Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,437

    Fork for my Mukluk-ti, aluminum or carbon fiber or ???

    I'd like to put a lighter fork on my fat bike, a 2012 Mukluk. I'm considering the Carver carbon and ti forks because they seem to offer a lot for the money. Open to other options, though. I weigh around 165 geared up and ride the fat bike fairly aggressively, mainly in the winter/on snow but sometimes on sandy trails or just for fun and a change of pace on summer singletrack. I like to bash it around, over rock piles and logs and enjoy it's tractor-like stability and "roll over anything" capability. I've ridden this thing over stuff I've never had the nerve to even try before!

    I'll admit I'm a carbon doubter--just can't wrap my head around the stuff durability-wise. (no need to cite the endless studies and tests--I've seen them all and remain unconvinced) All my road bikes are steel w/ steel forks, my mtb's all have suspension forks except the Mukluk. Is the ti fork really so flexible that it would be an issue for me? I'd feel safer going that route, or aluminum, but I'm almost seriously considering the Carver CF fork just because it's so darn light...

  2. #2
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378
    No fear with your weight and carbon. Lots have posted their weights being over 200 and beat the crap out of the Carver. I have a friend who is running one on his 9zero7 with Bud in front and he is about 225... running it for 2 years now and he is aggressive.

  3. #3
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,147
    Selling my Carver carbon fork to get a tapered version if you or anyone is interested.
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12
    Just a heads up on this; I e-mailed Salsa last month about running a 2013 aluminum Beargrease fork on a 2014 Mukluk. I wanted to run a Bud up front and didn't want the geometry to change. I didn't see axle to crown on the 2014 fork, so I asked. This was their reply:

    "You cannot use a 2013 Beargrease fork on a 2014 Mukluk. The 2013 A-C is 468mm, mimicking an 80mm travel fork at 20% sag. The 2014 Mukluk and Beargrease are designed to use a fork thatís corrected to 100mm of travel or 483mm A-C. That 20mm [sic - it's 15mm] will change the ride characteristics in a negative way, and also put stress on your 14 Muk frame that it was never designed to handle. At first blush it looks like you could do it, but it simply wonít work and will void your frameís warranty. You can still run a Bud up front as the fork clears up to a 4.8 tire on a 100mm rim, but will need super low pressure to squeeze past the caliper. Hope this helps out!
    -Zach"


    This seems a bit more cautious compared to what they said about the 2013 Mukluk: Salsa Cycles
    "Another new feature for our aluminum Mukluks is a 44mm headtube. The primary reason for this change is to allow for the use of both straight 1-1/8" forks and tapered 1.5" forks. There are several new fatbike forks out there (including our new Beargrease fork) that come in tapered form. Additionally, since the Mukluk is also compatible with 29er wheels (135mm front and 170mm rear spacing needed), it keeps the option open to use the latest and greatest suspension forks."

    I wonder what the use of any aftermarket fork, let alone a suspension fork, will do to your warranty.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,590
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  6. #6
    Black Sheep rising
    Reputation: utabintarbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    888
    Ti > *



    FWIW, I love my Ti fork. It has just enough flex to take the bite out of small bumps yet doesn't feel "noodly".
    Let the market decide!

    N42.58 W83.06

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bacons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    376
    Run a full carbon Carver on my 2012 Muk2 with a Bud/Marge lites. I bought it solely for a bit more 'forgiveness' in the front compared to the steel Enabler fork. A really nice byproduct was the lightness achieved in the front end. So much easier to manage on tight single track. And I can pull that front up with little effort.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,437
    Appreciate the replies, folks. appleSSead, thanks but I'll probably buy new if I go carbon.

    Quote Originally Posted by utabintarbo View Post
    Ti > *



    FWIW, I love my Ti fork. It has just enough flex to take the bite out of small bumps yet doesn't feel "noodly".
    Which one do you have? The Carver or the $1,000 (yikes!) "YOLO" Jones truss model? Or something else?

  9. #9
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF View Post
    Which one do you have? The Carver or the $1,000 (yikes!) "YOLO" Jones truss model? Or something else?
    I currently have a Black Sheep titanium 29er unicrown fork (I had two, but one broke), a Black Sheep Faith titanium fat fork, and a Jones Truss titanium fat fork. The Jones is the least flexy, followed by the Faith, then the unicrown.

    For my style of riding, which involves riding on a lot of rocks, and catching bits of air, I won't use the ti Unicrown anymore. The remaining one serves as gravel grinder at worst. YMMV.
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  10. #10
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,452
    Hi Drevil. Looking at your photos, it looks like the black sheep truss fork has a longer A/C measurement than the jones, and perhaps a significantly different offset?
    Quote Originally Posted by Drevil View Post
    I currently have a Black Sheep titanium 29er unicrown fork (I had two, but one broke), a Black Sheep Faith titanium fat fork, and a Jones Truss titanium fat fork. The Jones is the least flexy, followed by the Faith, then the unicrown.

    For my style of riding, which involves riding on a lot of rocks, and catching bits of air, I won't use the ti Unicrown anymore. The remaining one serves as gravel grinder at worst. YMMV.
    ****

  11. #11
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Hi Drevil. Looking at your photos, it looks like the black sheep truss fork has a longer A/C measurement than the jones, and perhaps a significantly different offset?
    The offset/rake is the same. The Jones is 435mm A-C, while the BS is 460mm.
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  12. #12
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,452
    Thanks Drevil. Looking at pics of the jones fork on several bikes, it looks like spacers can be placed between the fork crown race and the bottom of the frame head tude, increasing the A/C slightly. Is this correct?
    ****

  13. #13
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Thanks Drevil. Looking at pics of the jones fork on several bikes, it looks like spacers can be placed between the fork crown race and the bottom of the frame head tude, increasing the A/C slightly. Is this correct?
    Correct. It's one of the coolest things about dual clamp forks with a "floating" steerer.

    Here's a pic of the Vertigo with spacers at the bottom:
    Vertigo Cycles Fat Bike | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    Here's a pic of the fork unattached to a frame. There is no solidly mounted race like there is on conventional forks. It's basically like two top halves of a headset, and the bottom is flipped:
    Black Sheep Faith Fork for Vertigo | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    Jeff Jones has a good explanation here:
    http://www.jonesbikes.com/?option=co...1818&Itemid=58
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  14. #14
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: anortherncrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    417
    Just bought a Carver for for my Fatback about a week ago. I dig the weight savings and I'm 165 pounds as well. Beat it up on a 20 mile ride today and had no problems so far. I tend to be pretty hard on stuff so I was a little hesitant about carbon, but what the hell, may as well give it a try right? I have a 16 inch, 1X9 setup with a carbon bar and a carbon seat post rig weighing in at just under 29 pounds.
    two wheel livin'..

Similar Threads

  1. Carbon fiber frame vs Titanum vs Aluminum
    By Nakkoush in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 03:27 PM
  2. Can't decide Aluminum 29'er or Carbon Fiber 29'er
    By Ice Cold in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 05:59 PM
  3. Adhering carbon fiber to painted aluminum
    By rdhfreethought in forum Frame Building
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-03-2012, 09:00 PM
  4. carbon fiber fork..aluminum vs carbon steering column
    By shackleton47 in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-01-2012, 09:29 PM
  5. Anyone like Aluminum better than Carbon Fiber?
    By Joe Schmoe in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-11-2011, 09:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •