Page 56 of 57 FirstFirst ... 646525354555657 LastLast
Results 5,501 to 5,600 of 5669
  1. #5501
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Schwable marathon supreme
    Soma shikoro
    Schwable big ones

    Depends on how much flat protection you want. Ragbrai is supported right? Go light and supple tires.

  2. #5502
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    229
    Yep, it is supported, predominantly pavement with a small bit of gravel/dirt potentially.

    I am glad you mention the Schwalbe Big Ones. I was really curious about them. Schwalbe claims they have very low rolling resistance for such big tires. It sounds right up my alley.

  3. #5503
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by ciquta View Post
    last year I did a 1500km road/lightgravel trip with 2.35" big apples, and couldn't be happier

    loved the cushion, fast rolling at reasonable pressure and good protection (only one flat)

    so much that i've put a pair also on my urban bike

    That looks and sounds awesome! I am afraid everyone will think I am crazy running such wide tires... and the resistance could suck.... but I like the cushiness of big tires. I may try Big Apples or Big Ones or Big Bens... So many big Schwalbe options.

  4. #5504
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ciquta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by SocratesDiedTrolling View Post
    That looks and sounds awesome! I am afraid everyone will think I am crazy running such wide tires... and the resistance could suck.... but I like the cushiness of big tires. I may try Big Apples or Big Ones or Big Bens... So many big Schwalbe options.
    honestly?
    I think you would be ridiculous running 40mm tires on a Fargo...

    2.35" is the sleekest I can go now, looking forward to put my hands on the new Surly Extraterrestrial 29x2.5"

  5. #5505
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by SocratesDiedTrolling View Post
    Yep, it is supported, predominantly pavement with a small bit of gravel/dirt potentially.

    I am glad you mention the Schwalbe Big Ones. I was really curious about them. Schwalbe claims they have very low rolling resistance for such big tires. It sounds right up my alley.
    The big ones in 2.35 are way fast and fun! I've been using them on mixed surface riding.

  6. #5506
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,135
    Quote Originally Posted by SocratesDiedTrolling View Post
    That looks and sounds awesome! I am afraid everyone will think I am crazy running such wide tires... and the resistance could suck.... but I like the cushiness of big tires. I may try Big Apples or Big Ones or Big Bens... So many big Schwalbe options.
    You would think the resistance would suck, but compare the Big One to other road and touring tires and you'll be very surprised....

    Schwalbe Big One LiteSkin Rolling Resistance Review

    Road Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews

    Tour/E-Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  7. #5507
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    229
    Thanks, everyone! I am definitely gonna take a hard look at Big Ones. What do people think of Serfas Drifters? I am gonna throw those on just for now since they are cheap and already present at the bike shop. I may upgrade to something pricier like the Schwalbe ones once the event is closer. I imagine the Serfas Drifter, while smooth, is not so fast rolling as the Schwalbes.

  8. #5508
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ciquta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    77
    I don't think the big ones are a good choice on paved road.
    They are made for sandy terrain, expect low protection and quick wear on hard surfaces.

  9. #5509
    arc
    arc is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    253
    I think the Big Ones are being replaced by the G One Speed, same carcass with a gravel type tread.

  10. #5510
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    16
    Anyone know how the dropouts will differ between the 27+ and 29+? Thanks!

  11. #5511
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by joedeltron View Post
    Anyone know how the dropouts will differ between the 27+ and 29+? Thanks!
    Not sure I understand the question. Assuming your wheelsets are the same spacing, don't you just slide the Alternator dropouts back or (or forward) to accommodate the width/heigth of the tire? I've seen nothing to suggest a dropout change is needed, except when converting to thru axle, SS, or internal gear hub.
    Last edited by veloborealis; 01-19-2017 at 02:17 PM. Reason: Clarity
    The older I get the better I was...

  12. #5512
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    16
    I was under the impression that the Woodsmoke had some different dropouts to take care of bottom bracket height changes when going from different sized wheelsets. And I was seeing if the same thing applies to the 2017 Fargo.

  13. #5513
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by joedeltron View Post
    I was under the impression that the Woodsmoke had some different dropouts to take care of bottom bracket height changes when going from different sized wheelsets. And I was seeing if the same thing applies to the 2017 Fargo.
    I don't know about the WS, but I've seen nothing about dropouts to fine tune BB height for the Fargo. Maybe someone with more knowledge will chime in.
    The older I get the better I was...

  14. #5514
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by joedeltron View Post
    Anyone know how the dropouts will differ between the 27+ and 29+? Thanks!
    From what I've gathered the only reason you should use different dropouts is to accommodate different types of axles.

    The frame only is shipped with 148mm rear and 100mm front, same as the 27+ complete option. The 29er is shipped with other dropouts, not sure which though.

    The dropouts slide back and forth to make room for beefier tyres and/or achieve longer or shorter chainstays with less or more clearance.

    I'm currently waiting on the frame, building it up to run 29+ with boost rear and thru axle front. The bb drop is still greater than my other bikes so I don't think the added height from plus tyres will be a problem for me.

  15. #5515
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    13
    If you take a closer look on the design of the dropouts you'll see that the axle swings downward with a shorter setting and upward with a longer setting. This should at least lower or lift the bb height a tiny bit to compensate for different sizes.

  16. #5516
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by evirob View Post
    If you take a closer look on the design of the dropouts you'll see that the axle swings downward with a shorter setting and upward with a longer setting. This should at least lower or lift the bb height a tiny bit to compensate for different sizes.
    Good observation! BTW, the 29er complete ships with the 135mm Alternator reduction plates (100mm front/135mm rear/QR). Make sure to post pics of your 29+ Fargo when you get it done.
    The older I get the better I was...

  17. #5517
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by veloborealis View Post
    Good observation! BTW, the 29er complete ships with the 135mm Alternator reduction plates (100mm front/135mm rear/QR). Make sure to post pics of your 29+ Fargo when you get it done.
    Ah yes, that's why I got the frameset instead of the stock 29er. Really wanted boost (and the color is great).

    I'll be back for some pics when I'm done.

  18. #5518
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    16
    Thanks for the reply, just got the frame yesterday to build up a 29+ myself.

  19. #5519
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by evirob View Post
    If you take a closer look on the design of the dropouts you'll see that the axle swings downward with a shorter setting and upward with a longer setting. This should at least lower or lift the bb height a tiny bit to compensate for different sizes.
    For a 29+ the drop out should allow for a lower bottom bracket height on a Fargo since the effective overall diameter will be much larger than with 27.5+ or 29"er wheels. In other words, the bottom bracket should go lower on 29+ relative to the wheel axles to maintain similar handling characteristics between wheel sizes.

