought one for my wife, had a custom shop carve out the rear triangle and hooked up a set of 29+ ers to it. What a great setup. Sure stopped me from having to look back to see where she is because anytime there is a downward slope...I'm looking at her backside.

    Just picked up my carbon bucksaw frame...mounted all my Beargrease gear to it and found heaven on earth.
    Yes, everything was perfect in life and no further upgrades were needed...the flowers smelled better, the air was crisper, hell, I even looked kind of handsome in the mirror...and then my lbs says...hey Todd, check out these 650 B+s.
    Crap! They were like riding a pillowy freight train or something. I mean, I know the bike is heavier thank my mtb but who cares. so what if the climbs take a couple seconds longer. At the top, you just point and...dang...look out below lol.
    The tubeless 3"ers just grab at everything. And that back end squats and kicks me out of the turns like some kind of slingshot or something. I don't know how to explain it really. Freight train and slingshot aren't typically used to describe the same thing...I'll just say the search for my perfect ride is over.
    4" til spring then...B+ for me for the summer. Talk about a quiver killer.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    446
    sorry to the OP and errbody else...'freight train' derail ahead...

    ToddyB, your broken Beargrease = carbon or alu? Details? PM me if you like. I am so NOT trying to start sh*t by asking. Let's just call it curiosity for now.

    EDIT: Nevermind, I found a few threads with enough info and idiocy to answer my questions. Beargrease wasn't on my radar at all until a few days ago. Feel free to reply here but it's not on me at this point if it incites a material-brand-bashing holy war.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,005
    Fatbikes, for now, are limited in fork travel and fork selection. That's almost sure to change, but for now...

    29+ is limited in tire options compared to fatbikes. That too will change, but it appears to me that 27.5+ will be better supported. 29+ dedicated or 27+ wheelset on a fatty is splitting hairs. The magic is in the volume and tread design, not the precise diameter. Frankly, undersized 26 fat rubber on a 47mm rim is a dynamite summer tire.

    29+ is NOT a snow bike, unless you intend on exclusively well packed groomers.

  15. #15
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    29+ is where I spend the vast bulk of my time, especially since the DW's finally hit, damn that tire is insane.

    I can't see losing a blessed mm of OD, so why would I want to lose some to B+ is beyond me.

    100% agreement. any + does not equal fat in actual conditions.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8

    Beargrease rocks!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by frozenmonkey View Post
    sorry to the OP and errbody else...'freight train' derail ahead...

    ToddyB, your broken Beargrease = carbon or alu? Details? PM me if you like. I am so NOT trying to start sh*t by asking. Let's just call it curiosity for now.

    EDIT: Nevermind, I found a few threads with enough info and idiocy to answer my questions. Beargrease wasn't on my radar at all until a few days ago. Feel free to reply here but it's not on me at this point if it incites a material-brand-bashing holy war.
    No holy war needed my BG was the love of my life (shhhhh...Tammy's still sleeping) until she fell off the back of my truck at 65-70mph on the highway. She was carbon and just a great bike...a great bike...that I would recommend to anyone.

    The rides I've talked about on the Bucksaw were all test rides from my lbs. Last night I brought home all my BG gear attached to a bran-spankin new carbon Bucksaw frame...kinda like an organ donor program...My BG has set me up with a mini version of that crazy-priced Bucksaw. On her way out. I hate to say this but, falling out of my truck was the best thing that ever happened to my BG. I would have never looked at another bike if that hadn't happened. I was totally happy with that rigid rear end until I rode that squishy thing. Now, i hope I never have to go back.
    This coming from an almost 48 year young, ex-fullback, ex-middle linebacker, ex-wrestler, ex-general badass that thinks if a shark bit his leg off while swimming, he could wrap some duct tape around the stump and finish the day. Seriously, I always kinda thought you guys on the FS bikes where kinda soft. Now I've realized...your all just smarter than me

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438
    The best thing about the BS suspension is that it disappears...you don't even notice it working. But man, does it ever.

  18. #18
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by sisu View Post
    The best thing about the BS suspension is that it disappears...you don't even notice it working. But man, does it ever.
    I have that long ride hangover today from spending 5 1/2 hours on my Bucksaw yesterday. Love it.

  19. #19
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by sisu View Post
    The best thing about the BS suspension is that it disappears...you don't even notice it working.

    Okay, so I'm not sure how to get into this without starting a flame fest, but you are correct. However, I wouldn't say it's the best thing about it, I'd say it's the worst. FOR, ME!!!!!

    Great bike, well made, beautiful workmanship etc.

    But coming from a long line of bikes that I can feel the sus working, I find this utterly disconcerting. I use that *motion* for working the bike in corners, popping over logs, etc.

    Without it, the bike feels dead. Like a hard tail that somehow absorbs bumps when you aren't looking. I'm running it about 40 under recommended pressure just to get some sort of "feel". Large hits, I get some, small to mid, it's like there's nothing happening.

    Not saying it's bad design or anything like that, but I've been holding my tongue as I didn't want to appear to be crapping on the design, because I'm not.

    Can anyone speak to the fact that this is what Dave Weagle is seeking in his designs?

    As it is now, it's a fun bike, but it sits, I just really prefer a more active feeling design.

    Well there, I said it, feel better too

    This is a discussion opener, nothing more, color me curious. I generally look at this as a chocolate vs vanilla sort of thing.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438
    Interesting stuff, Craig. I wonder if the Pony Rustler will be more to your liking, with the additional travel. I'm going to ride one today, if the queue to ride it isn't a mile long.

    My FS 29er is a carbon Scalpel, and that suspension also disappears for me (and not because I lock it out, which I do on almost every ride). So maybe I'm used to suspensions that aren't very active feeling,

  21. #21
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    I rode an fsr for over a decade. That was a VERY active suspension. I always felt it compress whether I wanted to feel it or not. It was okay but could be annoying in pedaly situations.

    The Bucksaw is different. I am beginning to get a better feel for the suspension and am using the adjusters more when I want to firm things up on long climbs or open them up on long downhills. But my local trails have lots of short hills so I rarely mess with things at home. I feel a general firmness of smoothness to the suspension on the terrain but I do not feel specific shock compression. I like it that way really.

  22. #22
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,558
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    coming from a long line of bikes that I can feel the sus working, I find this utterly disconcerting. I use that *motion* for working the bike in corners, popping over logs, etc.

    Without it, the bike feels dead.
    Zackly. My first ride on a 'saw I didn't much care for--attributed it largely to the heavy/slow tires w/tubes.

    Next ride was a month+ later, and on a pimped out rocket of a 'saw with carbon hoops, go-fast tubeless tires, etc... Honestly didn't feel much different. No matter how much energy I poured into the pedals, or into moving the bike around beneath me, I didn't feel any return on that investment. Like a black hole.

    I too come from a long line of active suspension designs, and love to use the suspension to hop and pop and keep the ride lively. Simply wasn't possible to do on the 'saw. In short, it seemed to reward a sit-and-plow rider. I can be that guy at the end of a long day, or a long week, but it's not why I ride bikes.

    FatMoth and Fatillac are polar opposites to this feel. Very active, very lively, very spirited. You can sit and plow on these bikes too, but they beg for a more active/aggressive style to bring out their best.

    My $.02.

    I don't think this dead feeling is a trait common to all Weagle bikes. The DW Turner Sultan I spent time on had an *incredibly* active feel. Like few other bikes I've ridden. Wonder if the King Khan shares that attribute?

