Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 128

Thread: Mukluk Carbon

  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by chris_nwb View Post
    I also got the same bike. Was planning to set up tubeless so I contacted 45NRTH if the OEM 60tpi Dillinger 5 is tubeless-ready but was advised against it. Some users reported mixed results on the Tubeless Tuesday thread.

    How is it holding up for you? I was ready to checkout Maxxis FBF/FBR until I saw this post.
    What about this post relates to the Maxxis tires? I am looking at picking up a pair.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6
    tgarson said he set up Dillinger 5 tubeless on MOBD rims (these parts come stock on the 2017 Mukluk Carbon GX1). There was a post in another thread that the Dillinger unseated from the rim, and another where it won't seal properly, although these were not on MOBD rims. 45NRTH rep said the Dillingers aren't really designed for tubeless.

    If folks here got Dillinger 5 set up tubeless on MOBD without any issues, then I'll keep the tires. If not, I'll buy tubeless ready Maxxis Minions.

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,044
    Ah. I just read it differently than you wrote it.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by chris_nwb View Post
    I also got the same bike. Was planning to set up tubeless so I contacted 45NRTH if the OEM 60tpi Dillinger 5 is tubeless-ready but was advised against it. Some users reported mixed results on the Tubeless Tuesday thread.

    How is it holding up for you? I was ready to checkout Maxxis FBF/FBR until I saw this post.
    I have over 200 miles on the muk tubeless with the stock tires and rims across a wide variety of conditions and pressures. It's been great with one exception. I was breaking a trail over some singletrack in about a 8" of fresh snow in cold conditions (<10 deg F). I was intending to ride about 2.5-3 psi and at some point I either burped the rear or perhaps had a minor puncture after veering off trail over some questionable terrain. I didn't have my pump with me because it was pretty close to my house and I was just playing around with tire pressures. I limped home and re-inflated without issue so not entirely sure what happened.

    The other 99.9% of the time it's been fine, including a lot of fairly aggressive singletrack riding over roots and rocks before the snow came.

    One other note, I don't have a compressor and didn't want to deal with seating the tire myself so I had the LBS do the tubeless setup when I got the bike. They're a fairly large salsa dealer and move a lot of fatbikes. They didn't express any particular concern over setting it up tubeless for whatever that is worth.

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6
    Thanks tgarson. This will give me some confidence when setting up mine tubeless.

    As for heel strike on chainstay--I haven't had issues. I installed Crank Bros Mallet E pedals (which are awesome in shedding snow) and using size 45 Shimano MW7 shoes. Frame size is L

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantTurd View Post
    Too tight at the chain stay and seat stay, tried on a medium, large and xl.
    Was this the carbon or aluminum frame?

    Sent on my phone. Pardon the autocorrect.

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    I just got one too.
    Question about the internal routing, is there some kind of guide in there or is it just free fishing to get it out the other end and stop rattling?

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    I just got one too.
    Question about the internal routing, is there some kind of guide in there or is it just free fishing to get it out the other end and stop rattling?
    It's just free. The run is only about 18" long, though.

    I packed a bunch of cable ties in around the cables to avoid rattling and it's worked. (Maybe 3x sticking off of each cable housing.)

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Thanks. I bought the complete, so the only cable i am considering putting in myself is running my dropper post internally along the toptube. It's a Gravity dropper, so the cable doesn't move, even though it's not stealth routed.

    Other question, did you put the frame protectors on?
    There are some funny shaped pieces that I wonder about.
    There are 2 identical pieces, 10" long, 1/2" wide, and the make a very broad V shape. Where do those go?

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    170
    I'm about to look into frame protectors too, just noticed a ding already

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    Thanks. I bought the complete, so the only cable i am considering putting in myself is running my dropper post internally along the toptube. It's a Gravity dropper, so the cable doesn't move, even though it's not stealth routed.

    Other question, did you put the frame protectors on?
    There are some funny shaped pieces that I wonder about.
    There are 2 identical pieces, 10" long, 1/2" wide, and the make a very broad V shape. Where do those go?
    It should be pretty easy to do. I built mine up myself, had no issues. Plenty of room to run the cables inside. I'm not sure what's done on the completes for rattle reduction.