    If the design were trying to accomplish this the slope of the slot in the frame that the Alternator would follow would be "up and back", not the way that it is. That said, since the Alternator pivots from the top bolt, it cannot be done any other way than the way it is. It would require a different Alternator plate design for 29+ only.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  20. #5520
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    16
    Guitar Ted, do you think 29+ will end up with too high of a bottom bracket marginalizing stability? Is this an oversight by salsa not releasing new plates?

  21. #5521
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6
    question: is it okay to put a 27+ (x3.0) wheelset in the front while retaining my 29 easton arc35 on 2.4 ardent in the back? i ride a 2015 green machine fargo. many thanks...

  22. #5522
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    452
    Yes, I did exactly that. The diameter is the same.

  23. #5523
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by joedeltron View Post
    Guitar Ted, do you think 29+ will end up with too high of a bottom bracket marginalizing stability? Is this an oversight by salsa not releasing new plates?
    It is obvious that 29, 29+, and 27.5+ all have different axle heights from the ground. Unless the designer compensates for this in the design there will have to be some compromises made when using one of those wheel sizes.

    A higher bottom bracket when using a taller wheel seems counter intuitive unless there is a specific design goal to meet which requires a taller bottom bracket. I have trouble seeing how a taller BB would benefit the Fargo with 29+ wheels, but perhaps there is some reason/use situation that makes that desirable. I know that for myself, it would be a deal breaker, having ridden a 29+ converted bike with a high BB as a result.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  24. #5524
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    452
    29er and 27.5+ have almost the exact same diameter. Given the difference in axle to crown measurements on most front suspension forks; I doubt that you could tell much difference with those 2 sizes. I run a 27.5 x 2.8 front wheel and a 29x2.3 rear wheel. Because 27.5 x 2.8 is slightly smaller than a 27.5 x 3.0; it lowers the bottom bracket slightly. To compensate, I changed from 180mm cranks to 175mm. I love the extra cushion on the rigid from fork.



    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    It is obvious that 29, 29+, and 27.5+ all have different axle heights from the ground. Unless the designer compensates for this in the design there will have to be some compromises made when using one of those wheel sizes.

    A higher bottom bracket when using a taller wheel seems counter intuitive unless there is a specific design goal to meet which requires a taller bottom bracket. I have trouble seeing how a taller BB would benefit the Fargo with 29+ wheels, but perhaps there is some reason/use situation that makes that desirable. I know that for myself, it would be a deal breaker, having ridden a 29+ converted bike with a high BB as a result.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails The Salsa Fargo Thread-wheelsize.jpg  


  25. #5525
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    29er and 27.5+ have almost the exact same diameter. Given the difference in axle to crown measurements on most front suspension forks; I doubt that you could tell much difference with those 2 sizes. I run a 27.5 x 2.8 front wheel and a 29x2.3 rear wheel. Because 27.5 x 2.8 is slightly smaller than a 27.5 x 3.0; it lowers the bottom bracket slightly. To compensate, I changed from 180mm cranks to 175mm. I love the extra cushion on the rigid from fork.
    I don't have any personal experience but I've read on the plus forums that you also need to take into consideration loaded weight with rider when comparing wheel diameters. This is because the b+ will squish/compress more than the 29er. So even though the tire diameters when unloaded are similar, they become different enough when comparing with a loaded rider on the bike. ymmv.
    2003 Kona A
    2005 Kona A
    2012 Cannondale Hooligan
    2016 Salsa Deadwood

  26. #5526
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6
    thank you for the answering my question. the infographic on wheel diameters is especially helpful. i originally wanted three wheelsets for my fargo. i put 40mm clement xplor mso on the stock wheelset and built a second set with easton arc35 rims for wider 29 tires. up next is a 27.5+ wheelset (2.8 back and 3 front). but i am thinking whether putting a 2.8 or 3 wide tire on the front arc35 will approximate what i want from the 27.5+ tires. my question is aiming at a compromise while postponing more than half the cost of another wheelset.

    with regards to plus wheels compressing more than regular 29s, will my weight of 65kgs do this in such a way that will affect how the fargo handles?

    thanks again

  27. #5527
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by buell View Post
    I don't have any personal experience but I've read on the plus forums that you also need to take into consideration loaded weight with rider when comparing wheel diameters. This is because the b+ will squish/compress more than the 29er. So even though the tire diameters when unloaded are similar, they become different enough when comparing with a loaded rider on the bike. ymmv.
    Static loaded radius is a fairly common measurement in the auto world. It gives you an idea of ride height when the weight of the vehicle is applied. I'd be interested to seeing what the numbers are for various width bike tires but honestly do know that it would make a huge difference in real world circumstances.

  28. #5528
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    29er and 27.5+ have almost the exact same diameter. Given the difference in axle to crown measurements on most front suspension forks; I doubt that you could tell much difference with those 2 sizes. I run a 27.5 x 2.8 front wheel and a 29x2.3 rear wheel. Because 27.5 x 2.8 is slightly smaller than a 27.5 x 3.0; it lowers the bottom bracket slightly. To compensate, I changed from 180mm cranks to 175mm. I love the extra cushion on the rigid from fork.
    The point being is that they are all different, and the 29+ is very different.

    This is why when folks switch from B+ to 29"er, I agree with you. The handling and performance differences are typically in a range that most will accept. (Or not be able to discern, whichever you choose.)

    But to jump from there to 29+?

    That's the point I was trying to explain in my last post- without making an adjustment with an Alternator plate design that accounts for that bottom bracket height difference, the Fargo will not be the same bike as it is with B+/29"er wheels. In fact, the Alternator design as it is actually exacerbates the problem (if you think a high BB is a problem here) when you attempt to use 29+ wheels by swinging downward and back, which raises the bottom bracket slightly.

    Thanks for posting that graphic which visually illustrates my point about overall diameter differences quite well.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  29. #5529
    IH, HYHT.
    Reputation: Forster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sal-it View Post
    thank you for the answering my question. the infographic on wheel diameters is especially helpful. i originally wanted three wheelsets for my fargo. i put 40mm clement xplor mso on the stock wheelset and built a second set with easton arc35 rims for wider 29 tires. up next is a 27.5+ wheelset (2.8 back and 3 front). but i am thinking whether putting a 2.8 or 3 wide tire on the front arc35 will approximate what i want from the 27.5+ tires. my question is aiming at a compromise while postponing more than half the cost of another wheelset.

    with regards to plus wheels compressing more than regular 29s, will my weight of 65kgs do this in such a way that will affect how the fargo handles?

    thanks again
    Normally you'd run 27.5+ or any + tire at a lower pressure so you'll notice. Is that good or bad? I can't answer because I haven't ridden the current frame. I know on my 2013, lower pressures make things squirrelly but that's not useful information, because the frames are set-up differently.

