Chips and SALSA Deadwood

[Sandstorm]

Anyone have a Salsa Deadwood? Looking for comparisons to the Fargo. They basically look the same. Wondering about running smaller wheels how does it affect the BB height.

Post up your pics and reviews.

[Chippertheripper]

I just have the lust for one.  I may and up owning one by the time I'm able to put together a run at the TD.

[bikeny]

Running smaller wheels in the Deadwood would lower the BB! Look at the geometries and figure it out, it's not rocket science. I have no experience with either one, but I have fallen for Plus size tires!

[Smithhammer]

I don't have one, but I've demo'd one and rode it on a dirt road, and then on some rocky, twisty singletrack.

On the dirt road, it pretty much felt like a Fargo with bigger tires. But when I hit some washboard, those big tires noticeably smoothed out the ride.

When I got it on singletrack is where it really shined. I'm one of those weirdos who really enjoys riding singletrack with my Fargo anyway, but the Deadwood just ate it up.

Bottom line? 29+ tires smooth out the rough stuff, and if you're going to ride it and bikepack with it primarily on rougher terrain, it's worth it. I'm not sure why you would want to put smaller tires on a Deadwood. Kind of negates the whole point of the bike.

[dream4est]

We have been building one for a customer at the shop I work at. Nice bike. But I have to disagree about the notion that this would be a great choice for packing it primarily on tough terrain. Its a gravel road bike that can hit ST, but it is out of its element on hard trails. Would be my last choice for a CTR bike. YMMV.

[Smithhammer]

I think it comes down to how one defines "rough terrain" and I should have been more clear above. It's not a bike that I would recommend for the kind of terrain where you're really going to want a dedicated mtn. bike with suspension. It is however (in my opinion) a bike that is going to offer a more comfortable ride on rougher dirt roads, moderate single track, etc. that would be less comfortable on a Fargo (similar to what the ECR offers over the Ogre).

[Flounder]

I had one of the five pre-production Deadwood bikes for about 60 days and in that time I rode the holy hell out of it. Daily. I also did three different bikepack trips on it. To the comment above about it not being good for rough terrain, I could not disagree more. I was on singletrack with it every day and it was a blast. It does have a lower BB than ideal for techy singletrack. The brake position is a little tricky on steep and technical descents. The gearing may not be low enough for super steep trail under full load, but to say it's not good for singletrack or rough trail is grossly inaccurate.

If you're mindful of pedal strike, telegraph your turns as to not push wide or clip the inside, it does just fine. It wraps up to speed a little slower than a Fargo for obvious reasons, but its a really fun bike. You can read a bit of my reviews here:

http://expeditionportal.com/three-days-of-deadwood-bikepacking-the-alpine-loop/
http://www.bikepacking.com/gear/salsa-deadwood-review/

[dream4est]

Be mindful of pedal strike? Telegraph your turns? Tricky brake lever position? That means not a technical trail descending bike. Christophe we all know Salsa gives you test bikes for free in exchange for pix and good reviews. Heck they probably even kick U down some cash too. How about an actual neutral and impartial opinion?

[Flounder]

Be mindful of pedal strike? Telegraph your turns? Tricky brake lever position? That means not a technical trail descending bike. Christophe we all know Salsa gives you test bikes for free in exchange for pix and good reviews. Heck they probably even kick U down some cash too. How about an actual neutral and impartial opinion?

Ouch. For the record, Salsa gives me no remuneration for images or editorial. 

I've given a pretty impartial review of the Deadwood. Is the Deadwood designed for ripping technical singletrack? Of course not. Does it do it better than I expected? You bet. The OP asked about the difference between a Fargo and a Deadwood. The Deadwood genuinely does better the rougher the terrain gets. Crazy as it sounds, I would employ the Deadwood in some of the environments were some might even reach for an El Mariache, or similar. The Deadwood just has better gravel and long mile potential with the drop bars and extra hand positions.