    I didn't use the stock frame protectors. I use UHMW polyethylene tape that I buy from McMaster-Carr for rub protection, so I just cut everything to size for where I'd get rub. Sorry. :\ The stock ones are sitting on the shelf.

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee View Post
    I was really excited until I realized the chainstay length isn't all that.

    For a 4" tire, or a 4.8" on a 65-70m rim, maybe even 29+ sure - 432mm - but to go really fat on wide rims it's 449mm
    Actually chainstay length is good. I can run it in the short position (432mm) with Snowshoe XL on 100 mm rims. That's tubed at 7 psi, but this same tire has previously been ridden tubeless for a long time.

    Definately couldn't go bigger though, so Lou on a 'Shoe is probably a no go in the short position. but anything smaller like Dillinger 5, Beist, Wazia 4.6 should all be good on wide rims.

    I wish they made the stays wider further up, but some people with big thighs want to run a big chainring, so they need some length in there.

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    Actually chainstay length is good. I can run it in the short position (432mm) with Snowshoe XL on 100 mm rims. That's tubed at 7 psi, but this same tire has previously been ridden tubeless for a long time.

    Definately couldn't go bigger though, so Lou on a 'Shoe is probably a no go in the short position. but anything smaller like Dillinger 5, Beist, Wazia 4.6 should all be good on wide rims.

    I wish they made the stays wider further up, but some people with big thighs want to run a big chainring, so they need some length in there.
    What crank are you using? I've got about a 71mm chainline (SRAM XO1 Fatbike crankset with both BB spacers on the NDS) and while a 28t ring fits fine I'm a little concerned a 30t will be too close. Need to try it and see, though.

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxfixed View Post
    The bends in the top/down tubes really bug me, I wish they would've just made a 197mm Beargrease with the nice traditional frame aesthetic.
    Funny, I love it!

    I always was disappointed in the standover on the Beargrease (and Fatboy).
    I really like the dipped toptube on the new Carbon Mukluk, good standover and a real big front triangle, several inches more in height and length than my 9zero7.

    For me standover comes first, then frame bag size. The new Mukluk combines both perfectly, not much sacrifice in either.

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by c0nsumer View Post
    What crank are you using? I've got about a 71mm chainline (SRAM XO1 Fatbike crankset with both BB spacers on the NDS) and while a 28t ring fits fine I'm a little concerned a 30t will be too close. Need to try it and see, though.
    Stock RF Aefect Cinch 190mm Spindle. 28t ring, in regular, offset to the inside position, so flipping it would make it wider. SRAM rings are available in different offsets (short spindle, long spindle and boost) that might let you move it out a bit.

    These pics are with the chain in biggest cog in back, so I'd say tire clearance is plenty, even with a narrower crank.

    Mukluk Carbon-image.jpg

    Mukluk Carbon-image.jpg
    Last edited by Tjaard; 01-06-2017 at 11:58 AM. Reason: Corrected crank spec

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Just weighted mine:

    XL Salsa Mukluk Carbon GX1. Carbon Answer 20/20 bars, lock on grips. Studded (~250) Bud in front. Studded Snowshoe XL in back(both tubed) rear wheel Clowshoe with butted spokes. Front stock MOBD. 180mm ice tech rotor front.

    31lbs, 15 oz with pedals, so around 31 lbs for the bike. Not great considering my old aluminum bike was about the same or less with those parts.

    I think it might have been better at this price point ($2700) to use an anodized alloy frame and some lighter parts. Might get to a lighter weight and better performance.

    Fine for me as I swap a lot of parts anyway. So nice if you want to upgrade in future.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    Actually chainstay length is good. I can run it in the short position (432mm) with Snowshoe XL on 100 mm rims. That's tubed at 7 psi, but this same tire has previously been ridden tubeless for a long time.
    That's way better than their stated specs say on the site.

    Could you humor me with a picture or two when you get a chance?
    Cross • Trail • Fat • Tour • Commute

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee View Post
    That's way better than their stated specs say on the site.