    As an aside, I ride a large frame and can get some toe interference with the front wheel when I fun fenders (close to the tire). I can't imagine that issue has been resolved to the point where I'd try the bike in 29+ mode.
    The most expensive bike in the world is still cheaper than the cheapest open heart surgery.

  30. #5530
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    34
    Hi guys, quick question, my brother is 6ft, and might be getting a Fargo. Since he wrecked his old frame, he's been riding my old El Mariachi which is a small, so he's been looking for a new frame.

    He plans on swapping out the drops with his jones hbar so should he get the Medium or Large? 2015 version btw as it's on sale.

  31. #5531
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,096
    If he's 6' he should get a large.
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert


  32. #5532
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by DoLB View Post
    Hi guys, quick question, my brother is 6ft, and might be getting a Fargo. Since he wrecked his old frame, he's been riding my old El Mariachi which is a small, so he's been looking for a new frame.

    He plans on swapping out the drops with his jones hbar so should he get the Medium or Large? 2015 version btw as it's on sale.
    This could get tricky, for a few reasons. First, he's going to be conditioned to riding a bike that is too small, so there is a good chance that a properly sized bike is going to feel wrong, at least at first.

    Second, changing to a MTB bar is going to make the Fargo fit ~2.5 sizes too small compared to the equivalent sized bike designed for MTB bars.

    Simply put, the appropriate sized Fargo (large) with MTB bars is going to put the bars in roughly the same place as the bike he has now that is too small.

    Honestly it may be a better idea to go for a bike designed for MTB bars and skip all the headaches.

  33. #5533
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    34
    OK Thanks for the input guys.

    He likes the fit on my Jones, and it is more upright than his fit on the El Mar, with a seatback post heightened to his level. Would a large Fargo be even smaller with jones bars?

  34. #5534
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    190
    I just came across a 2016 Salsa Fargo X7 on craigslist for cheap. Anybody have an idea of what it's worth? I see bikes posted on different craigslists for $1000 or more.

  35. #5535
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    For a 29+ the drop out should allow for a lower bottom bracket height on a Fargo since the effective overall diameter will be much larger than with 27.5+ or 29"er wheels. In other words, the bottom bracket should go lower on 29+ relative to the wheel axles to maintain similar handling characteristics between wheel sizes.

    If the design were trying to accomplish this the slope of the slot in the frame that the Alternator would follow would be "up and back", not the way that it is. That said, since the Alternator pivots from the top bolt, it cannot be done any other way than the way it is. It would require a different Alternator plate design for 29+ only.
    I see now that i mistyped, I meant that the axle swings somewhat upwards.

    I must admit though, I've no idea how the dropouts actually works. Just judging from pictures it would indeed "rise" the axle when set all the way to the back. Might be wrong though.

    Here's how I'm thinking:
    The Salsa Fargo Thread-fargo-dropout.jpg

    Anyways, I'm probably getting a regular 29:er wheelset later on if I'm not hooked on the 29+. Coming from skinny tires both will be an improvement off-road.

    Btw, you we're a big help in my decision getting a Fargo in the first place. Really enjoyed your blog/page

  36. #5536
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DoLB View Post
    Would a large Fargo be even smaller with jones bars?
    No, it will still be a large.

    Though he may find that he would like to change the stem length/height going from a drop bar to a Jones. How much, if at all, is hard to say since I have no idea what stem is on the bike now, nor what his preferred position is. Bottom line is that much of it will come down to preference, and he'll just have to experiment to find what he likes.
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert


  37. #5537
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    No, it will still be a large.

    Though he may find that he would like to change the stem length/height going from a drop bar to a Jones. How much, if at all, is hard to say since I have no idea what stem is on the bike now, nor what his preferred position is. Bottom line is that much of it will come down to preference, and he'll just have to experiment to find what he likes.
    Cool, thanks a bunch!

  38. #5538
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Honda Guy View Post
    I just came across a 2016 Salsa Fargo X7 on craigslist for cheap. Anybody have an idea of what it's worth? I see bikes posted on different craigslists for $1000 or more.
    If we are talking about the same Fargo, then it is 2017 one. If I were you, I would run quick. Yes, I think it is an amazing deal. For that price, you could normally buy just a frame from earlier gen Fargos. Here you are getting just a few weeks old bicycle.

    I would really be concerned that it has been stolen, but the seller put his name and phone number in the ad. So, might be totally legit.

  39. #5539
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edved37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    139
    I've searched but haven't found much info yet. I signed up for DK200 and plan on riding single speed. I have a titanium Warbird which I could switch over and also have a Nature Boy disc but its a tad small. Now I've always wanted a Fargo so my thought was to tank a couple bikes and either build a frame up single speed Fargo or find one geared and do the switch.
    Long story short...are many guys running SS and what are you thoughts on this bike set up this way to take on DK200? Thanks for any help
    Beargrease NX1
    Titanium Warbird
    Nature Boy Disc
    Jones Diamond Frame/truss fork

  40. #5540
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by edved37 View Post
    I've searched but haven't found much info yet. I signed up for DK200 and plan on riding single speed. I have a titanium Warbird which I could switch over and also have a Nature Boy disc but its a tad small. Now I've always wanted a Fargo so my thought was to tank a couple bikes and either build a frame up single speed Fargo or find one geared and do the switch.
    Long story short...are many guys running SS and what are you thoughts on this bike set up this way to take on DK200? Thanks for any help
    You know, now that you mention it, I don't see many single speed set ups on Fargos.

    Anyway, single speed bikes have been and are a good choice for the DK200. There are not many climbs a good, in shape rider could not pull off there (depending on how hot it gets ) and there is no reason a SS Fargo could not be ridden to a respectable finish, given a good rider is aboard it.

    So, I would say that it would work. I've seen many SS riders finish the DK200 and I have ridden one there as well. No reason to shy away from SS if that is your jam.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  41. #5541
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    The Surly ET 29er just came in stock, and I have a pair on order for my Gen 1 Fargo. Hope they fit!

    Tires | Parts and Accessories | Surly Bikes

    ExtraTerrestrial 29 x 2.5

    A 29” version of our high-volume, heavy-duty, off-road touring, set-it-and-forget-it ExtraTerrestrial tread. Like its 26” counterpart, it was designed to shine on hard pack surfaces and features an extremely low-profile, directional tread pattern that offers tons of traction with hardly any rolling resistance. With a nylon breaker in the sidewalls for cut protection, a molded pattern for anti-cut propagation, and a Kevlar cap under the tread, ET gives you more flat protection than you ever thought possible. Available in 29 x 2.5” in 60tpi.

