Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13

    Fargo 2 vs Fargo 3

    Hi, can anyone chime in with some advice...I'm looking at buying a Fargo for a 3rd world loaded bike tour and local fire road riding...I have an opportunity at a Fargo 2 with SRAM for $100 bucks more then the Fargo 3 with Shimano...I understand the SRAM are more expensive components so I think it's good price...my concern is the 2 front chain rings vs. 3 front rings on the Fargo 3. Will I be missing much not having the extra chain ring or is there some advantage here? Any and all advice very much appreciated!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    93
    The 2 sounds like a good deal and I'm very happy with mine. I guess it really depends how much, how long, and where you plan on doing your touring. If it is self supported, weeks into months type of stuff, the bar-end shifters and ubiquitous Shimano drivetrain would win me over to the 3. The 3rd chainring would be nice for long, paved descents; the high gear on the 2 is not very high at all.

  3. #3
    lord of my world
    Reputation: surlywhore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    314
    IMO I would go with the 3. Why? 1. bar end shifters are more durable, and simpler. 2. A triple with a more standardized BCD and a square taper BB is easier to find and replace parts. and 3. its a little cheaper and that extra money can go towards other gear.

    On another note, I would actually build one myself, with full Shimano Deore Trekking group drivetrain, 36 spoke wheels, Shimano Bar End shifters, BB7 brakes(BB5's suck) and a multi surface tire. I have the full Deore group on my Big Dummy which has probably 5000 miles on it and is holding up strong with regular maintenance. Goodluck! I have a Vaya that replaced my Cross-Check and Fargo V.1 and could not be happier with Salsa!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,025
    will you be riding singletrack? lots of it?
    then integrated shifting and braking makes a whole lot of sense.

    i tried a gen one with bar ends. for world / dirt road touring. yes, they make sense.
    for a bike that is also my MTB when I'm not on the pugsley, i had to have a better way to shift in the woods.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13
    thank you everyone for the input/feedback...very much appreciated since I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to the subtle differences in the setups...and I know SRAM vs Shimano has been debated at length which is exactly not what I was interested in, nor did you fine folks go down that road....it seems pretty safe to say;

    1) I'd appreciate the triple chain ring vs the double
    2) Bar end friction would be the choice for remote travel/SRAM shifters have the edge fr pure mtn biking. Microshifters wouldn't be a benefit since they are not friction capable.

    Thanks again everyone!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    13
    btw surlywhore...I think you gave a great response...exactly the input that is useful and specific and also have to admit...love your user name!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by bmike View Post
    will you be riding singletrack? lots of it?
    then integrated shifting and braking makes a whole lot of sense.

    i tried a gen one with bar ends. for world / dirt road touring. yes, they make sense.
    for a bike that is also my MTB when I'm not on the pugsley, i had to have a better way to shift in the woods.
    I know what you are saying but.....
    how DID we manage to shift back in the day?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by rallyrcr View Post
    I know what you are saying but.....
    how DID we manage to shift back in the day?
    i have bar ends on paul thumbies on my pugs. works great. not clicky or integrated, just indexed on the rear, and friction on the front. love it.

    but i can't see using, and definitely didn't like reaching down to the bar end position on the gen1 to shift, while in the woods. i also banged the bar ends around quite a bit.

  9. #9
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by windhorze View Post
    btw surlywhore love your user name!
    Ditto
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

Similar Threads

  1. Fargo Steel vs Fargo TI
    By surly73 in forum Salsa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-12-2011, 03:53 AM
  2. Fargo vs. Dos??
    By chowdownca in forum Salsa
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-26-2010, 10:26 AM
  3. Fargo set-up
    By AZkick-n40 in forum Salsa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 07:20 AM
  4. The Fargo that almost wasn't
    By N10S in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-19-2010, 01:03 PM
  5. Fargo bar set ups
    By ee ay ess in forum Salsa
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-05-2008, 06:04 AM

Posting Permissions

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