With regard to my impartial opinion - I did mention weak areas, or limitations of the DW. Because the wheels are so massive, and the wheelbase rather long, you can't just go burning into a tight turn and not anticipate shooting a wee bit wide. So, you do have to anticipate that extra turning effort. I'm simply pointing out that while it does tackle technical singletrack WAY better than a 'cross bike or Fargo, as a drop bar bike it does better than many might expect. Like all bikes, it has positive attributes and negative attributes, most of that influenced by how and where it's being used, just as you said. Keep in mind, a lot of perceived "negatives" are highly subjective, so I spend them carefully.

I've been open about other opinions. For me the gearing is too tall for loaded touring. The BB7s can't manage the mass of the big hoops under full load in steep terrain. This has been in my previous comments on the bike.

BTW, I just PURCHASED my next Salsa with my own hard earned money. And a Rocky Mountain, again, with hard earned cash. Other test bikes I get are like all media bikes, loaners that must go back eventually, good review or not. In this year's lineup I'm reviewing bikes from Specialized, Advocate, Scott, Rocky Mountain and nothing from Salsa. Just how it turned out.

Lastly, I would politely ask you not accuse me of being a dishonest or corrupt journalist. I'm above all, a bike guy. And I also don't just go to Sea Otter, doddle around on a new bike, take a picture of it behind a tent and then write a "review." I spend as many tent-bound nights as any testing these bikes where they were designed to be used. I don't pen a word until I've put several hundred miles on a bike, sometimes months of use.

[dream4est]

Who said shady? I just get real tired of folks who get to ride bikes for free all year and then tell the rest of us its so awesome, like Francois from MTBR and anyone from MBA. In the real world bikes need maintanence, they crack and break and fail. Yes all the brands too not just some of them. The public never hears about most of that because all testing is done in the style like u test bikes. Of course u will say this bike is better than the Fargo, but that is just another Salsa. How about a comparision to the Stache or the Krampus. Well that is because Trek and Surly wont give u a bike for free to test. You are sponsored by Salsa and no doubt bought your new bike at employee pricing rates.

I am saying that all freelance MTB journalists do this. Those companies should let me ride their bikes for free and give a real honest opinion. They dont do that the only give them out to fanboys who will shower their bikes with praise.

Here in Moab we always see folks showing up with these plus bikes with and not liking how they perform unless the rider limits the riding scope quite a bit. Gravel grinding and singletrack are two entirely different animals. I have yet to see a bike that does both well.

Riding technical singletrack is not where these bikes shine. At all. Salsa only has one frame that fits that mold and its the Horsetheif. It doesnt take months of riding them to see that. Maybe the Pony Rustler will fill that category too, but us non-journalists havent seen that one just yet.

More than a few bikes suck these days. Saying otherwise is not credible journalism IMO.

I ride a Scott Spark 900sl. I cracked it the first week I had it in the 2014 TD. It took 15 months to find that crack. Its great at triple crown racing but not burly enough for that or tech ST. I ride it real fast and it only shines when heavy tires, a 120mm fork, a short stem and riser bar are used.  I broke the stock carbon rear rim too. And Scott has poor CS in the sale follow through and in the warranty situation. The story is always about how one has to wait for a boat from Europe for a bike or replacement frame part. Like most folks besides Enve who sell carbon hoops they will not back them when they fail. Also, the Stock Fox fork had failed bushings at mile 2000 of the 2014 TD. Fox laughed at me even though I was a shop team sponsored racer who just finished a triple crown effort. They wanted 240 USD to fix a fork I broke using lockout on a dirt road. Bolts cracked as well on the Spark rear Tri. The whole experience has been filled with good race efforts but poor lifespan for a 9200 retail bike.

That is a short impartial review of a bike.

[dream4est]

I may actually buy this bike for the 2016 TD. So dont think i dont like it a lot. I am just trying to offer an opinion based from a technical riders standpoint.

[Flounder]

  Of course u will say this bike is better than the Fargo, but that is just another Salsa. How about a comparision to the Stache or the Krampus. Well that is because Trek and Surly wont give u a bike for free to test. You are sponsored by Salsa and no doubt bought your new bike at employee pricing rates. 