    Could you humor me with a picture or two when you get a chance?
    An aside, but when I spoke with Salsa folks (in person) back in November I was told Salsa (and QBP) are very conservative when it comes to clearances. Basically, if they say it'll work, it WILL work.

    I took that to mean that there's plenty of other things which will work too...

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by c0nsumer View Post
    An aside, but when I spoke with Salsa folks (in person) back in November I was told Salsa (and QBP) are very conservative when it comes to clearances. Basically, if they say it'll work, it WILL work.

    I took that to mean that there's plenty of other things which will work too...
    Yeah.. Sadly 4.8" Blackborow is ~ok with 5.05 " but 4.8" Mukluk (carbon?) isn't.. :/

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Thanks for that. Looks like a little bit more than on my XO.

    My XO cranks were really close on the non-drive side with the default spacer config. Put both bottom bracket spacers on the non-drive side and got the arm spacing equal with the chainstays and non-conflicting.

    Chainline is probably something like 71mm. Seems to shift fine and all's good.

    I've got some photos here: https://nuxx.net/gallery/v/stuffivem...mukluk_carbon/

    Too-close spacing: https://nuxx.net/gallery/v/stuffivem..._9069.jpg.html

    Final spacing: https://nuxx.net/gallery/v/stuffivem..._9096.jpg.html

    Chainring spacing:
    https://nuxx.net/gallery/v/stuffivem..._9097.jpg.html
    https://nuxx.net/gallery/v/stuffivem..._9098.jpg.html
    https://nuxx.net/gallery/v/stuffivem..._9099.jpg.html

    My biggest problem has been heel strikes when wearing Wolvhammers, so I went to 5mm longer crank spindles and things seem better. (Although I've now gone from 2016 to 2017 Wolvhammers, and the latter are even wider, so I may get a bit of rub still... I installed mastic tape to mitigate the effects of this.)

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    63
    I guess I'm lucky I've never really had issues with cold feet. Cold hands sure, but my feet felt fine even when I rode in single digits with summer shoes and just an insulated shoe cover. I picked up a pair of Lake MXZ303s on sale not because I thought I really needed them, but just figured I ought to give a proper winter boot a try. My feet certainly have never been cold in them, more often problems with being too hot actually, and no issues with heel strikes.

    I know shoes are super subjective, but the Wolvhammers just seem too big and clumsy to me in comparison to the Lakes.

  22. #72
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    Just weighted mine:

    XL Salsa Mukluk Carbon GX1. Carbon Answer 20/20 bars, lock on grips. Studded (~250) Bud in front. Studded Snowshoe XL in back(both tubed) rear wheel Clowshoe with butted spokes. Front stock MOBD. 180mm ice tech rotor front.

    31lbs, 15 oz with pedals, so around 31 lbs for the bike. Not great considering my old aluminum bike was about the same or less with those parts.
    I think this is far more common than a lot of people realize (or maybe want to admit). I'd be curious what the naked frame weighs, since Salsa never seems to include this on their spec sheets.
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Sorry, to lazy to strip the frame down and weight it!
    The fork has an alloy steerer, so that adds part of the weight. my old bike had a very light full carbon fork. This one is a lot beefier. My old bike was also 10 speed, this is 11 speed, so adds the weight of a steel 42 cog (160g?), as well as Turbine cranks vs Aeffect and lighter brakes.

    Still working on the build.
    Made the front tubeless. Wow! That MYOBDarryl rim is great! It's almost like it was made for tubeless! I have had tubeless rims on my mtb 's for 12 years, still can't believe the fat bike rims are so behind the ball on this.
    Now if only someone would come out with a lightweight, tubeless ready alloy rim in the 100mm size ! HED, Surly, are you listening?

    Will put my dropper post on now and go for my first real test ride(did an overnight, no dropper, fully loaded bike, wrong stem, not a real good comparison for the handling). I'm excited.
    Still need to convert rear to tubeless, switch out the useless Vee studs for 45nrth studs in the Snowshoe and put on a 26t oval chainring.

    Ordered a custom frame bag from Defiant pack. I got my wife one for her BB. They are great. No zipper, closes with a flap and buckle!