    Bead Seat Diameter: 622mm
    Rim Width: 19mm – 50mm outer dimensions
    Casing: 60tpi, tubeless-ready bead

  42. #5542
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    452
    The Surly ET 29er 2.5" tire's outer width is 64 to 71mm (depending on rim width). My guess is that it will fit in the front, but not in the rear:

    http://surlybikes.com/uploads/downlo...o_Chart_v2.pdf



    Quote Originally Posted by renegade44 View Post
    The Surly ET 29er just came in stock, and I have a pair on order for my Gen 1 Fargo. Hope they fit!

    Tires | Parts and Accessories | Surly Bikes

    ExtraTerrestrial 29 x 2.5

    A 29” version of our high-volume, heavy-duty, off-road touring, set-it-and-forget-it ExtraTerrestrial tread. Like its 26” counterpart, it was designed to shine on hard pack surfaces and features an extremely low-profile, directional tread pattern that offers tons of traction with hardly any rolling resistance. With a nylon breaker in the sidewalls for cut protection, a molded pattern for anti-cut propagation, and a Kevlar cap under the tread, ET gives you more flat protection than you ever thought possible. Available in 29 x 2.5” in 60tpi.

    Bead Seat Diameter: 622mm
    Rim Width: 19mm – 50mm outer dimensions
    Casing: 60tpi, tubeless-ready bead

  43. #5543
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ACosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    40
    Beer run with the Salsa Fargo.

    It's awesome how I know I'll have some fun when I take the Fargo out of the bike rack. Even when I'm just going a few blocks away to get some beer and cheese on a snowy day.


  44. #5544
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    The Surly ET 29er 2.5" tire's outer width is 64 to 71mm (depending on rim width). My guess is that it will fit in the front, but not in the rear:

    http://surlybikes.com/uploads/downlo...o_Chart_v2.pdf
    The larger dimensions in that chart are on a 50 mm rim, which is unlikely for most Fargo riders. I'll be using the original Salsa Semi 29er rims which are ~29mm outer width. I just did some quick measurements, and I think they will fit front and rear.

    When the Fargo first came out, there were reports of it fitting 2.3" tires on a 35 mm rim. With a non-knobby tire, it should clear an an even bigger tire.

  45. #5545
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6
    i have 2.4 ardents on 35mm inner width easton arc rims (39mm outer width). clearance is fine especially when i extend the chainstay length. another millimeter from the tire will not affect the clearance much

    edit: oops. but i am talking about a 2015 fargo 3

  46. #5546
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    The surly ET 29x2.5 fit my Gen1 Fargo just fine. The tread is about 2.38, while the casing is more like 2.25 with tubes at 25-30 psi. Even if they stretch, there should still be clearance.

  47. #5547
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by renegade44 View Post
    The surly ET 29x2.5 fit my Gen1 Fargo just fine. The tread is about 2.38, while the casing is more like 2.25 with tubes at 25-30 psi. Even if they stretch, there should still be clearance.
    Update: After a 2nd night and being inflated to 50 psi, the tread is now at 2.5" and casing is 2.44". This is on Salsa Semi 29er rims, which are just under 30 mm outside width.

    Max pressure is 60 psi, so Surly's chart seems fairly accurate.
    Last edited by renegade44; 02-12-2017 at 07:03 AM.

  48. #5548
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    244
    i've been thinking about trekking bikes and handlebars lately, wondering... has anyone ever used a so-called 'trekking bar' on a Fargo, or on any other bike? it looks weird but it does have the multiple hand positions we call crave.
    The Salsa Fargo Thread-3_4_1_12.jpg

    same question regarding this Velo Orange offering:
    The Salsa Fargo Thread-3_4_2_10.jpg
    The Salsa Fargo Thread-crazybar_productdim_-_sheet1_1.jpg
    this one is really interesting, with the 'aero' position out front. i has just about everything you want. could it be, dare i say it... better than a jones bar? has anyone tried it?

    i'm picturing Fargo for bike packing and something else for trekking, like a Trucker or a Sutra. but i'm starting to think a Rohloff would be the way to go for that and a Rohloff shifter on a dropbar bike seems like a hack, so i'm starting to look at the Jones bars. i never thought about using a Jones bar until Fargo+Jones came up in a recent thread on another forum. anyway, these two VO bars seem like interesting alternatives to the Loop....

    Handlebars - Components
    The Salsa Fargo Thread-dsc_0003_1_6.jpg
    In a world full of people, only some want to ride. Isn't that crazy?
    Seal/CRAZY/misquoted

  49. #5549
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    605
    I've run all sorts of alt bars on my Fargos. The Jones bars are great. If you want a more aero position they sell the Gnarwahl.

  50. #5550
    trail rat
    Reputation: slocaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,815
    I ran into this blog about trekking bar on a Fargo.
    Randomly Generated: Fargo: It's a Wrap!
    "The physician heals, Nature makes well" - real fortune cookie

    CCCMB trail work for trail access - SLO, CA

  51. #5551
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    244
    duplicate/deleted
    In a world full of people, only some want to ride. Isn't that crazy?
    Seal/CRAZY/misquoted

  52. #5552
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryonaspot View Post
    they sell the Gnarwahl.
    wow, eighty dollars for that? $80???
    In a world full of people, only some want to ride. Isn't that crazy?
    Seal/CRAZY/misquoted

  53. #5553
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    34
    Well if you're running a Jones bar, just find an old 25.4 stem and use that. Just wrap it with tape.

  54. #5554
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by kevrider View Post
    i've been thinking about trekking bikes and handlebars lately, wondering... has anyone ever used a so-called 'trekking bar' on a Fargo, or on any other bike? it looks weird but it does have the multiple hand positions we call crave.


    same question regarding this Velo Orange offering:

    this one is really interesting, with the 'aero' position out front. i has just about everything you want. could it be, dare i say it... better than a jones bar? has anyone tried it?

    i'm picturing Fargo for bike packing and something else for trekking, like a Trucker or a Sutra. but i'm starting to think a Rohloff would be the way to go for that and a Rohloff shifter on a dropbar bike seems like a hack, so i'm starting to look at the Jones bars. i never thought about using a Jones bar until Fargo+Jones came up in a recent thread on another forum. anyway, these two VO bars seem like interesting alternatives to the Loop....
    I have ridden both the butterfly style trekking bars and the Crazy bars for short periods, though neither on a Fargo.

    First, both will drastically shorten you cockpit, considering the Fargo already has a short toptube might result in a pretty cramped setup.

    The bike with the butterfly bars had them set up much lower then I would want, which seems inherent of their design, though that could be solved with a taller fork or stem. Other then that they seemed ok, though I could get see myself using the forward position. REI actually sells a bike with them, if you wanna try them out.

    The Crazy bars were on a bike very similar to be I own and ride with standard riser bars. I expected them to be WAY to close and low but they actually felt really good. IMO the forward extensions didn't seem very usable due to their angle.
    Quote Originally Posted by DoLB View Post
    Well if you're running a Jones bar, just find an old 25.4 stem and use that. Just wrap it with tape.
    22.2mm?