    If I owned a Bucksaw I'd have invested in a Cane Creek Inline by now, or at the very least would have fiddled bunches with the standard shock tune, air volume, etc...

  23. #23
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,682
    Dead feel? Not my experience at all but I'm running 650B plus carbon rims. It is the most pumpy jumpy BMXish bike I've ever had. Super fun & agile. The B plus has same diameter as standard 29er and for our tight and twisty New England trails I have no interest in larger wheels.

  24. #24
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by sisu View Post
    Interesting stuff, Craig. I wonder if the Pony Rustler will be more to your liking, with the additional travel.
    My FS 29er is a carbon Scalpel, and that suspension also disappears for me (and not because I lock it out, which I do on almost every ride). So maybe I'm used to suspensions that aren't very active feeling,
    I don't think it's a travel issue, I had 100 mm Super V's BITD that felt much more active than this. Heck, my 90 mm ProFlex 957 felt like it had more travel activity!

    The Scalpel, current version, I have ridden, and it's decidedly less active in many ways than bikes I prefer, but it's designed that way for the XC rocket racers who want minimal monkey motion (not me). It does have some of the feeling I'm missing though, a little bit of settling back and in into travel if you will. Feedback might be another way to express it.

    The BS just doesn't talk at all.

    I have a FatMoth so going to smaller B+ wheels makes no sense to me (nor am I looking for a proper feeling "replacement" for the 'Saw). I spent a solid month on the BS just getting fully settled into it, then took a ride on my 'Moth and felt like I'd finally come home. Just railed it that night, so much more confident feeling.

    Figured I'd bring it up, as a few have asked me offline, my thoughts, and I've seen several folks mention this feeling in a positive way so I knew I wasn't crazy, and also understand that what one person sees as a negative, could well be viewed as a positive by others.

    Salsa deserves a lot of credit for sticking their neck out, as well as doubling down on Rock Shox to get the Bluto going, so I didn't want to start a Bucksaws suck thing, cause this isn't that.

    I just really don't see myself using it much until the snow flies and the folks hit our trails with boots and no snow shoes and post hole the living hell out of them. Sadly, it won't suck up the bumps in a way that I'm accustomed to, so I'm left hoping the next FS fattie design will come from someone who thinks bikes should ride the way I like them to!

    Curious that other DW's don't ride like this does Mike. I figured it had to just be his special sauce if you will.

    I know there's much ado made of how much time they spent tuning it to work "with the big tires" and, as someone who's been playing with suspended fatties for almost 5 years, maybe I'm just simple minded, or not educated enough to appreciate the nuances of suspension and tires the way the pro's are, but I seem to be able to get a Lefty built for "skinnies" to ride like a damn laser guided missile with no ill effects brought on by the larger tires, so it does make me wonder what in the heck they were searching for, and what characteristics they were seeking to tune out, that conventional suspension couldn't.....

    Funny, it's not like I can just call someone at Salsa and have a conversation, it would all just be cloaked in marketing BS I fear. I'm literally just curious, because it's so starkly different feeling to me, and I can't figure out why, or how to make it work the way I want.

    Anyone else notice the rebound on the rear has little impact? I realized I had it jacked to fully slow, just got there a click or two at a time as I rode and tweaked, yet was still get bucked (pardoning the pun) over larger hits, I would have figured it'd certainly be slow and sluggish feeling by that point.

    I may talk to RS about tweaking this unit, maybe increasing air volume if possible, something. Mike, got a customer on a Cane Creek, he's not yet in love, and comes from a Moto back ground where tuning is the norm. Not sure I want to sink that much jack into a bike that I appreciate, but don't feel is a keeper long term.

    Tell Devin to get busy, will ya?
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  25. #25
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I rode an fsr for over a decade. That was a VERY active suspension. I always felt it compress whether I wanted to feel it or not. It was okay but could be annoying in pedaly situations.

    The Bucksaw is different. I am beginning to get a better feel for the suspension and am using the adjusters more when I want to firm things up on long climbs or open them up on long downhills. But my local trails have lots of short hills so I rarely mess with things at home. I feel a general firmness of smoothness to the suspension on the terrain but I do not feel specific shock compression. I like it that way really.
    I never liked the FSR. Sits me too upright and high in corners.

    That said, I'd be curious if yours was "pre Brain"?

    Assuming it was, I'd venture a guess, you'd probably like it with the Brain a lot more.

    I'd go so far as to say the Brain feels a lot like a BS. No appreciable suspension action till you hit a big enough bump.....

    Mine's a lot softer than suggested, and yes, I too fiddle with the lockout lever a fair bit to throttle it into shape for different ride situations too.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  26. #26
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    Dead feel? Not my experience at all but I'm running 650B plus carbon rims. It is the most pumpy jumpy BMXish bike I've ever had. Super fun & agile. The B plus has same diameter as standard 29er and for our tight and twisty New England trails I have no interest in larger wheels.
    Not a wheel/tire thing at all, it's a sus design thing......

    And yes, fun and agile for sure, just that the squish isn't squishing the way I like squish to squish!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  27. #27
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    I never liked the FSR. Sits me too upright and high in corners.

    That said, I'd be curious if yours was "pre Brain"?

    Assuming it was, I'd venture a guess, you'd probably like it with the Brain a lot more.

    I'd go so far as to say the Brain feels a lot like a BS. No appreciable suspension action till you hit a big enough bump.....

    Mine's a lot softer than suggested, and yes, I too fiddle with the lockout lever a fair bit to throttle it into shape for different ride situations too.
    Yes my fsr is pre brain. By a good bit. I rode a 1st gen brain on an epic bitd and HATED it for what that's worth.

  28. #28
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Ha! At least we can agree the Brain, ain't all it's cracked up to be....

    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  29. #29
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    Huh, this is an interesting read. I love my Bucksaw, I don't feel the suspension at all, and I can't say that's good or bad, just the way this bike rides. I don't consider it a dead ride (until next time I ride it and I think about this thread :-D).

    When I rode my friend's Enduro 29er, I definitely felt the suspension way more than the Bucksaw. I also felt like the Bucksaw absorbed the small hits way better than the Enduro. I rode some really technical stuff today - certainly the Bucksaw worked as well or better than any bike there.

  30. #30
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    I was thinking about this discussion while I was out riding today. A very xc-ish trail, but one with lots of rocks. Not big, chunky stuff for the most part. More crumbly rock, some of it loose. A few areas with flat, smooth slabs and small drops.

    I would agree that the suspension design of the BS is beneficial for sitting and pedaling. I don't tend to stand and power through things much. When I stand on the BS, I'm usually either coasting or doing more of a low gear rock crawling type of riding. I wouldn't call the bike dead feeling in the rear end, though. Definitely wouldn't go that far. I DO feel it squishing if I do things to try to feel it squish. It's just that with the way I ride, it does its thing quite seamlessly and it winds up benefiting me rather than noticeably serving as an impediment. My old FSR can do both, depending on the situation. Part of that may well be the shocks in question. My old FSR really doesn't have any compression damping of any sort and you can tell.

    I do sort of have a wild hair to upgrade the rear shock on my BS to a Cane Creek DBInline. That will be awhile, though. I have several purchases higher on the priority list, with a teardrop camper slated for a late fall/winter purchase.

  31. #31
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,682
    I was also thinking about this on yesterday's ride and I think I understand what Mike & Craig mean. There is no ejector seat type rebound. It's not a springy or bouncy rear suspension but it works just fine for me.

  32. #32
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Definitely first world problems we're talking about here!

    It works, absolutely.