I don't think you understand how most media bikes arrive in the hands of testers. They are invariably on loan. Not freebies. I also think you failed to see that I was answering the OP's question specifically, having ridden both the Fargo and Deadwood extensively. I have evaluated Surly and Trek bikes before, with more on the way, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the OP's question. Lastly, I am by no means sponsored by Salsa in any way whatsoever, or with any manufacturer for that matter, and haven't been for years.

Just for clarification, I'm not freelance. I'm a senior editor, and get paid whether I write a good bike review, bad bike review, or no review at all.

I pick up on your animosity towards the bike media in general, and I get it. I am under no professional obligation to review bicycles exclusively, but rather pick and choose bikes relevant to the adventure riding segment in one way or another. I've also reviewed hundreds of products over the years and don't feel that unleashing a torrent of negatives about a product is synonymous with honest journalism. If it sucks, it sucks. If it works, it works. And most things do a little of both. Like most journalists, I try to push those opinions through a lens that is not overtly influenced by my personal riding style, terrain, or preferences.

And, most reviews of anything are highly subjective. Different people can evaluate the same product and sometimes arrive at different conclusions, much the way consumers do. That's okay, as well.

I'm extremely fortunate to have the opportunities I have. I do my best to honor that opportunity by respecting the manufacturer enough to evaluate their products within the scope of their design objectives. Mostly, it's about delivering the reader with useful information that they don't have to just qualify as my own weird opinion. That objectivity is hard to achieve, but I try. It may not strike you as authoritative or genuine, but it is at the end of the day, the result of a lot of miles in the saddle and my attempt to best service the reader.

So, to not completely ruin the OP's original question, yes, I do think the Deadwood works beyond gravel. It's also a helluva lot of fun on the singletrack that best pairs with its attributes. That may not be terrain on the upper end of the technical side, like I wouldn't use it to tackle Rock Stacker in Moab, but for the appropriate singletrack, it's great. I used it on sections of the Colorado Trail outside Silverton and that was perfect.


 

[dream4est]

I dont hate the press. I have read your site many times and used the info even when deciding to purchase stuff. I just have a strong opinion with this type of bicycle being good on trails. I completely disagree. Just like my xc race bike it takes modifications to make it somewhat plausible. In the hands of an expert rider these bikes can ride ST, but the speed is so much slower on the downs its like pulling teeth to just ride it at 50% of ones ability. Like I said above YMMV.

I dont see where any bike with these types of bar setups will EVER ride singletrack effectively at the kind of speed it takes to have fun on trails going down. Yes someone can do well in the CTR or AZT on one of these because climbing is 96% of the deal timewise. I just feel that my body is all I have and beating it up just to say I rode the race or tour on a 29+ rigid is foolish IMO. My hands were destroyed after CTR this year. I would be retiring if I rode a 29+ rigid last year.

edit- It is the marketing that is pissing me off not so much the press. One does not need to have a fat bike or 27.5+ bike or 29+ bike IMO. It s the bike companies telling us we need this. They replaced the 26er with the 27.5er  just to sell more new bikes. Thats all this is about. We are being led. Not leading. And you sir are eating right out of their hands. Thats okay. I just dont buy it.

[Flounder]

Thirty years ago my mountain bike was my DH bike, trials bike, race whip, and I rode it to work. Today, bikes are designed with such specificity, they have a narrowed range of uses whereby their attributes work––best. Just like the enduro bike that kinda sucks to ride up a two hour climb, the Deadwood naturally isn't going to be the best tool for a technical descent. So, we're really just saying the same thing about how far outside of its design scope can the Deadwood really go. This is a valid question for nearly any bike these days and it ultimately depends on the rider and what they like to ride and how.

And I love drop bars on mountain bikes, knowing full well how limited they are in actual performance measurements. They just bring out my inner Tomac. That's not a bad thing, is it?

[dream4est]

Well Christophe an enduro bike just set the fastest time in the history of the CTR last year. With a dropper. The Deadwood would not be able to do that.

A guy last year had a fat bike in the TD. Kept up with me for a day. Quit the next day (day 2). He was so strong but he chose the wrong bike.