  55. #5555
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    133
    I have a jones carbon loop and a TI version on two bikes. If you wrap both the front and rear of the loop bar you can just rest your arms on the top without the gnarwal thingy. Also the loop is not 25.4, it is a much smaller diameter.

    Be sure to tilt them down, this is one of the keys to success with using a Jones bar. I also like the woodchippers - those are on my Fargo which I use for commuting and gravel.
    "Nothing is free."

    Fargo Ti / Jones TI Spaceframe SS / Mukluk Ti / Foundry Cross / Colnago Master / Cannondale Tandem

  56. #5556
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    355

    tire questions for v1 2009 fargo

    Anybody tried the nobby nick 2.6? On a 2009 Fargo to be exact. Will they fit? I have i25 Stans Flow rims, the old ones rom 2009. The guys on the plus bike forum are saying i30 would be better. I will not be building a 29 inch wheel this year. What is the widest tire that will fit in a 09?

    Second question, what is a good tire for road and dirt? Example, last august I rode from Klamath Falls south for 3 weeks. I had to ride the roads some, but took as many forest service roads and rail trails as I could find. Nano raptors are good, but fit the stans rims a little tight. What are the other choices.

  57. #5557
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    452
    Maxxis Crossmark: Crossmark II | Maxxis Tires USA


    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Anybody tried the nobby nick 2.6? On a 2009 Fargo to be exact. Will they fit? I have i25 Stans Flow rims, the old ones rom 2009. The guys on the plus bike forum are saying i30 would be better. I will not be building a 29 inch wheel this year. What is the widest tire that will fit in a 09?

    Second question, what is a good tire for road and dirt? Example, last august I rode from Klamath Falls south for 3 weeks. I had to ride the roads some, but took as many forest service roads and rail trails as I could find. Nano raptors are good, but fit the stans rims a little tight. What are the other choices.

  58. #5558
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Anybody tried the nobby nick 2.6? On a 2009 Fargo to be exact. Will they fit? I have i25 Stans Flow rims, the old ones rom 2009. The guys on the plus bike forum are saying i30 would be better. I will not be building a 29 inch wheel this year. What is the widest tire that will fit in a 09?

    Second question, what is a good tire for road and dirt? Example, last august I rode from Klamath Falls south for 3 weeks. I had to ride the roads some, but took as many forest service roads and rail trails as I could find. Nano raptors are good, but fit the stans rims a little tight. What are the other choices.
    I have a 2009 Fargo as well, and recently put the Surly Extra-Terrestrial 2.5" tires on it with the original ~30mm outer width salsa semi rims. They measure 2.5" at the tread and 2.38" casing. They clear fine, but they don't have the knobs of a typical mountain bike tire.

    As for your 2nd question, the Surly ET tires would be a good option. I ride mine on pavement and light singletrack. They roll really well on pavement, but have enough width to handle singletrack too.

  59. #5559
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by kevrider View Post
    same question regarding this Velo Orange offering:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	crazybar_productdim_-_sheet1_1.jpg 
Views:	89 
Size:	18.2 KB 
ID:	1123460
    this one is really interesting, with the 'aero' position out front. i has just about everything you want. could it be, dare i say it... better than a jones bar? has anyone tried it?
    I have VO crazy bars on my Salsa Marrakesh. It's the flat bar frame version, so the frame has a longer top tube.

    I like them, but do find it a bit challenging to setup and optimize both the rear and forward positions. I wish the forward extensions tilted back more.

    The biggest advantage of VO crazy bars is that they are open in the middle, which allows use of a traditional, large handlebar bag.

    Salsa Marrakesh by jon_baler, on Flickr

    The surly moloko bar should be in stock "soon" as another alternative. It's a cross between the jones bar and vo crazy bar.

  60. #5560
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Anybody tried the nobby nick 2.6? On a 2009 Fargo to be exact. Will they fit? I have i25 Stans Flow rims, the old ones rom 2009. The guys on the plus bike forum are saying i30 would be better. I will not be building a 29 inch wheel this year. What is the widest tire that will fit in a 09?

    Second question, what is a good tire for road and dirt? Example, last august I rode from Klamath Falls south for 3 weeks. I had to ride the roads some, but took as many forest service roads and rail trails as I could find. Nano raptors are good, but fit the stans rims a little tight. What are the other choices.
    I could *almost* fit my factory Krampus front wheel (3" Knard on 50mm rim) in my 2009 Fargo fork, so I'm sure the 2.6 on a 30mm or less rim would work in the front. Not sure about the rear.

    For road/dirt, I've used the Kenda Happy Medium 40 and the Terrevail Cannonball 35 and been very happy with both.

  61. #5561
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuanswan View Post
    I could *almost* fit my factory Krampus
    For road/dirt, I've used the Kenda Happy Medium 40 and the Terrevail Cannonball 35 and been very happy with both.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik_A View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuanswan View Post
    For road/dirt, I've used the Kenda Happy Medium 40 and the Terrevail Cannonball 35 and been very happy with both.

    Almost fit a Knard? I tried a 3.0 Ranger, 26 x 3, (my 26er has a fargo fork,) though 1 mm clearance. The wheel was not perfectly true, so the tire rubbed in one spot. I did not flip the bike right side up.

    Am I allowed to ask about mud tires while I am asking? I am thinking of visiting the rain forest in Guatemala. So, when I say mud I mean mud. April is the dry season, and so hot you sweat the dye out of your shirt. In the dry season it only rains enough to make mud like we see in north America. Somebody knows something about mud and how to deal with it. So starting with tires, speak up.

    I just tossed out my Weirwolf 2.55 tires, (wore them down,) and my racing ralph 2.4 tires, (never liked them). I have some 35 mm and 40 mm road tires, never really used them. 8 and 10 year old tires had to go. I need modern tires, for Stans i25 Flows. In the next couple of years I see some desert rides, (Baja), a few Pacific Northwest and Northern California rides on road and gravel. Some of those Ncal back roads are soft and require some width. And a Mayan ruin adventure with possible mucho mud. The cannonball (above), tire looks good on paper. Do they fit on Stans tight fitting rims? Some tires are to tight on stans rims, including my 2 40mm road tires. Are the Cannonballs wide enough for sand patches? Like to find the widest tire that will fit the 2009 Fargo, for the desert.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blbNINUB2yw

  62. #5562
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    355
    Pardon me Sir, do you happen to have the weight of the Surly ET tires? Surly has some of the best ideas, but the weight of Surly stuff puts me off.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIHXhFJ4FoM

  63. #5563
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Pardon me Sir, do you happen to have the weight of the Surly ET tires? Surly has some of the best ideas, but the weight of Surly stuff puts me off.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIHXhFJ4FoM
    No, I haven't seen it published anywhere. I will say the weight is very reasonable given these are a 2.5" wide and meant for off pavement touring. I wouldn't want them to be any lighter in this width for the types of trips you mention.

