Spearfish 1 vs. Spearfish 2 frame only- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    570

    Spearfish 1 vs. Spearfish 2 frame only

    Considering a small frame for my 5'5" wife and looking at the spearfish frames. I am pretty particular on builds and need a frame only. She is an endurance cross country racer and currently rides an old Fisher Sugar. Specifically: any good reason to go w/ the Spearfish 1 over the Spearfish 2? The differences are the 142mm x 12mm rear axle, Fox RP2 instead of the RS Monarch, and the anodized over the powdercoat. "better tracking" of the rear end w/ the Maxle drop out doesn't seem like a big deal especially for a smaller rider Some people actually prefer the Monarch over the Fox shocks. Small weight penalty for the powdercoat. Any thoughts?
    TIA.
    andy

  2. #2
    The Human Arrow
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy13 View Post
    Considering a small frame for my 5'5" wife and looking at the spearfish frames. I am pretty particular on builds and need a frame only. She is an endurance cross country racer and currently rides an old Fisher Sugar. Specifically: any good reason to go w/ the Spearfish 1 over the Spearfish 2? The differences are the 142mm x 12mm rear axle, Fox RP2 instead of the RS Monarch, and the anodized over the powdercoat. "better tracking" of the rear end w/ the Maxle drop out doesn't seem like a big deal especially for a smaller rider Some people actually prefer the Monarch over the Fox shocks. Small weight penalty for the powdercoat. Any thoughts?
    TIA.
    andy
    In the absence of the SF1 frame, the other SF frames are nice. But, since it IS available,and especially since you're "particular on your builds" , the SF 1 would be the obvious choice IMO. I think anodized finishes are great... the 142mm can only make the back end "better", and the Fox RP2 does seem to be preferable. If you don't like the RP2, I'm sure you would have zero trouble trading with someone from their SF2 or SF3...
    And besides... it's for your wife She surely deserves the good stuff...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    The SF 1 will be considerably lighter, frame only, with the anodizing versus powdercoat. The rear end is also noticeably stiffer. I just posted reviews of both bikes, after riding back to back, a couple weeks ago:

    Spearfish 1 Review

    Spearfish 2 Review

  4. #4
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,104
    I can't imagine the SF1 would be worth the difference in cost. Another option is to pick up last year's Spearfish frame, with headset and fork (Reba RL) from bikeman for $1199 total. That's what I did. :-)

    Bikeman CC - Salsa Spearfish 29'' Suspension Frame with Reba RL Fork & Cane Creek Headset

    I only have two rides on my new Spearfish, but it seems pretty sweet!
    baker

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by baker View Post
    I can't imagine the SF1 would be worth the difference in cost. Another option is to pick up last year's Spearfish frame, with headset and fork (Reba RL) from bikeman for $1199 total. That's what I did. :-)

    Bikeman CC - Salsa Spearfish 29'' Suspension Frame with Reba RL Fork & Cane Creek Headset

    I only have two rides on my new Spearfish, but it seems pretty sweet!
    It's a $300 price difference for the 'frame only' option. That $300 buys the beefier rear end, upgraded shock, and more durable/lighter anodizing. I can't see how that wouldn't be worth the difference in cost.

    FWIW, this is one of the rare times in MTBRdom where I can give an informed "I rode both, back to back, over the course of 4 days, and here's my thought" opinions. The Spearfish 1 is worth the extra $300...even excluding fork and build parts.

  6. #6
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,104
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    It's a $300 price difference for the 'frame only' option. That $300 buys the beefier rear end, upgraded shock, and more durable/lighter anodizing. I can't see how that wouldn't be worth the difference in cost.

    FWIW, this is one of the rare times in MTBRdom where I can give an informed "I rode both, back to back, over the course of 4 days, and here's my thought" opinions. The Spearfish 1 is worth the extra $300...even excluding fork and build parts.
    Good to hear first hand experience with both. I wonder if the same difference in performance would be noticeable for a very small framed endurance racer.

    For me, the extra cost of the SF1 isn't financially justifiable (regardless of how much better it is). Heck, I couldn't even justify the cost of the "new" SF2 frame. :-)
    baker

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    570
    Salsa lists the Spearfish 2 complete bike as 0.2lbs(~90g) heavier than the Spearfish 1 complete bike in size small. It looks like the Spearfish 1 should have a lighter build kit. Unsure on the weight difference between the Fox and RS Reba forks, however, it does not appear from this that the lighter frame argument holds up. I would think the added weight of the paint is negated partly, if not completely, by the weight of the maxle rear. Any tried and true weight comparisons between the two frames?

  8. #8
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,104
    As a point of reference (in case anyone has other frame weights), my 18" 2011 Spearfish frame with seat collar weighed 2485g...