Tomac was just so badass I dont think it mattered what he rode. You could probably do better than me with the woodchippers on a long tour as u have a lot of saddle time with them. I just feel that would hurt too much to get good at it on trails. But for TD I am seeing the light as anyone with them last year who knew how to use them was way ahead of me for the most part.

I didnt mean to offend u at all. Maybe I came across a bit harsh. Sorry.

[Flounder]

No offense taken. Given my last romp on the CTR with a ti hardtail, I'm looking forward to doing it this year on a Rocky Mt. Instinct BC Edition. Not racing, but just couching along at a touring tempo.

[Smithhammer]

And got pretty stupid.

edit- It is the marketing that is pissing me off not so much the press. One does not need to have a fat bike or 27.5+ bike or 29+ bike IMO. It s the bike companies telling us we need this. They replaced the 26er with the 27.5er  just to sell more new bikes. Thats all this is about. We are being led. Not leading. And you sir are eating right out of their hands. Thats okay. I just dont buy it.

"Marketing" pisses you off? You really get mad at marketing, of all things? Haha...

You're absolutely correct - one does not "need" a +bike. One does not "need" a fat bike either (unless one wants to ride in situations that require more float than a so-called 'normal' bike). One also does not "need" a $7000 full sus bike either. Nor does one "need" a gravel bike. And to continue with this same line of thinking, I'm willing to bet you don't actually don't "need" 85% of the things you own. And I really have to laugh when it is invariably someone who rides a bike with more suspension than my truck lecturing about how someone "doesn't need this or that type of bike."...

But here's the painfully obvious thing that apparently requires spelling out -  NONE of this about "need." This whole counter-reaction of, "well, you don't need ___ (insert whatever type of bike you don't personally like here), and you're just falling for marketing if you think you do," is silly, and misses the entire point. If someone wants a +bike, or a fat bike, or a gravel bike and finds them to be fun and that it enhances their experience, or allows them to experience things in a different way, then what do you care? And if they buy such a bike, and then a year later decide they don't like it, still what do you care? Oh right - because marketing.

Frankly, you strike me as someone who is taking all of this way too seriously.

...I dont see where any bike with these types of bar setups will EVER ride singletrack effectively at the kind of speed it takes to have fun on trails going down.

That seems like a totally subjective statement that you're using as though its some sort of universal fact.

Imagine this - it is entirely possible that two different people might have an equal amount of fun on the same trail, on two totally different bikes. Two different people might have different ideas of "fun." Even the same person might ride the same trail on two different bikes and have two different but equally great experiences, as a result. The Deadwood is definitely designed for singletrack, among other things. All singletrack? Probably not, but doesn't a fair bit of that depend on abilities and desires of the rider? And does something have to be capable on extreme terrain before you're allowed to say that it can be fun on singletrack? After all, people were have a great time on many of the trails around Moab long before anything you currently sell in your shop ever existed. Am I wrong?

[Flounder]

Smithhammer, you brought up a very salient point, one of my favorites. I've lived in the same awesome mountain bike town for 17 years. There are trails I have ridden hundreds of times. Sometimes I get bored and I'll take my Fargo out. Sometimes a fatbike. Maybe I'll grab the singlespeed or full travel bike. Switching it up is fun. I also find riding my Specialized AWOL comp on singletrack sure hones my skills.

We should think up a good cliche. "Variety is the spice of...." Something like that.

[dream4est]

Well one thing u guys are not seeing is that it is nearly impossible now for the average bike shop to not only stock various types of bikes, but now no less than 5 different wheel size configs. Add to that the accessories and the repairs and what I have been seeing happening is the average customer is now looking for something that is basically never "in stock". Shops now have to have huge pockets and groups of investors to just appease their customer base. Social media marketing is killing the industry as far as the LBS is concerned. They wont be able to compete with online stores like Chain Reaction, which sells Shimano at dealer cost or better.