    I think I'm just at a point in my riding where I've tried a mess of different suspension, and when something comes along and works altogether differently, it makes me go "huh", and wonder why it does that, and is it on purpose, if so why, etc.

    FWIW, rode a buddies Niner something or other a few years ago, it felt similarly, but far worse. Like it was great for soaking up big hits, but just ignored small to mid sized ones.

    Any rate, appreciate the input all!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  33. #33
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    I keep thinking about this thread! I've had a lot of different suspension types over the years, including the invisible/rigid kind. I guess I've kind of adapted to each and figured out how to ride them.

    I see what Mike & Craig are saying - they have found the type of suspension that works for them and want a bike that acts a certain way. I guess I'm not like that, I ride a new bike figure out how to get the most out of it and go from there. In my last 6 or so bike purchases I only rode one of them for a significant time in the woods before buying it (demo RIP9), and there have been some very different bikes (RIP9, RacerX, Enduro, Rocky Mountain Switch). I guess I would be a terrible bike reviewer as I was happy with every one of those purchases!

  34. #34
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Jisch View Post
    I guess I would be a terrible bike reviewer as I was happy with every one of those purchases!
    Based on what I've seen from magazine bike reviews (*coughMBAcough*), I think that makes you perfectly suited to write bike reviews!

  35. #35
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    Ha!

    "This bike is weird, but I got used to it and I love it" - summary of every bike review I would write.

  36. #36
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,807
    Bikes are fun, bike riding is fun.

  37. #37
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Jisch View Post
    they have found the type of suspension that works for them and want a bike that acts a certain way.
    Yep, having had a few custom frames built at this point, I definitely have preferences in terms of handling etc.

    No right or wrong, whatever blows your hair back.

    Yeah, you'd make a fine reviewer, as long as the company you were reviewing had their advertising bill paid up, you're reviews would be spot on...
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  38. #38
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Jisch View Post
    they have found the type of suspension that works for them and want a bike that acts a certain way.
    Errr, sorta, but not exactly. I've ridden a lot of bikes, and typically if the geometry is close to what I like then I can tune (and/or adapt) the suspension to work. For me, geo is always #1 priority, and suspension design/action/"kinematics" a far distant second. I hated the Turner geo but the suspension was incredible. The Bucksaw geo was tolerable, but the sus was just a non-starter. If I'm carting around the added mass of FS, or fat wheels/tires, there damn well better be an advantage to doing so. There simply was no benefit to the sus on the 'saw, not in stock trim anyway.

    Bet you could work around that with a DB Inline or (at minimum) a whole lotta internal fiddling with the stock damper.

  39. #39
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    To say there is no advantage to the suspension on the Bucksaw is too big a step for me.

    Not that Strava is the be all/end all for how fast you're going, but I have set a lot of Personal Records on this bike and I'm having a blast on it (the two are likely linked), but if the suspension added nothing then my times on my Fatboy would be better than the times on my Bucksaw. Certainly air time is way more fun (well the landings) on the Bucksaw than the Fatboy.

    I was headed out for a solo ride at a local place on Saturday morning. It was just a fun, clear my head, clear the trails (recent wind storm) type ride, I knew I wouldn't be hammering. I had the Fatboy off the pegs, but at the last minute I decided to take the Bucksaw, it's just a lot more comfortable and fun than the Fatboy.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,658
    I also found the BS not to my liking, it felt flat in the back end, not dead, just "not there". I ride an Atlas 29 CF with the same suspension and I like how it rides though it bobs a bit in certain gears. I'm not sure if it's just due to the BS having less travel than I'm used or something else.

    The Mutz has a single pivot, it doesn't bob, it can be set up active or supple, and it climbs very well. I'm not sure how that's possible considering it's such a simple design, but it works and that's what matters.

    I'd be curious to try a Turner KK, but I have yet to even see one.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Errr, sorta, but not exactly. I've ridden a lot of bikes, and typically if the geometry is close to what I like then I can tune (and/or adapt) the suspension to work. For me, geo is always #1 priority, and suspension design/action/"kinematics" a far distant second. I hated the Turner geo but the suspension was incredible. The Bucksaw geo was tolerable, but the sus was just a non-starter. If I'm carting around the added mass of FS, or fat wheels/tires, there damn well better be an advantage to doing so. There simply was no benefit to the sus on the 'saw, not in stock trim anyway.

    Bet you could work around that with a DB Inline or (at minimum) a whole lotta internal fiddling with the stock damper.

  41. #41
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Jisch View Post
    To say there is no advantage to the suspension on the Bucksaw is too big a step for me.
    From your perspective (you're already invested) that makes sense.

    From the perspective of someone looking to buy, it's hard to think of the 'saw as worth the $$$$ in stock trim.

    In other words I'm not right, and you're not wrong, we're just looking at the coin from opposite sides.

  42. #42
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    Agreed, I'm invested $$$, but I'm also having a blast.

  43. #43
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Jisch View Post
    To say there is no advantage to the suspension on the Bucksaw is too big a step for me...
    I'm also "invested", but ride any hardtail on nasty postholed snow, then ride the BS and tell me there's no advantage. Not buying it.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,658
    There is clearly an advantage to riding an FS fatty, but it varies greatly based on the user and the use.

    I use my Mutz for everything, bike park, tech riding, XC. It's a bit of pig for some uses, but it's a good climber, and point it downhill and it rips.

    The only thing holding the FS fatties back is the lack of a good fork. The BS sucks, even with a rebuild it is still sticky.I want a good 140mm fork, then I'll bump the travel to 5.5" out back, that ought bring it together.

    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    I'm also "invested", but ride any hardtail on nasty postholed snow, then ride the BS and tell me there's no advantage. Not buying it.

  45. #45
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    I use the BS for all my riding as well. Mostly that's very technical XC with lots of short, punchy climbs and descents. I ride with some fast riders and I can find no evidence this bike is slowing me down. Does that mean I'm in front of the fast riders? Nope and I could be on a motorcycle and probably not be in front of them. I'm not a racer so my ultimate goal is NOT winning or whatever, but part of me "having fun" is going fast, and I wouldn't be happy if I felt a bike was making me go slower.

    I've done a very small amount of DH on it, but not enough to be able to make any judgement there.

    I ride for one reason - to have fun and the Bucksaw delivers (to me) big time, but that's just me. I liked it a lot more once I put less aggressive and lighter tires on it.

    Hopefully this doesn't sound defensive. Of course I'm defending my purchase to some degree, but if I had a problem with it I'd post up here.

    Oh yeah - pedal strikes, I have had some painful pedal strikes. I haven't checked the BB height against any of my other bikes.

  46. #46
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    What I didn't, and don't, want, is for this to mean any owner should feel the need to defend their bike, sell it, regret it's purchase, etc. And, if you did based on my personal feelings, I'd really be uncomfortable!!!

    If it makes you smile, not much else matters.

    This really is more of conversation along the lines of, what tire works best for X conditions, etc. Many differing opinions out there on just about anything.

    I'd simply seen the comment about the suspension "not being there, being invisible, disappearing underneath me" etc enough to feel my observations were not unfounded, and thought it time to bring them out, since no one seemed to be talking about that aspect, just saying it in passing, and to me, it's not desirable trait.

    Knowing how may folks out there love their Spesh Brains, or Fox Terra Logics though (both designs I personally can't stand) I know there's way more room on the dance floor than just my personal space.....

    I'd love to try a Mutz some time, I do prefer single pivots without a bunch of controlling devices to minimize what I feel,makes them so great for the way I ride.