    It's a myth that just because it says "surly" on it, it must be heavy and over-built. Their steel frames and fat bikes tires aren't much heavier than other brands given a apples/apples comparison of price and application.

  64. #5564
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Second question, what is a good tire for road and dirt? Example, last august I rode from Klamath Falls south for 3 weeks. I had to ride the roads some, but took as many forest service roads and rail trails as I could find. Nano raptors are good, but fit the stans rims a little tight. What are the other choices.
    i find Conti Race King tires to be good for dirt and surprisingly good for pavement, really fast rolling. i don't have stans rims, so not sure how that goes. also not sure they would be better ET, certainly not on pavement.
    In a world full of people, only some want to ride. Isn't that crazy?
    Seal/CRAZY/misquoted

  65. #5565
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chrisx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    355
    Surly ExtraTerrestrial tire
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffpoulin View Post
    I couldn't find the weight listed anywhere, so I contacted a bike shop in Portland, OR which just got them in. For info, the actual weight is 928g. That's pretty good considering a Schwalbe Marathon Mondial in 26x2.15 (Evo edition) is 865g. So the ET weighs 7% more than the Mondial, but has 35% more volume.
    had to dig a little, seems to be a 26er weight, so over a 1,000 grams?

    Quote Originally Posted by renegade44 View Post
    No, I haven't seen it published anywhere. I will say the weight is very reasonable given these are a 2.5" wide and meant for off pavement touring. I wouldn't want them to be any lighter in this width for the types of trips you mention.

    It's a myth that just because it says "surly" on it, it must be heavy and over-built. Their steel frames and fat bikes tires aren't much heavier than other brands given a apples/apples comparison of price and application.
    Some myths turn out to be true
    They seem good at predicting the future though. They had 3.0 tires years ago. In a couple of years everyone will have 4 water bottles on the fork.

  66. #5566
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Surly ExtraTerrestrial tire
    had to dig a little, seems to be a 26er weight, so over a 1,000 grams?
    I would have guessed they were lighter, and would not have thought they were on par with heavier 3" knobby tires. Hopefully somebody can weigh an actual 29er version to confirm.

  67. #5567
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by renegade44 View Post
    I have VO crazy bars on my Salsa Marrakesh. It's the flat bar frame version, so the frame has a longer top tube.

    I like them, but do find it a bit challenging to setup and optimize both the rear and forward positions. I wish the forward extensions tilted back more.
    do you think it would have been easier to set up if you had a shorter top tube? or do you think the rear position would have been compromised?

    Quote Originally Posted by renegade44 View Post
    The surly moloko bar should be in stock "soon" as another alternative. It's a cross between the jones bar and vo crazy bar.
    well, that thing is an interesting piece of work!
    In a world full of people, only some want to ride. Isn't that crazy?
    Seal/CRAZY/misquoted

  68. #5568
    Jon BALER
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by kevrider View Post
    do you think it would have been easier to set up if you had a shorter top tube? or do you think the rear position would have been compromised?
    No, I have used a longer stem with them (120 mm), so always had the option of going shorter. I just recently changed to a 110 stem, so I'll see how that changes my opinion.

  69. #5569
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    99
    I'm waiting on my 2017 Fargo Rival build to show up, and I had a quick question for you guys. Does anybody know if the Whisky rims come taped for tubeless use from the factory? I'm about to order some tires and I'm trying to figure out if I need to get some wide tape as well.
    Santa Cruz Tallboy 2, Cannondale CAAD12, Niner RLT9, Salsa Fargo 27.5+

  70. #5570
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    22
    Mine came with rim strips but I don't think they are tubeless compatible.

    I use 2 rounds of gorilla tape. Have a couple hundred miles on mine. No slow leaks.

  71. #5571
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by misternicholas View Post
    Mine came with rim strips but I don't think they are tubeless compatible.

    I use 2 rounds of gorilla tape. Have a couple hundred miles on mine. No slow leaks.
    Thanks for the quick response. I exchanged some emails with the guys at Whisky, and they thought it "might" come with tape, but they were not 100% sure. Thanks for chiming in and letting me know. Sounds like I should just go ahead and order some 40mm tape and have it ready to go.
    Santa Cruz Tallboy 2, Cannondale CAAD12, Niner RLT9, Salsa Fargo 27.5+

  72. #5572
    CKD
    CKD is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1
    Has anyone ridden a 2016 and a 2017 back to back?

    If so, any opinions? I'm a bit curious about how the new "stronger" tubing rides.

  73. #5573
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    73
    i'm interested in the 2017 for the longer reach in the XL. hopefully someone can comment on that too!

  74. #5574
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,304
    And crap. So I think I'm unexpectedly in need of a new frame, and I guess it's time for a fargo.

    Anyone know when the 2017 framesets are expected to be available?

    And is the frameset-only option just the grey with carbon fork this year?

  75. #5575
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    SPAM warning . . .

    I have a perfect condition dynamo wheel that is uniquely suited to the 2017 Fargo in 27.5+ form. SP PD-8X hub (15mm thru-axle) with DT XM 551 rim (40mm inside, tubeless ready) and Sapim butted spokes. Currently taped for tubeless w/ valve installed.

    FYI if anyone is interested before I go the eBay route, PM me.

  76. #5576
    trail rat
    Reputation: slocaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,815
    There are free sale listings here on MTBR in case you did not know.
    "The physician heals, Nature makes well" - real fortune cookie

    CCCMB trail work for trail access - SLO, CA

  77. #5577
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    And crap. So I think I'm unexpectedly in need of a new frame, and I guess it's time for a fargo.

    Anyone know when the 2017 framesets are expected to be available?

    And is the frameset-only option just the grey with carbon fork this year?
    It wasn't easy, but I was able to find a large '17 Fargo GX in Phx just after Christmas last year. Most shops I checked with were expecting stock mid-March. And yes, I believe the frame only option is gray, but calling it gray doesn't do it justice. It has purple, pearlescent undertones and is actually quite nice. Prefer the forest service green though. Loving the Fargo (and WC bar) on singletrack, BTW. Carves switchbacks and soaks up bumps far better than I expected. My $5K+ FS bike is turning into a garage queen.
    The older I get the better I was...

  78. #5578
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,304
    ^ I've been doing the rigid+dirtdrops thing for a few years so I know what I'm getting into, but today I found a crack in my current frame. It's steel so I have to spend some time debating whether to fix it & get it repainted, or get a new frame and move things over.

    Good to hear about the gray, though. It wouldn't have been my first preference, but I can't really stall 8 months and wait for the 2018s.
    Last edited by newfangled; 04-13-2017 at 08:14 PM.