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    FWIW, 26.41 pounds for mine with HED BAD wheels, DT hubs, and 4.8" Jumbo Jims: https://nuxx.net/blog/2016/12/10/fat...mukluk-carbon/

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by tyriverag View Post
    So the new Mukluks are the same geo as the Beargrease? I thought they were going to mimic the Blackborow?
    Geo is a mix of the Blackborow and Beargrease, with some improvements:

    Chainstays in short position are much shorter than Blackb/Beargrease.
    Reach is much longer than those two.
    HA is 0.5 degree steeper than Beargrease, 0.5 degree slacker than Blackborow.
    Standover is identical to Blackborow, much better than Beargrease(with same size tires).
    Tire clearance is bigger than Beargrease, slightly less than Blackborow.

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    The rims are tubeless ready, D5 tires do retry well tubeless, so this makes fora great tubeless combo. People with issues were using other rims(regular Darryl, not Mylther Brother Darryl) or Clowshoe etc.

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    See above. That's the Snowshoe XL 4.8 on a Clowshoe 100mm.

  28. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    You are lucky! I get cold feet on the bike way more than while walking, ice climbing or XC skiing.
    I also had some frost nip a long time ago, so need to be a bit more careful.
    Plus I like to ride even when it gets cold out. Coldest we usually get is about 30F below..

  29. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Finally got a short test ride in on the Mukluk Carbon.
    Soo much better than my 9zero7 190.

    Similar head angle(could even be a hair slacker for me, but not much slacker, to much slow speed balance beam riding on a fat bike).
    Longer reach means I can run a less extreme length stem. Could still be longer, my Trek Fuel ex has 507 mm reach and I run it with a 50 mm stem. This is 465mm reach. But if you are not 6'5" like me, it will be great.

    Between the shorter stem and WAY shorter chain stays(432 vs 467mm), the handling is much snappier and more controlled at low speed, while giving up very little in stability, since the wheelbase is only about 10 mm shorter.
    The best part of all is that it actually pumps and jumps like a mtb now. I got more air on this bike in soft snow, off a tiny roller, than I did on super firm, groomed flow trail with real booters on the 9zero7.

    Climbing traction is also much improved.

    So all in all, this my ideal bike:
    Fits 4.8 tires for exploration/fresh snow riding, has good traction and easy steering in those conditions too, yet the cranks are not too wide, and on groomed trails it rails and pops like a mtb.
    Last edited by Tjaard; 01-06-2017 at 06:00 AM.

  30. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    I've only had a handful of days on mine before our snow melted (SE Michigan) and then became ice, but thus far I'm really keen on the Mukluk compared to the Blackborow. I had an original 2012 Mukluk 2 and liked it a lot, but liked the Blackborow even more.

    The new Mukluk carbon seems like a nice notch above the Blackborow, and with the narrower BB it feels more MTB-y to me.

    Verdict will be out until I can get it out for some summer rides too, but thus far I'm REALLY enjoying it. (I'm also liking to look at it sit in my basement...)

  31. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by c0nsumer View Post
    I've only had a handful of days on mine before our snow melted (SE Michigan) and then became ice, (I'm also liking to look at it sit in my basement...)
    Wy is it sitting in your basement? Ice is fun and fast to ride! Get some studded tires and go rip!
    Terrence Wazia are very afforable($179 at my shop, Skihut, Duluth, MN) supposedly have decent blend of traction and fast rolling, have a tubeless bead and decent size(4.6, same as D5). Not so many studs, might want to add some gripstuds to the transition knobs

  32. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    Wy is it sitting in your basement? Ice is fun and fast to ride! Get some studded tires and go rip!
    Terrence Wazia are very afforable($179 at my shop, Skihut, Duluth, MN) supposedly have decent blend of traction and fast rolling, have a tubeless bead and decent size(4.6, same as D5). Not so many studs, might want to add some gripstuds to the transition knobs
    ...because for the week before Christmas we had 8" of snow on the ground, then the week between Christmas and NYE we had a mix of 40-50F weather and rain and trails were actually muddy. Last week I did a handful of road rides in just tights and a thermal jersey.