    If yer happy and you know it ride yer 'Saw!
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  47. #47
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    This thread hasn't diminished my love of the BS at all - it did make me think about how it rides and works, anything that makes me think is a good thing.

    To me the BS brings the fat tire traction, cornering and low bump absorption that I love together with a little bit of forgiveness in the back that allows me to go faster. Maybe I'd love the Mutz more than the BS? Maybe that will be my next bike, who knows.

  48. #48
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,354
    A design as basic as the BS should react just fine to shock mods by Push and Avalanche. In stock trim, it's not going to do well with sharp edged hits due to the low pivot, the inherent compression damping and preloaded valves (platforms) that come on most air shocks make this even worse. Like an FSR, up steep stuff, it should squat, again the low pivot is likely the culprit, the harder you try to pedal up a steep incline, the more if fights back and absorbs energy. Again, a good shock tune will usually help with this, although not completely erase it. Unfortunately, most bike designs haven't caught up with the single-ring setups being used out there and manufacturers are resistant to designing separate versions of the same thing for 2, 3 and 1 ring setups. Using a single ring setup on a bike designed to climb in the granny will result in worse pedaling attributes usually. It's too expensive for the shock and frame manufacturers to get together and "tune" the shock for the rider and bike, so they do mass produced one-size-fits-all, reacting to what they think the majority of the buyers want (platforms, etc.). With a good shock tune you can usually have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too. The CCDB pioneered being able to offer this without a custom tune, although it's still not as good as a custom tune, but it was a good start. The Fox X2 looks to build on this, but in any case, I'd recommend a good custom tune or at least a higher end shock to get the most out of the bike, either that or live with it. It's not the most advanced suspension design obviously, but it IS suspension and it should work decently most of the time, as there are no glaring design issues with that configuration.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,655
    Thanks for this discussion. My build is currently on the stand. My point of comparison will be Giant Maestro. All good food for thought and glad to see many have various interpretations of what and how it is working.

    This is a thinking man's thread in an era of, "just tell me what I should buy."

  50. #50
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Thanks Jayem, good thoughts.

    I guess I was really putting this out there because there's so much splatter from Salsa/DW about how much work went into it, how many versions of the shock, how they custom spec'd the longer rear end of the shock, etc etc etc. It puts me into a mindset of "well, if they put that much into it, this must be exactly what they were going for"....

    Which is fine if that's the case, and it's opposed to what your implying, which is, they made a bike, and plugged a rear shock into it, so naturally, it can be made to work better. I tend to agree, that tuning is often required to get it to work just right (it's what I do with Leftys for folks all day long).

    I guess I was just curious if I was missing the point, having not ridden any of DW's rigs before if this was really his vision, and therefore, just not my flavor, or if tuning the shock would net anything since supposedly, the sus design was so thought through it might mute any attempts to tweak it.

    May just all be marketing, I've no idea......

    Jisch, Mike coined a phrase (I think at least, it was his phrase) "thinkering", and yep, basically what I'm doing out loud, come on along for the ride if you like
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,655
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    ....... there's so much splatter from Salsa/DW about how much work went into it, how many versions of the shock, how they custom spec'd the longer rear end of the shock, etc etc etc.

    May just all be marketing, .......
    I'm leaning towards the later. It's a Spearfish with a wider rear triangle and an additional spacer welded between the outer halves of the BB/pivot cluster. Massaged design, not OMG from the ground up.



    I'm still looking forward to riding it though.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,658
    I appreciate learning from the suspension savvy folks, I really don't know much about the engineering aspects other than I like what I like. The hard part is asking for opinions and having to choose which opinions to follow. I got lucky on the Mutz, my buddy decided to carry them in his shop and it turned out that it rode the way I like a bike to ride.

    I'm kinda picky, in the last couple I went through a couple FS bikes (650, 29) and a bunch of frame sizes before I stuck with the Atlas. I didn't get the Atlas for the specs or suspension design, I bought it for the way it rode. After riding the Atlas, I tried the BS because it has the same suspension design as he Atlas, but I did not find they shared the same ride feel; the Atlas feels more active in the rear.

    The CC in line is a really nice shock, perhaps that would liven up the BS? I have played with the CC inline on the Mutz and I find it is easy to go from supple to active, though making small changes is best as the setting options can quickly get confusing.

    Having more suspension also seems to a increase activity, so maybe if the BS was 120mm in the rear? There was one BS rider who put a 140mm fork on a BS, if I remember correctly, he found it unbalanced.

    I feel like the "suspension race" is a lot of hyperbole, otherwise a single pivot like the Mutz could not possibly function as well as a more complicated linkage system.

    I think an FS fatty should have a minimum of 120mm suspension in the rear. Limiting travel to 100mm is like riding an XC bike, it takes the sting out, but it does little for big hits, drops, etc..., which is how an FS fatty will typically be ridden.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sparky697's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    72
    As someone who has never owned a fs bike I'm a little curious as to exactly what you mean by suspension disappearing. I'm thinking like in a luxury car where you feel nothing as opposed to a sports car that still sucks up the bumps but you still feel them. I've ridden a BS and loved it. I do want to compare to a Mutz though.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    I'm leaning towards the later. It's a Spearfish with a wider rear triangle and an additional spacer welded between the outer halves of the BB/pivot cluster. Massaged design, not OMG from the ground up.
    When you don't like the Bucksaw DW cause of Spearfish similarities and marketing then just buy the Turner King Khan

    Course that is the fat version of a Turner Burner, so better go for the Lenz Fatmoth .. ohh wait, that is a fat version of their Mammoth ..
    ok, so best to just get the Foes Mutz - That shouldn't just be a fat version of their XC bike even if it looks quite similar ..

  55. #55
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,682
    Maybe the "dead" suspension is why this bike pumps so well. In any case, I have owned at least 10 different full suspension bikes and none have been as close to perfect as this one. YMMV

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,655
    Yes I get the tongue-in-cheek as every manufacturer trickles down tech and geo across the line. But harkening back to the PR that Mendon is referring to, we were told this was specifically a new fully vetted and engineered fat platform, not just a fattened Spearfish. Maybe the Spearfish is a Bucksaw on a diet. Mind blown.

    "These are not the Droids you are looking for..."
    "..These are not the Droids we're looking for."

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Crunch406's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    56
    I sometimes wonder how I get sucked into discussionns like this. But I think several people here spend too much time theorizing bike design, and not enough time riding said bikes. One person here says how much he dislikes a bike that I read somewhere else he only rode one in a parking lot, and that the bike was not properly sized - or set up for him. I love riding bikes! I liked my 29er hardtail on my front range trails, but it beat me up in Moab. I replaced it with a 29er Trance1, and i really liked that bike, but I felt like I would benefit from more traction when hucking it around some singletrack. I had a Necromancer that had sooo much traction, I naturally thought a fs fatbike might be what I was looking for. I rode a Mutz, and a King Kahn that were built a little lower spec and wasn't really impressed. I rode the Bucksaw1, and it just seemed to fit me better than the other two. I got it for a better price than either of the lower specced bike would have cost. To be fair, I would have been happy with wharever bike I chose. With the BS, I am riding more than I've ever ridden because it is so damn much fun. For those who think these bikes are too hefty, get out and ride more. I am 50, in decent shape, but from south FL with no real cardiovascular background. I now live in Colorado, and ride around 8000ft with a minimum of 1500ft of climbing and I promise the bike is not holding me back!