  79. #5579
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    Call me a convert. Very surprised at how much I'm liking the dirt drops and the Fargo geo. Started riding mtb on rigid bikes in the 80s (when that was all there was) so being back on welded steel feels like coming home. Feels good, I must say.

    Bummer about your frame, and good luck finding a replacement for your rebuild.
    The older I get the better I was...

  80. #5580
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by CKD View Post
    Has anyone ridden a 2016 and a 2017 back to back?

    If so, any opinions? I'm a bit curious about how the new "stronger" tubing rides.
    Post DELETED due to major brain fart by the author.
    The older I get the better I was...

  81. #5581
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WarPigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    803
    Can't find a review anywhere for the 2017 Fargo, but I've ordered it. ETA first of May.
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  82. #5582
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newfangled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,304
    There's so little information out there.

    I know people have said that the 2017 has the same basic geo as the old deadwood, but I'm really curious about 29+ when seeing a photo like this (which uses the 27.5+ wheel):

    The Salsa Fargo Thread-image-71.jpg

    Anyone know how truly 29+ compatible the 2017 is? I guess the plate probably needs to be all the way back, which means no ss unless you luck out on your gearing?

  83. #5583
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    244
    i have no personal experience, but there have been lots of complaints about clearance for 29+ on the fargo fb page.
    In a world full of people, only some want to ride. Isn't that crazy?
    Seal/CRAZY/misquoted

  84. #5584
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by kevrider View Post
    i have no personal experience, but there have been lots of complaints about clearance for 29+ on the fargo fb page.
    Coming from a salsa Timberjack I will say I am NOT a fan of the alternator plates. Getting the ThruAxle in never feels right. Always feels like its getting cross threaded. I wanted the Fargo but after dealing with the plates on the Timberjack No thanks. To bad to because the bike has a lot of appeal.

  85. #5585
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by bhorocks View Post
    Coming from a salsa Timberjack I will say I am NOT a fan of the alternator plates. Getting the ThruAxle in never feels right. Always feels like its getting cross threaded. I wanted the Fargo but after dealing with the plates on the Timberjack No thanks. To bad to because the bike has a lot of appeal.
    you could just keep the plates loose, then tighten the axle, then tension the chain. i could be wrong. idk.

  86. #5586
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by buell View Post
    you could just keep the plates loose, then tighten the axle, then tension the chain. i could be wrong. idk.
    Not saying they don't work. Just don't really care for them. Given the option I would rather the frame just come setup for 148 spacing. The biggest selling point of the plates though is a single frame that supports lots of wheel choices. To each their own though!

  87. #5587
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    452
    Salsa Spring Sale

    SPRING SPECIAL!

    Cover Any Terrain: SPRING SPECIAL! | Salsa Cycles

    We’re ushering in the warm weather riding season with a Spring Special on selected bikes and frames!

    Complete bikes in this sale include specific Bucksaws, Mukluks, and Colossals. Framesets include specific Blackborow, Bucksaw, and Mukluk.

    Spring Special prices are as follows!

    Full Bikes:

    2016 Salsa Bucksaw Carbon Bike / Orange Red $4500

    2016 Salsa Bucksaw X01 Bike / Transparent Blue $2999

    2016 Salsa Bucksaw GX1 Bike / Black $2295

    2016 Salsa Mukluk Front Sus GX1 Bike / Black $1999

    2016 Salsa Colossal Apex Bike/ White $1350

    Frames:

    2016 Salsa Bucksaw Carbon Frame / Orange Red $1499

    2016 Salsa Mukluk Rigid Frameset / Black $599

    2016 Salsa Blackborow Rigid Frameset / Green $650

    Head to your local authorized Salsa Dealer and take advantage of these deals while supplies last!
    Last edited by Erik_A; 04-18-2017 at 05:53 PM.

  88. #5588
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,253
    Quote Originally Posted by bhorocks View Post
    Coming from a salsa Timberjack I will say I am NOT a fan of the alternator plates. Getting the ThruAxle in never feels right. Always feels like its getting cross threaded. I wanted the Fargo but after dealing with the plates on the Timberjack No thanks. To bad to because the bike has a lot of appeal.
    Dealers have reported several Timberjack frames being out of spec/alignment. Take yours in and have it checked. If it is out of alignment it should be warranted.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  89. #5589
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by bhorocks View Post
    Not saying they don't work. Just don't really care for them. Given the option I would rather the frame just come setup for 148 spacing. The biggest selling point of the plates though is a single frame that supports lots of wheel choices. To each their own though!
    Also, based on my experience, the plates are never in stock. It's great that my frame can potentially run a different wheel config, but when are the plates for my intended config going to be available? smh

    I had a mistrust of EBBs due to an old Biocentric, but after riding a bike with a bushnell ebb, I'm convinced these are better than the alternators (which I used to love except until I needed to get a plate).

  90. #5590
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by DoLB View Post
    Also, based on my experience, the plates are never in stock. It's great that my frame can potentially run a different wheel config, but when are the plates for my intended config going to be available? smh

    I had a mistrust of EBBs due to an old Biocentric, but after riding a bike with a bushnell ebb, I'm convinced these are better than the alternators (which I used to love except until I needed to get a plate).
    The part number has been setup in QBP for well over a year. Literally since the Deadwood was announced. But to the best of my knowledge, Salsa has never shipped a single pair of them unattached to a bike, so none of us have ever been able to buy them.

    This is particularly annoying now that we can see they exist. They are shipping on the Timberjack NX builds. Any yet Salsa still won't inventory/ship the plates alone. They are extremely basic items, literally 3mm alloy plate with some simple machining, evidenced by their $9.99 msrp. So why a company with the depth and breadth of QBP/Salsa can't figure out how to make and ship a few of them is beyond my comprehension.

  91. #5591
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisx View Post
    Second question, what is a good tire for road and dirt? Example, last august I rode from Klamath Falls south for 3 weeks. I had to ride the roads some, but took as many forest service roads and rail trails as I could find. Nano raptors are good, but fit the stans rims a little tight. What are the other choices.
    in a post above, i responded to this question by recommending Conti Race Kings, but i couldn't say anything about the tubeless setup with Notubes rims. well, i have a pair of 650b Stans rims and wanted to try them on my gravelly thing, so i mounted a pair of Race King 2.0 tires. the test fitting was a fail, 1.9 would been perfect, but the tires went onto the rims easily and sealed nicely.
    In a world full of people, only some want to ride. Isn't that crazy?
    Seal/CRAZY/misquoted

  92. #5592
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    119
    Why is there so little talk on here about the 2017 fargo? Is there an availability issue going on?
    Being in Europe where it seems that only the frame set is available, I'm a bit confused about the 2017 Fargo. As far as I understand, the frame set is Boost (148) spacing in the rear... but why not Boost in the front? Complete wheel sets seem to be sold as boost front AND rear.
    Ideally, I would like to use a QR (135) rear wheel but then, the alternator plates seem to be unavailable around here. This year's Fargo is a bit of an odd bike to me... and I want one.
    Anyone has built one up from a frame set? I am planning on using 29er wheels.

