At Interbike I was shown a project that was in the works at Salsa Cycles booth. It was a “fat front” fork. Basically, a 135mmOD spaced fork to hold a wheel from a snow bike, or “fat front”. Popularized by Jeff Jones on some of his titanium 29″er frames, the “fat front” idea is something used by rigid fork riders looking for ultimate passive suspension and better loose conditions riding.
Picture courtesy of Salsa Cycles Facebook page
The Salsa “Enabler” will accept a 135mm spaced hub, and the Surly Endomorph and upcoming Larry tire. The fork is fitted with two water bottle mounts, ala the Fargo, and has stainless steel forward facing drop outs. No word on whether it will be available for this winter, but we’ll be bringing you updates as they become available.
This is definitely cool.
Absolutely… I’ve been wanting one of these for a while. It’s cool to see this come to pass… I know it’s been being talked about for a while now. El Mariachi owners rejoice!! I know mine I’m gonna’ be building a new fat wheel for mine this winter! Sweet!
So will it use the front disc brake mounting spacing or rear spacing? ie. can you only use the Paul 135mm front hub or is that hub incompatible and a rear single speed hub is required? Are the dropouts 9mm or 10mm?
http://www.paulcomp.com/diskwhub.html
Sweet! But, for traction purposes, wouldn’t you need a big tire/wheel in the back too? Or does the front pave the way for the back.
With the Surly Tire do you have to use a special rim or does the voluminous tire and tube hook up to any rim?
Either way, that looks rad.
@Shop Mechanic: My understanding was that it can use the Paul hub. Salsa will be releasing details on it soon.
@Dust: Some folks say that this negates the need for suspension. Some folks say it does okay in snow on packed snowmobile type snow situations.
I have given the Fat tires a try some time ago …. the Endomorphs (or the new Larry) can be ridden on any wider rim but the full benefit of the “suspension” requires a rim of 65 mm or wider – otherwise the rims do not give enough sidewall support and the tires start wandering under sideloads.
It sure is worth a try on rough surfaces but it definately rocks on loose or snow surfaces.
Man, I hope it’s built for standard rear hubs… Having these things pigeonholed for one hub is kind of crappy.
Paul makes a hub for this, as does Phil Wood. So there are two option out there. Sure neither of them are cheap…but neither is a Surly tire/fat rim.
Why do I have the feeling that there is a bike from Salsa in the works to go with this fork?
Oooooh. That Larry tire reminds me of the Kenda Hammer 1.95′s I used to have on my 90′s Giants. Those tires were just uncanny in super-loose sand. It turned a beach into a bike trail, despite it’s tiny size. Huge lateral support in the loose stuff, and pin-point handling accuracy. Yes, in the loosest of dry sand. Very so-so other wise, just a typical 90′s knobby tire.
I’ve yet to read on that Larry, but I bet it’s going to rock the loose stuff!
Hmmm…I guess I need to try this for myself some day as I don’t get the fatty front only approach. Even if you get the front to float, the rear still needs to drive. And, if I am looking for cush, that wheel tire and fork combo has to be pretty heavy with significant rotational penalties. Might as well have a suspension fork and a lighter wheel.
Meh! Maybe I need to be ed-u-ma-cated on the bennies. I do, however, get the fatty front and rear bikes.
@grannygear: Astute observation…However, If I may point out, this is merely a poor man’s solution for snow/sand rider. Swap forks, mount your fatty, and ride on. Upon end of season, reverse the process. No, it will not be as good as a Snowbike. Yet, more versatile.
It is definitely not for ‘extra cush’. For that you are better off with a suspension fork.
@Shop Mec: From my studies, you can use ANY 135mm hub, rear or dedicated. Basically, same as with the Pugs. You can get by with an XT without any consequences. (Ok, it will add 100g to your hub, but do you really care when you lug around the Larry (1,300g), a wide rim (at least 700g) and a steel fork?
So help me out, how is this fork different from the Surly Pugsley fork? If I wanted a fat fork for my Haro Mary, which would be better?
@bhc, allow me to chime in. I supposed the determining factors would be the rack and length of each fork ,and which would fit to you bike geometry better.
I suppose the Salsa will come lighter than the Pugs (True Tempter steel? vs Chromoly 4135). Nevertheless, the geometry in this case should be the deciding factor.
@bhc, @RubberBoy:
The offset of a Pugsley fork is 43mm. I’m not sure what Salsa has planned for this one, but 43mm would be considered on the short end of current offset for big wheels. Salsa’s fork also looks to be longer in the axle to crown than a Pugs too. (Pugs is 447mm)
Sweet! That may be just the thing for “Project Satan”.
I was looking at the Vicious Cycles “Steel Fat Fork” on the Jones site but the Salsa Enabler may be a lower priced alternative especially if you can use a 135mm Surly rear disc as opposed to either a Paul or a Phil specialty purpose front hub.
Please keep us posted as things develop.
Hey folks, Butcher from Salsa here.
Just wanted to say thanks for all the interest in the “Enabler”. It’s a pretty neat product that is clearly in the prototype phase. Because it is in the prototype phase, we can’t answer some of the questions. We can tell you a few of the ideas around this fork.
It is obviously Surly Endomorph compatible and aimed at 29ers. With the coming of Surly’s new Larry tire there is new opportunity for a fork like this. Sure a suspension fork and standard 29er wheel may be lighter. Who cares? That set up simply can’t give you the float and in some cases the fun that you can have with a fork & wheel set up like this.
2 years ago, I rode my El Mariachi this way for the winter.. It worked pretty good. No, not snow bike good, but good enough for me to ride more stuff with a bike I already own. What I found out then is that generally speaking the rear wheel follows the front and short of breaking trail I had more overall float and ability than on my comparibly equipped standard 29er front wheeled bike. Again, this set up can’t compare to a snow bike. It can however, give you an option if you can’t afford a specialty snow bike. It’s an eye opener for sure.
Regarding the fork and brake set up. This specific fork works with standard rear hubs and a front brake. It is a prototype and certainly could change if needed.
Ahh, so for a really hot snow-bike set up, would I want to also change out my rear 29″ wheel for a 24, 26, or 650b?
I’m thinking I could get a really fatty tire to fit in one of those sizes, whereas I’m not sure a really fat 29er would fit my current frame (Zion 737).
@Jimmythefly: Hey, you could do a big DH 26″er on a really wide trials rim, most likely the widest that might work out. I don’t have any dimensions that would guide you, but do check out the Fat Bike forum on mtbr.com. I am pretty sure this topic is covered there.
Sounds sweet. I’ve been pushing a local framebuilder who’s been slow he should crank out something like this for over a year now. I think Butcher is dead on….it allows you to make a bike you already have a snowbike. I’d love a Pug, but realistically I’m not going to spend $2000 on a bike I’ll use in the snow a few times a year (it melts quick in COS) or take to the Great Sand Dunes south of here maybe once or twice year.
So in short…excited for the Enabler.
On my end I run a 69er and have thought about such a fork up front (Viscous Cycles version is nice but $$$$) with a snowcat wheel in the rear with a 2.55 on it would get me most anywhere I can point my front wheel during the winter. Plus once again as Butcher said….with my current bike.
Bravo Salsa. Continuing to amaze me.