    Ice has only really become notable in the last two days.

    That said, if that's $179 for a pair, I'd love to take you up on that, and I'll be sure they get plenty of notice from other local riders.

    (Hopefully we'll have snow in the next few days which'll bind to the ice and fill the postholes making it all fun riding again.)

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666

    Bonking ... not feelin' well Big tire - short setting chainstays

    On further inspection, the Snowshoe XL 4.8 on a 100 rim does not fit well in the short setting.
    My tire seems to have a bit of hop in it, and the 'high' spots rub until I air down to 5 psi, tubeless. Tubed I was able to run up to 7 psi.

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666

    x

    X x x
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Mukluk Carbon-image.jpg  


  35. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    I just pulled the Aeffect crankset off my Muk Carbon GX1.
    Surprisingly, it's Cinch with a Exi 24mm spindle. I have not heard of that version before, probably OEM for the bike.

    It's a 190mm spindle, with plenty of clearance, could easily go narrower. This probably explains the heel rub mentioned by someone in test riding the X1, which has a different crank.

    The odd thing is my crankset did not have the normal Raceface 2-piece self-extracting crank arm bolt on the drive side. It had a regular tightening bolt. Luckily I had 2 more RF cranks, so I just put one of the 2-piece 8/10mm self extracting bolts on this crank and was able to remove it.

    If you have this bike, you might want to get one of the regular 2-piece bolts and install it instead of the 1-piece one acts on there now. That way you will be able to remove the cranks if needed.

    Mukluk Carbon-image.jpg

    BTW, the Aeffect Cinch was about 60g lighter than the Turbine with one piece arms/spider, same spindle.

  36. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    I just pulled the Aeffect crankset off my Muk Carbon GX1.
    Surprisingly, it's Cinch with a Exi 24mm spindle. I have not heard of that version before, probably OEM for the bike.

    It's a 190mm spindle, with plenty of clearance, could easily go narrower. This probably explains the heel rub mentioned by someone in test riding the X1, which has a different crank.

    The odd thing is my crankset did not have the normal Raceface 2-piece self-extracting crank arm bolt on the drive side. It had a regular tightening bolt. Luckily I had 2 more RF cranks, so I just put one of the 2-piece 8/10mm self extracting bolts on this crank and was able to remove it.

    If you have this bike, you might want to get one of the regular 2-piece bolts and install it instead of the 1-piece one acts on there now. That way you will be able to remove the cranks if needed.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	115.2 KB 
ID:	1114156

    BTW, the Aeffect Cinch was about 60g lighter than the Turbine with one piece arms/spider, same spindle.
    As far as I know, all Aeffect cranks use a 24mm spindle and Cinch chainring mounting. The Turbine and up use a 30mm spindle.

  37. #87
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,124
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    As far as I know, all Aeffect cranks use a 24mm spindle and Cinch chainring mounting. The Turbine and up use a 30mm spindle.
    This is 100% correct. It's not an OEM thing. Aeffect are made that way. Reason why I went with them. Can use Shimano bottom bracket cups (cheap, good quality and reliable unlike raceface bottom brackets) and still use cinch chainrings.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    This is 100% correct. It's not an OEM thing. Aeffect are made that way. Reason why I went with them. Can use Shimano bottom bracket cups (cheap, good quality and reliable unlike raceface bottom brackets) and still use cinch chainrings.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    I was going to go with an Aeffect myself until I found a great deal on a brand-new XO1 taken off from a Bucksaw Carbon. It fits, but clearance is tight, and I went to extended Crank Bros spindles (adds 5mm) to help mitigate occasional heel rub issues. Chainline is a bit narrow as well, but it seems to fit (a 28t ring, at least) and shift well.

    I've also added some mastic electrical tape (maybe 2mm in thickness) which I'm sure makes contact more likely, but should mitigate issues caused by rub.

    If this doesn't end up being sufficient -- especially with the new/wider Wolvhammers that I just got -- I'll probably go to an Aeffect.

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Also, until I Loctited it I had problems with a Turbine Cinch (on my Blackborow) coming loose on the NDS.

