Fargo 2 vs Fargo 3

[windhorze]

Hi folks. Wondering if anyone on this thread would like to help me decide between a 2011 Fargo 2 vs the 2012 Fargo 3.

Fargo 2 with SRAM, 2 chainrings, $100 more then 2012 Fagro 3 with Shimano Deore, triple chainring.

I'm planning on using the bike on occasional month long, super remote/exotic adventure tours, the other 11 months/yr. for local fire roads/single track....

would love your feedback!

[waynemyer]

I took delivery on a 2012 Fargo 2 two weeks ago and have been shaking it out with S24O trips. If the crankset on the Fargo 2 is the FSA comet, I say go with the Fargo 3.

There is just a rash of not-quite-enough-range coupled with proprietary lock-in with the 10-speed, 2-ring drivetrain. The SRAM Apex shifters are plenty good and the wide range/close ratios of the 11-36 cassette are pleasant. But the FSA Comet crankset makes for a low that is not low enough (for fully loaded touring) and a high that is definitely not high enough. I can spin 180+ and I regularly run out of high end. Replacing the chainrings is a pain because there are almost no worthwhile variations on the 86mm BCD chainrings. Changing out this crankset with something compatible presents a bit of a challenge. It's doable, but not optimal.

The advantage of the front derailleur on the Fargo 2 is its capacity (22T with a 44T max ring). You can conceivably use a 64/104mm BCD crankset with  24T and 40T rings to get range. But you're looking at another $100+.

Oh, and I find the Thudbuster seatpost to be entirely unnecessary and excessive.

I beat up on the Fargo 2 component spec because I am really finicky. But in truth, it's plenty good. I changed out a bunch of parts already to dial it in to my preferences. If I was going to do it again, I would have bought the Fargo 3, though.

[Pat Lamb]

The SRAM Apex shifters are plenty good and the wide range/close ratios of the 11-36 cassette are pleasant. But the FSA Comet crankset makes for a low that is not low enough (for fully loaded touring) and a high that is definitely not high enough. I can spin 180+ and I regularly run out of high end.

Stock on the Fargo 2 is a 27-39 front, 12-36 rear, right?  Running that through Sheldon Brown's gear calculator, I come up with 50.4 mph at a cadence of 180.  If you regularly run out of high end, you are indeed a very strong cyclist.  Are you sure you don't spin 90?  Then you'd only spin out at 25 mph, which is on the edge of where I'd coast, particularly with a load.

Low end, 22 inches is kind of borderline.  I guess it depends how strong a cyclist is, the terrain they ride in, the load, etc.  Personally, I'd rather go a bit lower.

[waynemyer]

I should have offered more context: I can readily spin over 180 on rollers (the cadence meter doesn't read any higher than 180). On the road, I can't get this bike over 42MPH on my regular descents whereas I can hit 52MPH with my other bikes. Any way you slice it, the top end is too low.