Packing for the Alpine Loop - Salsa Deadwood

[monkeyrider]

I had the opportunity to ride a Deadwood last weekend. This bike rips through singletrack. I could not believe how much fun it was. I really thought it would be slow and lumbering, but I was wrong. Had a blast riding it for about an hour. The knards have impressive traction.

 

[Christophe Noel]

I put about 300 miles, if not more, on the Deadwood and rode it one last time an hour prior to putting it in a box headed back to Salsa HQ. Loved it. It is spry for what it is, even under load.

 

[Co-opski]

^^^Have you been on the cutthroat yet? Looks like a next level Fargo.

 

[monkeyrider]

I've demo'd the Cutthroat twice. Really nice bike, incredibly light, especially compared to my gen 1 Fargo. I liked the bike a lot, but it was not as much fun on singletrack as the Deadwood. A friend of mine is planning to run a sus fork on his. I think this would make a world of difference. If you do a lot of longer distance bikepacking, it's a great bike.

 

[Christophe Noel]

^^^Have you been on the cutthroat yet? Looks like a next level Fargo.

Soon I hope. I'm looking at the Cutthroat to replace my Ti Fargo, but that's a tall order.

In other exciting news, I meet with another ExPo member in the bike industry to arrange for a long term test of their response to the Pony Rustler. I'm excited about that one. I'll know more next week. It's another plus size missile with boingy ends. A format I have come to love.

 

[p nut]

I've been looking at adding a drop bar MTB to the stable, and of course, the obvious choice is the Fargo. Looking at the geo specs between the Fargo and Deadwood, it is almost exactly the same, except 1deg slacker HTA, longer WB. Surprised to see BB drop is the same, but guess Salsa expects people to take the DW through rougher terrain. This is good news for me, since I like smaller tires better.

Not sure if you're able to answer this, but what I'd like to find out is how the two compare given the same 29x2.4" tires. I'm not interested in a 29+ platform, as I've got a bike already that can handle that (and have been set up as such), but for my type of riding, the sweet spot is 2.4" tires. (If I need fatter, I'll take my Blackborow.) My thinking is that the DW would be much more fun downhill and in the techy sections. I can't think that either would have an advantage on the flats. So point to the DW.

What I don't like is this boost 148 crap (I understand the theory behind it, but at my weight, no advantage to me). I have a few accessories, and in particular, my Chariot trailer that I use to tow my kids around in at times. Sure would be nice to just use the stuff I've got now (not sure if they even make 148 TA adapters). This is a point to the Fargo.

I'm leaning towards the Fargo, as it would fit my needs for a backcountry bikepacker. The DW's appeal is the added DH prowess. Something I'd want, but not a need.

 

[Christophe Noel]

I can't see the advantage of buying a DW, and good luck getting one, and then not embracing the larger tires. They really, really do work when you go off gravel. Don't forget, the DW is rolling on 45mm rims, so going down a tire size below 2.8 is going to probably feel weird.

As for the Boost spacing, it's really important to maintain a standard bottom bracket Q-factor. It has nothing to do with weight of the rider. It's necessary to get the chain clearance around the tire.

Ultimately, the DW is the better weapon if you desire a bike that can rip singletrack. This is not to say the Fargo can't, but I will be the first to admit that a Fargo on even moderately technical singletrack gets to be a handful. The Fargo really likes gravel and unimproved roads with moderately chunky surfaces. I ride my Fargo with a SID carbon fork for those times when I dabble on singletrack.

Putting smaller wheels and tires on the DW just wouldn't make sense.

 

[p nut]

Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify, if I got the Deadwood, I'd build up from frame. Whatever bike I get will get Crest rims with 29x~2.4" tires. I think the DW will still rip with the "skinnies". Still not sold on Boost (which I thought the main idea behind it is more symm wheelbuild = stronger), but glad they stuck to BSA/73mm BB. My wallet says Fargo is the better buy, but I really like the slightly slacker geo of the DW, as it would fit my style better.

