Salsa a la Carte Jellybean

[Tomianson]

That´s the story i hear from people i highly respect: Salsas are the handling benchmark for all around rinding when it comes to late 80s/90s mtbs. On top of that, wonderfull style/attitude. It´s the bike to ride.

I’m just waiting on an injury to heal and then I’ll take it for a proper blast and I’ll do a ride report. Until then I can say from my brief outings on it that it feels very stable and familiar. It’s perfectly sized for me and even though I’ve not ridden it for long, it’s feels like an old friend.
Not quite as twitchy/racy as a Yo (my personal benchmark for high end steel MTB’s of that era) but maybe a better all round reliable ride.
But until I thrash it I’ll not know the details.

 

[pw_pw_la]

Can't wait to hear more. It sounds like it might be a lot like my first few rides on the OR.

The familiar old friend vibe was certainly apparent right from the first few pedal strokes...

And it would hardly be a surprise that Bontrager's and Salsa's from this era share more than a couple of passing ride similarities.

Although the OR is still twitchy, and racy, as it was designed to be. Salsa's, in comparison, look like they'd be a lot more relaxed; a ton more comfortable and as a result that much more stable. So the ideal long-rider, basically...

 

[M-Power]

Love the paint on these and they are cool AF but the TT was 1/2” too short for me ( similar issue to Bontys) and the handling was off for my physical build compared to a similar sized FAT. Yos ride stiffer from their OS thin walled tubing and more direct steering low fork rake design. FCC’s design brief was exactly that in 1990 with huge 2.5” tyre clearance for natural suspension pre sus forks. A Wicked is a softer ride similar to this. Horses for courses as they say.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Love the paint on these and they are cool AF but the TT was 1/2” too short for me ( similar issue to Bontys) and the handling was off for my physical build compared to a similar sized FAT. Yos ride stiffer from their OS thin walled tubing and more direct steering low fork rake design. FCC’s design brief was exactly that in 1990 with huge 2.5” tyre clearance for natural suspension pre sus forks. A Wicked is a softer ride similar to this. Horses for courses as they say.

Fat Chances have shorter front centers and shorter wheelbases. They are more maneuverable at steep, tight, slippery trails where extra stiffness makes all the difference when clearing drops, steps and switchbacks. The Wicked has an oversized downtube and stiff chainstays. Yos are oversized everywhere. Both also have a short headtube; coupled w/ the laid back seat angle leads to a different stance over the bike.

 

[M-Power]

Manoeuvrability designed for New England terrain which is quite similar to ours in Blighty. The bottom line is ride reports are SO important ( not enough of them on here people seem reluctant to say ) and testing a bike in the correct size makes all the difference to get the handling you want. Most of us know our preferred specs by now so its fine tuning mostly.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Manoeuvrability designed for New England terrain which is quite similar to ours in Blighty. The bottom line is ride reports are SO important ( not enough of them on here people seem reluctant to say ) and testing a bike in the correct size makes all the difference to get the handling you want. Most of us know our preferred specs by now so its fine tuning mostly.

Yes. And similar to where i learned to mountain bike: you conquer the trail inch by inch. Balance at low speed is crucial. Front end control is crucial.

 

[uno-speedo]

I agree, Ross knew (knows) his stuff. My '85 (96th ever built) bike rode so well - I regret selling it, but, I know where it resides

 

[Tomianson]

Final bit. It always bugged me that the saddle was a modern repro.
Fixed now.

 

[pw_pw_la]

Perfect.

It deserves that.

And, let's be honest, you're not exactly mad a the stripe/bean colour-matching as a bonus, are you?

 

[pw_pw_la]

Manoeuvrability designed for New England terrain which is quite similar to ours in Blighty. The bottom line is ride reports are SO important ( not enough of them on here people seem reluctant to say ) and testing a bike in the correct size makes all the difference to get the handling you want. Most of us know our preferred specs by now so its fine tuning mostly.

I would love a lot more on the saddle feedback in here. And maybe a touch more brutal honesty! There must be a fair few bikes on here that don't get taken out because the ride doesn't really match up to the bike's looks (of course, there are plenty that don't get ridden BECAUSE of how nice the bike looks, so I'm also assuming that's why we don't see a lot of ride reports too)? A fair few of those bikes get moved on quietly, I reckon, without anyone chiming-in to say it was because of how they rode. I mean, I get it: you're not trying to put off any potential future buyers but telling everyone it's a proper piece of shit out there on the trails! But yeah, I would love a lot more ride feedback on here.

Maybe someone should start a general thread for that, if one doesn't already exist buried somewhere in the archives? Format for each post could follow the same general template: 1. A photo of the bike. 2. Description of said bike, including a general build overview. 3. Location of the rider (what part of the world the bike is being ridden) 4. A rough or detailed description of the specific terrain. 5. A general ride report, with attention paid to handling characteristics, geometry and any notable or unique features/feedback, ideally with some comparison with other vintage (or moderns, I suppose) bikes.

I also think a lot of it is just time and the undertaking itself. Ride reports can be a lot of work, and also require a more detailed understanding of bike geometry and frame building than you need to just build one. I know I sometimes shy away from writing too much about how the bikes I build ride, for not really having the appropriate vocabulary to put into words what I feel out there in the saddle!