    While I do appreciate people discussing design, some of you just need to get out and ENJOY your bikes.
    Surly Krampus
    Salsa Bucksaw1 4"/B+
    Salsa Mukluk 26x3.8/29+

  58. #58
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    I think it might be the opposite problem - some people have ridden too many bikes :-D I'm happy in my little world with the bikes in my shed, probably if I rode more bikes I'd be unhappy. Actually this is one of the few times in my almost 30 years of biking when I wasn't looking for a new bike (just carbon hoops).

    All good, and I appreciate the thoughts put out here by everyone, it's ok to disagree, really it is!

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438

    Bucksaw or Fatmoth?

    This discussion hasn't spent much time on wheel size...something the OP was after. Are 27.5+ or 29+ wheels best for FS rigs? That's something I'm still wondering,

  60. #60
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    Also worth pointing out - I find my Bucksaw build to feel like a very different animal to the stock version I got to demo before I built mine. Many of my component choices were based on impressions I had from that demo ride.

    Lighter wheels and tires make a huge difference to the overall handling characteristics of the bike.

    I don't know what other people mean when they say the suspension "disappears". What I mean when I say that is that I don't feel the bike bouncing away as I pedal it (either from the actual act of pedaling or just from my body swaying around), which my FSR did entirely too much of (from what I could tell, mostly from every little sway in my upper body, not from pedaling forces). I very well know I'm using the suspension travel. I can feel it doing its job, especially on gnarly, chunky climbs. When I am pedaling on the flats, I don't feel the Bucksaw bouncing away. I'm not a super aggressive rider, but the Bucksaw does inspire me to ride more aggressively than I used to.

    I would agree that better suspension bits would liven it up some. The rebuild of the Bluto I did made some difference and did improve its performance, but there's still room for improvement. This is why I'm considering a DBInline upgrade eventually. It should give the rear end a bit more tuneability to change the behavior a bit more depending on the trails.

  61. #61
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by sisu View Post
    This discussion hasn't spent much time on wheel size...something the OP was after. Are 27.5+ or 29+ wheels best for FS rigs? That's something I'm still wondering,
    I haven't ridden many 29+ bikes, but of what I have tried, I haven't cared for them. I've seen a lot of b+ bikes, but they've all been "show bikes" and not available for test rides. I had to work on the day of the local Salsa demo last week, when they had some + sized bikes to ride.

    I think for my next bike, I'd like something I could fit regular 29er or b+ wheels/tires into depending on my ride. Hardtail. Something appreciably different from whatever FS bike I might be riding at the time. I think + sized tires/wheels are appealing for a few reasons. For one, they don't REQUIRE new hub spacing like fat bikes do. It seems to me that the plus-sized bikes are really grabbing the boost hub spacing standard, though. It's still significantly narrower than fatbike spacing, and the associated wider q factor. It seems that having less wheel/tire weight compared to fatbikes keeps some acceleration properties, too. I've been thinking for a few years now that average mtb tire sizes would approach or even possibly exceed 3" and I think the + sizes are really going to push that envelope. I still think the bulk of xc racer types where I live are going to be narrower than that for a lot of years still. But it really looks like aggressive and expedition riding (two growth areas in mtb's right now) are really running with larger tire sizes and they'll push the average up.

  62. #62
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch406 View Post
    ...But I think several people here spend too much time theorizing bike design, and not enough time riding said bikes...
    I've learned not to read too much into some of the advice given here on mtbr. Numbers geeks galore.

  63. #63
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,681
    I agree there are plenty of posers on MTBR, and this thread is not full of them.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I agree there are plenty of posers on MTBR, and this thread is not full of them.
    and how would you know who poses and who doesn't pose?

    all opinions are hyperbole, it's like grains of sand, they don't mean much as they pass through your hands, just avoid holding onto them too tight.

    all I'm saying is don't pick a bike based on advertisements, gimmecks, or claims to be better than another, just go ride the bikes in the "category" that you think fits your needs.

    there is no such thing as a unique anything, all things (including bike designs) are based on pre-existing designs.

    To say you ride more now because you bought a different bike, well, that's kinda silly. I ride the same amount now as I have ridden for the past decade, two to three times a week. I like to ride, I ride the flavor of the month/year, sometimes it's one wheel, sometimes it's two, sometimes it's a tandem, as of late it's been fat and suspended.

    I just built a new muni 24 x 4" that I'm probably going to ride tonight

    as for the OP's question about 650b+, they ride well, it's what I'm spinning, but I'll change to 26 x 4" come winter, swapping out based on conditions and my mood. All things have pros and cons. When I rode muni exclusively (five years), I had four different wheel sizes that I'd rotate through depending on the terrain. I can't really justify four bikes, so I have two bikes, a tandem, and two unicycles

    I find it interesting that the OP started with "BS vs Fatmoth. I'd never heard of a Fatmoth until now. I would suggest to the OP that he try the Turner and/or Foes fat bikes before making a choice. Then of course, if you wait a year, there are certain to be even more choices of FS fatties as well as FS mid fatties.

    and the band played on...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Bucksaw or Fatmoth?-20150729_223608_resized.jpg  


  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Crunch406's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    56
    [QUOTE=Nurse Ben;12120075]and how would you know who poses and who doesn't pose?

    To say you ride more now because you bought a different bike, well, that's kinda silly. I ride the same amount now as I have ridden for the past decade, two to three times a week...

    Well, that's kinda silly to say. Having a bike that I enjoy riding more than any other bike I've owned, makes me want to ride more than I've ever ridden. Makes sense to me. Same as finding trails that are more fun,...
    I guess I'm just not as cool as you.
    Surly Krampus
    Salsa Bucksaw1 4"/B+
    Salsa Mukluk 26x3.8/29+

  66. #66
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    and how would you know who poses and who doesn't pose?
    Yes, exactly. No one present liked either flavor of sweeping generalizations.
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  67. #67
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,354
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post

    Which is fine if that's the case, and it's opposed to what your implying, which is, they made a bike, and plugged a rear shock into it, so naturally, it can be made to work better. I tend to agree, that tuning is often required to get it to work just right (it's what I do with Leftys for folks all day long).

    I guess I was just curious if I was missing the point, having not ridden any of DW's rigs before if this was really his vision, and therefore, just not my flavor, or if tuning the shock would net anything since supposedly, the sus design was so thought through it might mute any attempts to tweak it.

    May just all be marketing, I've no idea......
    Non-DW link bikes can ride just fine, and you don't NEED a DW link by any means, but just to put it in perspective, that specific design can use much less compression damping than anything else, so it has to get a much ligher-tune shock, which in turn makes it eat up those sharp edged hits very nicely, while resisting the forces while you pedal, assuming you are using the chainring size it was intended for. The simpler the design, the more compromise there usually is. More compression damping is necessary to resist pedaling inputs and other forces, more fancy valving and progressive damping techniques are needed, not to mention matching the air-spring curve properly. The more gears the bike has, again, the more it has to compromise between the pedaling inputs across those gears, as opposed to a DH bike that will only ever have a single ring.

    And for even more perspective, I had a DW designed FSR back in the day too. He worked with Iron Horse to design the kinematics for the DH bikes, before he came out with the DW link ones. The DH bike I had was pretty terrible in terms of suspension action and speced with ultra-flexy under-sized chainstay tubes (supposedly DW ONLY worked on the kinematics though, but the bump absorption wasn't impressive at all). The secret of the wheel rate was supposed to be that it was slightly falling rate to start with, which made it pedal better, more like a lower travel bike would be, but that is digressing, the overall suspension with the OEM 5th element shock was just terrible. Like a jackhammer over any real rough terrain. A DHX 5.0 (when it first came out) provided some relief, but it's kind of sad when you can get a custom-tuned coil (like on my 6pack) to significantly outperform the longer-travel bike. I also remember a similar experience demoing some of the Bionicon bikes, sure, they had lots of travel, but it was of such poor quality that my lesser travel lighter bike simply did everything better, without the funky air-system for adjusting geometry and travel.