Lately it seems that everyone wants something so unique no shop can cover all those bases. I am not some pro-LBS anti online guy. I just recently got this job and wasnt paying attention to all this new size stuff. But now I have seen it from the shop side and since I am a business owner I wouldnt want to own a shop in 2016. Its a headache to predict what customers will want this year. 6" travel 27.5+ bikes. Really? Boost spacing for 27.5? New fat bike hub spacing every year? Go Pro accessories? All that is marketing being shoved down our throats.

Madison Ave is so good they got everyone including me wanting various bikes for overlapping niches. For example a fat bike when there is nowhere to ride one. All these fat bikes will be sitting there most of the year. No groomed terrain and other users groups dont want these bikes on the winter trails. Fat bike appropriate riding terrain is a unicorn. But we need 4.8"s anyway 3.8" is not enough to ride a packed road.

We have a joke at the shop where we just say Boost all the time (my car has boost - lol). It is making fun of all these new standards. Even mechanics cant keep up with all the new concepts.

edit- Smithhammer u may be right i am taking this too seriously. I realize that. But is it because I am trying to get my bike bag business off the ground and all these new styles make it hard to dial in a front end bag that fits all handlebars. I have had a few local requests for custom work and I have decided not to make the bags because each concept requires a whole new prototype, template, design, etc.  Only one person so far has requested a bag that is somewhat "standard" and they still want it to fit woodchippers AND riser bars but somehow hold a really wide tent stuff sack for both bikes. Everyone else sees something on Ebay that is not easy to reproduce quickly and thinks it can be shit out in two seconds. So I am focusing on a front harness that fits drops, woodchipper, Jones, riser, flat, etc. PITA. I want it to be the most stable ever and have the front pocket zipper work one handed while moving and not damage cables. All these different bars make it so hard to pull it off.
 

[Smithhammer]

Well one thing u guys are not seeing is that it is nearly impossible now for the average bike shop to not only stock various types of bikes, but now no less than 5 different wheel size configs. Add to that the accessories and the repairs and what I have been seeing happening is the average customer is now looking for something that is basically never "in stock". Shops now have to have huge pockets and groups of investors to just appease their customer base. Social media marketing is killing the industry as far as the LBS is concerned. They wont be able to compete with online stores like Chain Reaction, which sells Shimano at dealer cost or better.

I'm not sure what I might have said in my previous statements that would indicate that I've ignorant of what you're saying above, but the truth is, I'm not. I'm been involved in sales and retail mgmt. in several different industries for a long time, and I'm acutely aware of the challenges of maintaining inventory and availability, especially on niche products. You have my sympathies - I know it's a continual battle to have what people want, yet not get stuck sitting on inventory.

At the same time, in the bigger picture, the tension continues to exist between innovation and maintaining status quo. Shops would love it if the industry would quit coming up with new standards, marketing depts. are pulling the industry toward more "NEW" every year, manufacturing feels the pain of continually re-tooling, etc. But somewhere in all that, and despite all the so-called "game-changers" that are mysteriously gone a season or two later, there are still cool things coming to market, and some of those things are actually good things that a lot of people are enjoying, whether they "need" it or not. Not sure how one can really change any of that. After all, it's just biking - buy what you want, and get on the latest trend train, or don't. It doesn't mean you can't have fun.

But regardless of all the inudstry hand-wringing, and getting back to the original point, I think the term "singletrack" is just such a broad term, and encompasses so many vastly different terrain types, that it's pretty hard to simply say that something is "not a singletrack bike." It's kind of like when someone says, "you don't need a fat bike to ride on snow," as though all snow is the same medium everywhere. It's absolutely true that on some types of snow, one can get away with a 2.3" tire, but it's equally true that there are a lot of snow conditions where you're never going to get anywhere with that skinny tire. Same with what we call "singletrack." There's plenty of singletrack that one can enjoy on a rigid, drop-bar bike, if that's your flavor. And there's most definitely a lot of other singletrack that you would likely never want to ride that kind of bike on. I think we just need to be careful of speaking in sweeping generalities of what a particular bike "can" or "can't" do, and remember that people were doing a hell of a lot, with far simpler bikes than what is considered "essential" today. And they were having a great time. Maybe they just didn't know any better...