    Brad
    baker

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    527
    i like the RS over the fox. hell its only 80mm of travel, so it works just fine and is nice and active on the downhills.

    and i bet she can't tell the difference in the rear on the two frames. and one could easily argue that it just plain doesn't matter for her in real world application.

    and how much more is powder coat over anodized? that's the real question to see if its worth it.
    Last edited by hobiesmith; 01-30-2012 at 04:40 PM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy13 View Post
    Salsa lists the Spearfish 2 complete bike as 0.2lbs(~90g) heavier than the Spearfish 1 complete bike in size small. It looks like the Spearfish 1 should have a lighter build kit. Unsure on the weight difference between the Fox and RS Reba forks, however, it does not appear from this that the lighter frame argument holds up. I would think the added weight of the paint is negated partly, if not completely, by the weight of the maxle rear. Any tried and true weight comparisons between the two frames?
    Comparing built bikes, measured back to back, same tires/saddle, no cages, etc., I measured a 20" Spearfish 1 at over 2 pounds lighter than an 18" Spearfish 2. Those were stock spec bikes.

    It's also pretty well accepted in the fat bike world that the Mukluk 2 (with anodized frame) is significantly lighter, frame weight only, than the Mukluk 3. I wouldn't rule out a significant weight difference.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    Comparing built bikes, measured back to back, same tires/saddle, no cages, etc., I measured a 20" Spearfish 1 at over 2 pounds lighter than an 18" Spearfish 2. Those were stock spec bikes.
    What were the weights?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by Rucker61 View Post
    What were the weights?


    I was writing down notes for my review, and I jotted down that the SF1 weighed 1.06kg less than the SF2. I was so surprised by this, that I completely forgot to write down the actual weights. D'oh.

  13. #13
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,609
    I doubt there is that much difference in frame-only weight between the SF1 and SF2. No paint will save a few ounces, but the thru-axle assy in the rear will add some of that back. Not sure what the difference in the weight of the shock itself is, but it's possible that the Fox RP2 w/Boost Valve is a touch heavier than the Rockshox. The bike rides great with the Rockshox. I have a Small SF2 frame in the shop, still in the box - I'll see if I can get it unpacked and weigh it today. IMO, the SF1 makes sense more for heavier, or really hard-charging riders with the rear thru-axle. A light rider who doesn't push it probably will see no benefit from the "nicer" frameset other than the more durable finish and/or just like the look. I'd bet that a SF2 framed-bike could be built to within an ounce or two of the anodizes bike with the thru-axle.

    On the build kit(s), the places you save weight between the SF1 and SF2 are the following:
    Hubs - DT 350 vs Formula. Formula hubs are actually nice hubs, but kinda heavy, in my experience.
    Bar and Seatpost on the SF1 are Carbon vs. the aluminum on the SF2.
    Cassette saves about 3 ounces (PG1070 @ 308g vs PG1030 @ 395g)
    A few grams here and there on the Brakes, Rear Derailleur, Shifters, etc... might add up to a few ounces. The savings on the cassette alone might be as much as most of the other parts. I have a kinda hard time seeing that the CF bars and post, the hubs, and the other few ounces can add up to a 2 pound difference, unless they put a Ti-railed saddle and a few other bits on the bike(s) that were tested by you Lawfarm, but then again, ya never know. Those Formula hubs could be heavier than I estimate! (The wheels are basically the same otherwise except for brass/alloy nipples - maybe 40g savings between both wheels?) I won't have a small SF1 coming in unless we have a special order for later in the season, but maybe have a Med-Med at the same time and then compare directly with the scale!
    R.I.P. Corky 10/97-4/09
    Disclaimer: I sell and repair bikes for a living


  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    570
    Andy from Salsa got back to me and didn't have the weight difference but said the Mukluk 2 (anodized) is 1/4 lb. lighter than the Mukluk 3 (painted). These are frame only obviously.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by lawfarm View Post
    It's a $300 price difference for the 'frame only' option. That $300 buys the beefier rear end, upgraded shock, and more durable/lighter anodizing. I can't see how that wouldn't be worth the difference in cost.

    FWIW, this is one of the rare times in MTBRdom where I can give an informed "I rode both, back to back, over the course of 4 days, and here's my thought" opinions. The Spearfish 1 is worth the extra $300...even excluding fork and build parts.
    Yes! and thank-you for that review. I also do endurance racing and that rear shock alone would be about what? $400.00. I like what Bruce Brown said something like this! with all the new THT Taperd forks PF30 or BB30 142x12mm rears having it all with the right wheels togather make the differnces that add-up.. Right now for me it's just finding the best deal out there on the SF1 frame.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,447
    Frame weight is a red herring

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.