    I prefer the idea of a pressed-in spindle.

  40. #90
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,124
    Thing is none are press on for both sides. Raceface you have to tighten them enough is the big thing and blue loctite is a good idea (what I do). I like Shimano clamp design, never a bit of trouble from those.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  41. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    This is 100% correct. It's not an OEM thing. Aeffect are made that way. Reason why I went with them. Can use Shimano bottom bracket cups (cheap, good quality and reliable unlike raceface bottom brackets) and still use cinch
    oh, thanks, I must have been remembering wrong. Last year when I was looking at options for cranks for the Blackborow and 9zero7, I was trying to find if there were cinch options with 24mm spindle, but I probably was looking at Turbines only.


    Anyway, the important thing to note is the lack of the proper bolt for the drive side crank arm.

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    Thing is none are press on for both sides. Raceface you have to tighten them enough is the big thing and blue loctite is a good idea (what I do). I like Shimano clamp design, never a bit of trouble from those.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    Of course. But if you can remove one more threaded fastener, all the better in my opinion... That's why I tend to prefer SRAM as well.

  43. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Consumer,

    I think your crank set up is the best:
    Narrow crank, direct mount ring set outboard and wide pedals/spindles.

    It gets you the same heel clearance to the frame, but more to the cranks, which can be a big issue with winter boots. It also allows you to dial in stance width very precisely with pedal washers and pedal width/spindle length.

  44. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    Consumer,

    I think your crank set up is the best:
    Narrow crank, direct mount ring set outboard and wide pedals/spindles.

    It gets you the same clearance ce to the frame, but more to the cranks, big issue with winter boots
    Thank yoU! That was my thinking as well. I haven't noticed any foot/crank rub on the rides I've done thus far, including a ~2 hour one on dry/hard single track yesterday with the new Wolvhammers.

    I'm just hoping that a 30t ring fits fine, but I probably won't check that until spring.

    (On a SRAM setup the best I can do for an outboard ring is a 0mm offset. Thankfully those are nicely available.)

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,779
    Well, the thread convinced me. I pulled the trigger on this frameset and should get it in a few weeks.

    Everything except the seatpost will go straight over from the 907, and now I just need to pick out a dropper.
    Cross • Trail • Fat • Tour • Commute

  46. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666

    Seatpost

    Quote Originally Posted by schnee View Post
    Everything except the seatpost will go straight over from the 907, and now I just need to pick out a dropper.
    Just get a shim and use the (dropper) post from your 907. That's what I do. 30.9>31.6 mm shim is cheaper than a new dropper post, and if you have any other bikes with 30.9 seat tubes, you can use it in there, even if it's only in an emergency. You also might end up with a 30.9 bike in the future. It's always nice to have parts compatibility in the garage.

    If you do need to buy a dropper, and it's for winter use, I vote for the Gravity Dropper. It's (one of) the only one with a coil spring, so unaffected by temperature. It's also a fully mechanical lock, so again no seals to fail or oil to get thicker in cold temps.

  47. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6
    How about the Specialized IRCC dropper, anyone using this in cold temps? This is mechanical too.

  48. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjaard View Post
    Just get a shim and use the (dropper) post from your 907.
    Good idea! I'll use that for my current normal post, while I search out a dropper.
    Cross • Trail • Fat • Tour • Commute

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    170
    Anyone know if they change in downtube has an affect on frame bags/ what frame bags work with it?

  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3
    I've got about 30 miles on my GX running the stock Dillinger5/MOBD set up tubeless also with no issues. FWIW my XL weighed right at 30 lbs tubeless with pedals. First fat bike for me. Having a blast.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Carbon Mukluk Fenders
    By Dustin Mustangs in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-27-2015, 04:18 PM
  2. Replies: 65
    Last Post: 03-30-2015, 08:45 AM
  3. Beargrease Carbon fork on a Mukluk Questions
    By Windigo in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-26-2014, 07:02 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-19-2013, 03:10 AM
  5. Mukluk vs Mukluk 2 vs Mukluk 3 FRAME?
    By bikeny in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-06-2012, 08:25 PM

Posting Permissions

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