    In the OEM market, the shocks are usually pretty simple and designed as a compromise for about a 100lb spread of rider weights. This will never provide anywhere close to an optimal ride IMO, even for riders in the middle, as they're are compromises all around to make it work somewhat at the extremes.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  68. #68
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    I had my first ride since this thought provoking thread opened my eyes to how terrible my bike is.

    The BS was still fun and the suspension felt great through the miles of rock gardens and crazy hills. It's still a great bike.

  69. #69
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Just a few thoughts as this seems to be continuing.

    Posers:

    I don't see any here, and it's sad that someone would come in and just toss around vitriol as opposed to adding to the conversation. Not sure to whom you refer, but I know personally, I ride enough to not fit that category, and have owned and worked on enough bikes to have a decent sense of the differences each design can bring, just not necessarily the vocabulary. My questions are centered on this particular design, whether it's the shock, or the design that gives it characteristics that I plainly feel, but have a tough time putting words or explanation to. Those weighing in, aren't (IMO) seeming to act in a poser manner, so it's just a weird thing to say, sorry. So many conversations around here turn into ego based lip boxing once opinions are expressed. I really appreciate that this one, for the most part has been carried out with consideration and thought, not position based poo flinging. Thanks guys.

    Which + is best for FS? I know my thoughts, 29+. Others will differ, which frankly, is why there's about 8 zillion different bikes out there, because there is no best, any more than you'll ever find a Baskin Robbins with the one, best flavor ice cream!

    bme107, "we were told this was specifically a new fully vetted and engineered fat platform, not just a fattened Spearfish. "

    Yes, that's what I meant. I'd love Salsa to be able to articulate what this means. Was it the shock, the linkage/leverage ratios, both? And, more importantly, why? I don't mean, "defend" their position because I'm not currently a huge fan of it (my opinion is worth the air it's carried on), I'm curious what they were working to tune out, tune in, mitigate, create, etc. Why? Because for the way I ride, in the conditions I ride, winter and summer, I don't feel the benefit of this design, and I am genuinely curious what they were chasing in the the design process, nothing more.

    If I'm going to spend a chunk of change to get the shock tweaked, I want to know, is the design going to mute any changes made, because if so, I won't bother, I'll just move the bike on and try something else.

    And, I rode it again last night, with all this in mind. The only additional explanation I can offer is, small to mid sized bumps, you feel absorption, but no suspension motion. Larger bumps, deeper in travel, you feel feel both. It's as if the first 2 or so inches of suspension motion are utterly vertical with no rearward arcing at all. Kind like an FSR in that regard (I always feel very upright on those bikes, never settle into the suspension), but once half way through, it dramatically comes alive, and feels like the designs I like. It's just so odd.....

    Morning all
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  70. #70
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    ....small to mid sized bumps, you feel absorption, but no suspension motion. Larger bumps, deeper in travel, you feel feel both.....
    Sounds ideal to me! And I like 27.5+ because the overall tire diameter stays the same and you don't get the wagon wheel effect.

    Different flavors
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Bucksaw or Fatmoth?-rob-buffalo-creek-crop.jpg  


  71. #71
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    wagon wheel effect.

    Different flavors
    Flavors, agreed.

    I don't understand the wagon wheel "thing" though.

    I get on those big boys, and man, that thing just wants to roll into next year, last week!

    Sounds like you'd be happier on 26x1.75's....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  72. #72
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    The only additional explanation I can offer is, small to mid sized bumps, you feel absorption, but no suspension motion. Larger bumps, deeper in travel, you feel feel both.
    I would agree with this assessment, and I agree with Radair, it's not a bad thing to me!

    Incidentally (and I am not sure why this is), but I am catching more and higher air with this bike than just about any other bike I've ridden (for reference I've owned everything up to freeride bikes in the past - never really using their potential). I don't know if it's the comfort in the fat tire traction, or just the way my riding has naturally evolved, but even friends I ride with comment on how much more air I'm going for with this bike. Strange considering the head angle and the short travel.

    I think the thing you have to be realistic about is that this is a short travel bike and, despite what I just wrote above, if you're looking for a long travel, hucking bike, this is probably not the one for you.

  73. #73
    beer thief
    Reputation: radair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,682
    Wagon wheel effect - those big diameter wheels can be unwieldy in tight & twisty singletrack as is often typical in New England (but you're in NY, right? Not the same?). I'm only 5'-8" so the 650B+ seems to be a better fit for me. My 5'-3" GF loves her 29er but finds places like super tight switchbacks where it's hard to maneuver it.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,655
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    I'd love Salsa to be able to articulate what this means.

    And, I rode it again last night, with all this in mind. The only additional explanation I can offer is, small to mid sized bumps, you feel absorption, but no suspension motion. Larger bumps, deeper in travel, you feel feel both.
    I'd be all ears too.

    That description translated from your mind to text and back into my mind seems to align with a system I believe to check most of the boxes for me.

    Could anyone attempt to strap a GoPro to the bike to capture the suspension motion as it relates to the trail?

  75. #75
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    Could anyone attempt to strap a GoPro to the bike to capture the suspension motion as it relates to the trail?
    I've always wanted to do that, I'll try to remember to do it on tomorrow's ride.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: golfduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    359
    I have no horse in the race other than I love an old bone of a Dos Niner that Salsa makes, and that FS +/fat intrigues the hell out of me.

    I do want to mention though, that Salsa as a whole has perhaps the best travelling demo tour of any bike maker not named Trek/Specialized/cannondale/Giant. Supremely great guys and they genuinely care about the product they carry. It's not worth much in the whole 'suspension kinematics theory' debate, but it is good for average Joes like me to read all of this prior to throwing a leg over a bucksaw/pony rustler at a local demo tour and forming our own more educated decision/opinion.

    That's all.

  77. #77
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by radair View Post
    Wagon wheel effect - those big diameter wheels can be unwieldy in tight & twisty singletrack as is often typical in New England (but you're in NY, right? Not the same?). I'm only 5'-8" so the 650B+ seems to be a better fit for me. My 5'-3" GF loves her 29er but finds places like super tight switchbacks where it's hard to maneuver it.
    Sorry, I knew that, I meant just that I don't experience it personally. Of course it's worth bearing in mind, I've been a big wheel convert since before they were "a thing", so I've had a long time to adapt my technique, style, whatever, to the trails I ride.

    And yes, we have tight twisty, chunky, rooty, techy too.

    I hear the comment primarily from guys on 26" who threw a leg over a 29er once or twice but don't own one, and yet, I find myself stuck to their tails any time we ride together, so I'd say it's really more of a preference, and adapting ones technique, than an actual "detriment".

    Anyone who buys one coming from 26, and spends a month or two on it, finds the feeling dissipates pretty quickly as you learn to work the bike and take advantage of it's benefits, principally, more rooooollllll.......

    You do know, B+ gives the same effective OD as a "skinny" 29, right? Ditto for 26 fat. It's not the hoop size that makes the difference in the wagon wheel effect, but the OD.