It's getting close to being snow biking season for me anyway, so no hurry if these aren't available yet. Would make a good winter project.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Sounds to me like you need a Fargo, not a Dw. The Boost spacing is critical for chain/tire clearance on these newer plus-size bikes. If you're going to run Crest rims and 2.4 tires, they'll clear the fork no problem as it's the same on both bikes. It will be a teeny bit tight on the Fargo rear, but depending on who's 2.4, it should fit. But...I think unless you're wanting to tackle genuine singletrack, the Fargo is the bomb.

Regarding subtle geometry differences between the two, I can't say they have any impact at all until you get in the techy trails, at which point having the plus-size tires is the HUGE difference over a subtle degree of lay-back. This is really a tale of two beasts. The Fargo is a 60/40 road/mt machine. The DW is a 60/40 mt/road machine. The DW without its 45mm rims and plus tires, is just a Fargo with big hips.

And if you want a DW, you better get in line today. And don't dally.

 

[p nut]

The difference between + and 2.4" tires in tech sections weren't that drastic for me (on the same bike). But I'm probably slow on either tire, so take that into consideration. The + tires definitely do add to comfort over fast, rocky sections, and bit more traction in the loose stuff. Of course, the penalty is the heft, which I find carries more weight, no pun intended.

I think this is a "no lose" situation, but I am leaning DW. Gives me the flexibility of 60/40 or 40/60, as you said, by simply changing tires/wheels. Already got my bike shop working on securing a frameset, when they become available. Already got a name for the "Fargo with big hips" = Badonkadonk.

 

[Christophe Noel]

I spent several weeks alternating DW and Ti Fargo for my daily ride. It was interesting to ride the same trails and roads back to back. What I discovered was, the DW with the 2.8 tires and 45mm rims excels on almost every surface and scenario I put in front of it. The on-road performance was marginally slower for the DW, but when I added a few PSI to the bigger tires and once I got them rolling, it was nearly as swift as the Fargo. Accelerations are slower.

What I also noticed was, the more I rode the DW, the more disenchanted I became with the off-road performance of the Ti Fargo. It just felt too compromising on singletrack. So, I ended up putting 2.0 tires on the Fargo making it even MORE adept on gravel.

I think it just boils down to my desire to either use a bike for its intended purpose and not screw around with it, or to set up that bike and use it in a way that amplifies its positive attributes. This is why I don't put standard 29er wheels on my Beargrease. Or why I don't put low profile tires on my Jeep.

I try to maximize the design of a bike, not wiggle my own funky interpretation out of it. I also ride my bikes bone stock anymore. It's just easier.

 

[p nut]

I spent several weeks alternating DW and Ti Fargo for my daily ride. It was interesting to ride the same trails and roads back to back. What I discovered was, the DW with the 2.8 tires and 45mm rims excels on almost every surface and scenario I put in front of it. The on-road performance was marginally slower for the DW, but when I added a few PSI to the bigger tires and once I got them rolling, it was nearly as swift as the Fargo. Accelerations are slower.

What I also noticed was, the more I rode the DW, the more disenchanted I became with the off-road performance of the Ti Fargo. It just felt too compromising on singletrack. So, I ended up putting 2.0 tires on the Fargo making it even MORE adept on gravel.

I think it just boils down to my desire to either use a bike for its intended purpose and not screw around with it, or to set up that bike and use it in a way that amplifies its positive attributes. This is why I don't put standard 29er wheels on my Beargrease. Or why I don't put low profile tires on my Jeep.

I try to maximize the design of a bike, not wiggle my own funky interpretation out of it. I also ride my bikes bone stock anymore. It's just easier.

This just proves we are all individuals and our experiences are our own. The trails that I ride, I am actually faster on the 2.4" Goma/Ardents than Chupacabras. Faster on the ups and as fast on the downs (although bit more painful with the 2.4"). Sustained gradual/moderate climbs, I definitely felt the heft of the bigger wheels/tires. Laws of physics apply there, too. Looking at my GPS segments, I'd say I'm ~5% slower with 29+ and 10% with Fat tires.

For the record, I like funky interpretations. We wouldn't have the innovations we do today if it weren't for the creative minds that said "why not?"