    Gearing wise. How do I get the lowest gearing with a double chainset that works with brifters? Planning on using cable disks.

    Anyone has any 2017 to show?

  93. #5593
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    I have the GX model, which ships with 135mm rear and QR. This configuration uses the Alternator reduction plates to bring it down to 135mm. Rear can be set up boost, but the steel fork is 100mm. I bought the complete. Can't answer your gearing question.
    The older I get the better I was...

  94. #5594
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    13
    I've built my frameset almost like the stock steel model. With the double GX front 24-38 or something I feel like I can ride anywhere without spinning out.

    I went with 29+ wheels and the clearance could be better. 40mm ID rims with WTB Rangers.

    I'll probably build me some regular 29er wheels for winter/mud season riding.

    Other than that I'm very pleased with it. It sure is odd to put a non boost fork on it but it's not a huge problem. I'll post some photos as soon as I get back to my computer.

  95. #5595
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    34
    I picked up my 2017 GX this past weekend. I got in about 20 miles on Sunday, mostly paved.

    I also find the frame / dropout combinations confusing. I'm pretty clear on what I have, but it isn't clear to me what my options are, and how I would get them. I can't find any documentation on Salsa's website that summarizes it. Seems like I would need new plates for either 142 x 12 or 148 in the rear?

    All in all, though, pretty happy with the bike so far. The green on the GX frame looks great in person, and some of the designs on the paint add a nice touch. I'm still working out the ergonomics, but I was able to get things adjusted pretty close pretty easily, so no red flags there (5'11" on a Large frame).

    The Rocket Rons that came with it are a bit of a let down. I'm leaning towards either replacing the rims with something wider and going with a Surly ET or just swapping the tires for a gravel tire for now and buying a wheelset with wider rims later to run a plus-sized tire.

    The Salsa Fargo Thread-fargo-sm.jpg

  96. #5596
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    99
    The much anticipated (leaked) ti Fargo is on the website today. Looks great.

    FARGO TI FRAMESET | Bikes | Salsa Cycles
    Santa Cruz Tallboy 2, Cannondale CAAD12, Niner RLT9, Salsa Fargo 27.5+

  97. #5597
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    452
    Salsa announced Ti versions of the 2017 Fargo and Timberjack

    The Return Of Titanium | Salsa Cycles

    Salsa Timberjack Ti and Fargo framesets released: Return of Titanium. - BIKEPACKING.com
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails The Salsa Fargo Thread-salsa_fargo_ti_profile_white.jpg  

    The Salsa Fargo Thread-salsa_fargo_ti_forward_white.jpg  

    The Salsa Fargo Thread-salsa_fargo_ti_rear_drive_white.jpg  

    The Salsa Fargo Thread-salsa_fargo_ti_rear_white.jpg  

    The Salsa Fargo Thread-fargo_ti_15_sv_1440x960.jpg  

    The Salsa Fargo Thread-fargo_ti_15_34f_1440x960.jpg  


  98. #5598
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6
    Does anyone have an experience with the Salsa Cowchipper bars over the Woodchipper?

    I intended the Fargo to be my all-around second bike to use bikepacking, commuting, trailering around the kids, and for mountain biking when my local trails that are getting a little boring on my full suspension.

    I'm 5'11" on a 2017 medium Fargo. When in the drops, I feel a little too much leaned over like the bars are too low, even though the handlebars are at the top of my spacer stack. My bars are currently set up so riding on the hoods is pretty comfortable, but hard to reach the levers in the drops. I could move the hoods lower, but then I'm afraid I would be limited to the "too-low" drop position all the time. I find this position tiring for long rides.

    I know the Cowchippers will solve the problem of having a useable lever position in hoods and the drops, but will they put me in an even lower position on the bike since they have a bit more drop? Or will the tighter radius of the Cowchippers improve my position?

    I may also try a higher rise stem, but for now I'm wondering if different bars might solve both problems (lever reach in hoods/drops and getting a more upright position.)

  99. #5599
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeR91 View Post

    I also find the frame / dropout combinations confusing. I'm pretty clear on what I have, but it isn't clear to me what my options are, and how I would get them. I can't find any documentation on Salsa's website that summarizes it. Seems like I would need new plates for either 142 x 12 or 148 in the rear?




    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Fargo sm.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	307.5 KB 
ID:	1134868
    The way I understand it, you would need the the plates that accept a 12mm axle. When I looked into it, it looked like you would use those plates with the alternator reduction plates on the GX fargo for a 142x12 spacing, or use the plates without for 148x12. I could be wrong about that, but it makes sense to me.

  100. #5600
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorshanks View Post
    Does anyone have an experience with the Salsa Cowchipper bars over the Woodchipper?

    I intended the Fargo to be my all-around second bike to use bikepacking, commuting, trailering around the kids, and for mountain biking when my local trails that are getting a little boring on my full suspension.

    I'm 5'11" on a 2017 medium Fargo. When in the drops, I feel a little too much leaned over like the bars are too low, even though the handlebars are at the top of my spacer stack. My bars are currently set up so riding on the hoods is pretty comfortable, but hard to reach the levers in the drops. I could move the hoods lower, but then I'm afraid I would be limited to the "too-low" drop position all the time. I find this position tiring for long rides.

    I know the Cowchippers will solve the problem of having a useable lever position in hoods and the drops, but will they put me in an even lower position on the bike since they have a bit more drop? Or will the tighter radius of the Cowchippers improve my position?

    I may also try a higher rise stem, but for now I'm wondering if different bars might solve both problems (lever reach in hoods/drops and getting a more upright position.)
    I've never tried the Cowchippers, but like the Woodchippers quite a bit. I'm a little over 6' on a large and went with higher stem to get the drops up to almost saddle level. I may eventually go a bit higher and longer with the stem, but overall it's pretty comfortable. I also rotated the bars forward a smidge (drops parallel with the sloping top tube) and moved the levers a tad lower. Also adjusted the reach to the levers inward. Shifting and braking feel pretty natural now. I've been riding quite a bit of moderately technical singletrack and loving the control. Tap-tap levers are okay, and must say I like them better than I thought I would. Also surprised at how well the bike handles tight switchbacks, up and down. I ride 90 percent in the drops, which I find quite comfortable.
    Last edited by veloborealis; 05-06-2017 at 07:55 PM.
    The older I get the better I was...

Members who have read this thread: 326

Posting Permissions

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