    But, as I've said before, whatever blows your hair back!

    bme107, as I read that, I should clarify. I don't so much "feel" absorption, as know it happened. I "feel" absorption and motion, deeper into the travel. Only ever seen camera shots of Leftys in action, pretty cool.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pag9a_2kxB4
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  78. #78
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    I'd be all ears too.

    That description translated from your mind to text and back into my mind seems to align with a system I believe to check most of the boxes for me.

    Could anyone attempt to strap a GoPro to the bike to capture the suspension motion as it relates to the trail?
    I'd be curious to know the impetus behind their choices. I'm going to suspect that while the general split pivot suspension design was a given since Salsa appears to have licensed the use of it for their full range of FS bikes, the details they spent so much time on had more to do with specific placements of the other pivots, link lengths, etc. The operative question being what characteristics were they designing towards?

    I could work to strap my GoPro onto the back of my BS to capture some of the motion. What angle are you looking for?

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Yes, exactly. No one present liked either flavor of sweeping generalizations.
    Whatever floats your boat. I'm not sure I made any generalizations...other than I like one bike more than another and don't buy the hype.

    We all get excited about new bikes, but in the end we ride because we like to ride. Looking for a tool to make your riding more fun is a dead end road <= this is not a generalization, this is an opinion

    I suppose I'm less enamored with tech because I've been riding for a long time, and I ride a lot of styles. At the same time, I appreciate how suspension can improve the ride and make riding more enjoyable.

    Salsa was the first one on the block to have a mass produced FS fatty, so they got the bulk of the early buy in. Salsa also has a great rep, sales team, website, and presence in the demo scene, so of course they get known faster.

    In the end it is a guessing game, which is why demos are really important.

    I'll admit that I got my Mutz without a demo and I was lucky it worked for me. It is possible I'd like the KK more than the Mutz, but I couldn't justify the cost initally without a demo and in the meantime I liked the Mutz.

    Last night I rode muni, tonight I ride the Mutz, this weekend I'm on the tandem, all are fun in their own way.

  80. #80
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Whatever floats your boat. I'm not sure I made any generalizations
    You didn't make any of them. I made a fake one via devil's advocate, that you called out.

    I could bother with enumerating the collection of very experienced riders in this thread, but that doesn't quantify riders lurking through here that are also experienced.

    Point is don't drop the lazy "just go ride more" stuff when you don't know your audience.

    It should be one of those moments to pause and think "Should *I* be riding my bi--
    Disclaimer: I run Regular Cycles (as of 2016). As a profiteer of the bicycle industry, I am not to be taken very seriously.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I could work to strap my GoPro onto the back of my BS to capture some of the motion. What angle are you looking for?
    Something that shows the action of the shock and rotation of the rear triangle. Bonus points if you can capture the terrain in the background so we could relate the movement to object encountered.
    But obviously, this all depends on whatever mounting bits you have. Front mount on the HT pointing at the ST above the BB? Rear 3/4 view pointing forward?

    Like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH2uwoHU1Rw but for the rear system. You've got the opening hand. We won't fault you for trying.

  82. #82
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    Something that shows the action of the shock and rotation of the rear triangle. Bonus points if you can capture the terrain in the background so we could relate the movement to object encountered.
    But obviously, this all depends on whatever mounting bits you have. Front mount on the HT pointing at the ST above the BB? Rear 3/4 view pointing forward?

    Like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH2uwoHU1Rw but for the rear system. You've got the opening hand. We won't fault you for trying.
    I might try a couple different ones to see what shows action best. My thoughts right now involve a view from the side on a boom of some kind. Not exactly practical in a lot of situations, but fixed firmly to the bike, I think it would show the suspension action in relation to the terrain the best. I'll see what I can come up with on some backyard tests.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I'd be curious to know the impetus behind their choices. I'm going to suspect that while the general split pivot suspension design was a given since Salsa appears to have licensed the use of it for their full range of FS bikes, the details they spent so much time on had more to do with specific placements of the other pivots, link lengths, etc. The operative question being what characteristics were they designing towards?

    I could work to strap my GoPro onto the back of my BS to capture some of the motion. What angle are you looking for?
    Oh, man, please do that! Not sure what angle...maybe so we can see how much the rear tri moves relative to the dt.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Crunch406's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post

    Point is don't drop the lazy "just go ride more" stuff when you don't know your audience.
    Well said, point taken. It made me go back and re-read my posts. There are some very well spoken, intelligent posters in this thread, and me. I'm bowing out, but staying tuned.
    Surly Krampus
    Salsa Bucksaw1 4"/B+
    Salsa Mukluk 26x3.8/29+

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,658
    Okay.

    I think the go ride comment is made to prevent further derailment...

    My guess is that most people do ride, which is why we are here.

    I only post from work... you can tell when business is slow

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    You didn't make any of them. I made a fake one via devil's advocate, that you called out.

    I could bother with enumerating the collection of very experienced riders in this thread, but that doesn't quantify riders lurking through here that are also experienced.

    Point is don't drop the lazy "just go ride more" stuff when you don't know your audience.

    It should be one of those moments to pause and think "Should *I* be riding my bi--

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,658
    That would work to capture the action, but I'm not sure how it would help explain pros/cons of different suspension designs.

    I just watched a video where the rider was shown in slo-mo on a XC bike tackling some technical terrain. Suspension movement was nothing compared to the amount of tire movement (vertical and horizontal)!

    If you could run different bikes through the same terrain with the same rider, as you might expect a mfg like Ford does in their vehicle testing, that might show you something useful.

    A little tweaking can go a long way, case in point: The Bluto.

    I have a love hate relationship with Blutos. When they work, ie sticky stanchions are not an issue, rebound is working well, and the compression is just right, it is a decent fork. Unfortunatley the consistency is rather lacking, maybe it's me, maybe it's the terrain, maybe it's the full moon.

    So the other day I found myself adding a third volume spacer to a 120mm Bluto so that I could run lower pressures and get more small bump absorption. I was able to drop the pressure from 75psi to 65psi, which did help smooth out the ride without bottoming out, but now I'm not using all of the travel; 15-20mm are left unsused on a typical trail riding without big hits. If I go back down to two spacers, I will get a stiffer ride and I will use all of my travel.

    Maybe you can't have both...

    In terms of modifying bikes to work with different tire sizes; all mfgs are guilty of this. I think they work with what they go and sometimes that leads to a compromise. I thnk the BS got 100mm of travel because that was the path of least resistance and they felt it would still work okay with 100-120mm forks.

    At times I do wonder about a specific mfgs "vision", for example the Ventana El Gordo is a newish design and was spec'd for an 80mm fork. Go figure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I'd be curious to know the impetus behind their choices. I'm going to suspect that while the general split pivot suspension design was a given since Salsa appears to have licensed the use of it for their full range of FS bikes, the details they spent so much time on had more to do with specific placements of the other pivots, link lengths, etc. The operative question being what characteristics were they designing towards?

    I could work to strap my GoPro onto the back of my BS to capture some of the motion. What angle are you looking for?

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    That would work to capture the action, but I'm not sure how it would help explain pros/cons of different suspension designs.
    My thought was not to show pro/cons of the specific design but more how much it moves over what type of hits. Some riders are saying that they do or don't feel it and it does or doesn't feel good/helpful. This was not for proof that it is working, but where it is doing what.

  88. #88
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by bme107 View Post
    This was not for proof that it is working, but where it is doing what.
    As my awesome Lebanese room mate from Utica would always say BITD, "dude, exaaaaaaaactly..."
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  89. #89
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    doing my research on possibly going fat FS and this thread is excellent so far but I want to clarify something

    I think I'm following this correctly but when you guys mention wanting a "more active suspension" are you inferring that when riding you want to purposely create downward motion on the bike to pre-load the suspension to spring out of or over some trail features and rather than allowing this, the bucksaw is simply swallowing your efforts to do so?

    certainly nothing wrong with either riding style, I occasionally pre-load the suspension like this myself, I just want to know if this is the action we're discussing

    I watched a lot of videos on the bucksaw and came across a few with the camera mounted to the chainstay at the right angle to show the rider pedaling as well as some of the terrain and the rear shock in motion, it looked to me like the BS was never bouncing or quickly rebounding off of anything on the trail but it certainly did suck up the bigger hits

    It looked to me that if it were rolling thru fairly rooty terrain, it would just completely negate the rider feeling them at all and it seemed to pick up zero input from the rider pedaling so I assume that may be the same if you were trying to pre-load and work it over trail features
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  90. #90
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    I preload my BS for flight all the time, but it is the one thing I notice when I get on my RIP9 - the preload is far more prominent on the RIP9 than on the Bucksaw. I am now used to the way the bucksaw rides and the RIP9 is hard to time on the preload, but I'm sure the reverse would be true if I rode the RIP9 consistently.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,658
    How about a skiing comparison?

    So some skis are very damp while other are very springy, it has to do with the ski design and well as the materials. Damp skis tend to reward certain styles, such as high speed cruising, bigger arcs, soft snow, and difficult snow, but damp skis are are not the best choice for making quick transitions, carving tight turns, or for technical terrain. It's not that you can't make a "damp ski/bike" work for technical terrain, it's just harder and not as rewarding.

    For me, the Mutz is a very active bike that rewards an active style; if I get lazy, I get spanked.The Atlas and the BS share a similar suspension, they are a much more damp ride, the suspension "disappears" under you, which for me makes it harder to feel what is going on and to put feedback into the bike in order to make it work. I'm not saying this is bad, some folks clearly like that feel, but for me it is not as fun to ride.

    Choosing an FS bike, like choosing the geometry on a rigid, is about the "feel" you want, which is 100% personal preference, and something that can be applied across bike lines. For example, I prefer the Mutz over the BS, this is not odd because I also prefer bikes like the Honzo and the Chromag.

    I love the Mutz, it's the closest thing to a perfect bike for me and my preferences.

    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    doing my research on possibly going fat FS and this thread is excellent so far but I want to clarify something

    I think I'm following this correctly but when you guys mention wanting a "more active suspension" are you inferring that when riding you want to purposely create downward motion on the bike to pre-load the suspension to spring out of or over some trail features and rather than allowing this, the bucksaw is simply swallowing your efforts to do so?

    certainly nothing wrong with either riding style, I occasionally pre-load the suspension like this myself, I just want to know if this is the action we're discussing

    I watched a lot of videos on the bucksaw and came across a few with the camera mounted to the chainstay at the right angle to show the rider pedaling as well as some of the terrain and the rear shock in motion, it looked to me like the BS was never bouncing or quickly rebounding off of anything on the trail but it certainly did suck up the bigger hits

    It looked to me that if it were rolling thru fairly rooty terrain, it would just completely negate the rider feeling them at all and it seemed to pick up zero input from the rider pedaling so I assume that may be the same if you were trying to pre-load and work it over trail features

  92. #92
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    So since almost all of my local trails are pretty much XC with no real berms rollers etc to speak of but are littered with roots and round rocks, it seems to me that the bucksaw is a bike that will reward a rider that just hammers the pedals fast and blasts over this junk
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by TitanofChaos View Post
    So since almost all of my local trails are pretty much XC with no real berms rollers etc to speak of but are littered with roots and round rocks, it seems to me that the bucksaw is a bike that will reward a rider that just hammers the pedals fast and blasts over this junk
    Yes.

  94. #94
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by sisu View Post
    Yes.
    I'd tend to agree.

    Far more of a XC racy, efficient feel than a plush, eat it all for lunch and look forward to dinner kind of ride quality.....
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  95. #95
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    I wouldn't call the Bucksaw an XC racy feeling bike. Aggressive XC ish or so, maybe. What most manufacturers are calling "Trail" these days. More slack, more confident pointing downhill than an XC race bike. Better traction in unpredictable/unstable conditions.

    But it definitely isn't the eat it all for lunch and beg for more sort of ride quality, either.

    It suits my riding style quite well.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I wouldn't call the Bucksaw an XC racy feeling bike. Aggressive XC ish or so, maybe. What most manufacturers are calling "Trail" these days. More slack, more confident pointing downhill than an XC race bike. Better traction in unpredictable/unstable conditions.

    But it definitely isn't the eat it all for lunch and beg for more sort of ride quality, either.

    It suits my riding style quite well.
    Well said. It suits me well, too., especially with B+ wheels.

  97. #97
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by sisu View Post
    Well said. It suits me well, too., especially with B+ wheels.
    Reading about you and other folks using B+ on the BS has me intrigued about the idea of a second wheelset for local trails in the summertime.

  98. #98
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I wouldn't call the Bucksaw an XC racy feeling bike.
    Yeah, all very subjective of course.

    I'd agree, the numbers say "trail" but the suspension action says "rider who values efficiency over plush" which, to me, equals racer.

    Big chunk of why I find this bike so confounding, I wanna like it, do like the way it handles, it's just not plush like I like.

    YMMV......
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  99. #99
    Lord Thunderbottom
    Reputation: TitanofChaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    Yeah, all very subjective of course.

    I'd agree, the numbers say "trail" but the suspension action says "rider who values efficiency over plush" which, to me, equals racer.

    Big chunk of why I find this bike so confounding, I wanna like it, do like the way it handles, it's just not plush like I like.

    YMMV......
    Thanks all, I think this clarifies it a lot more for me without finding a test ride yet, sounds pretty well suited for most of my riding
    Today I will do what others won't, so tomorrow I can do what others can't

  100. #100
    Loser
    Reputation: Jisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,535
    Just adding another data point:

    Last night I rode at the local park on my Bluto equipped Fatboy, I ride there a lot - at least once a week - I know every rock, turn and root. There's a pretty good climb going in, and a nasty descent covered in rocks of every size coming out. Mostly because I ride there so much I have the KOM on both of those segments (on my Bucksaw). Last night I did a quick loop up and down those trails before meeting some slow riders so I had motivation to go fast (to get back to the parking lot at the meet time). I felt great and cranked as hard as I could up and down those two trails.

    I came within a second on my KOM on the climb, but I was more than a minute slower on the descent. Draw whatever conclusions you want to, but the Bucksaw just eats up those rocks on the descent, whereas the Fatboy felt outgunned. On the Bucksaw I'm launching rocks left and right without really worrying about how clear the landing is. On the Fatboy, I had to crawl over stuff - launches were pretty scary.

    Maybe on a Mutz it would be even better? Who knows, but the Bucksaw is awesome at eating up the rocks.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Help Me Build My Bucksaw.
    By spovegas in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 04-24-2015, 06:13 AM
  2. Bucksaw frame?
    By letitsnow in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-20-2014, 08:41 AM
  3. Bucksaw FS Fat Bike
    By ATBScott in forum Salsa
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 08:12 PM
  4. (another) LenzSport FatMoth for sale.
    By mikesee in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-05-2014, 08:10 PM
  5. Lenz Fatmoth....
    By MendonCycleSmith in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-11-2014, 09:18 AM

Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •