Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 149 of 149

Thread: Mukluk Carbon

  1. #101
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    245
    On another note I put the race face next sl's that I had on my blackborrow on the mukluk. With the narrower stays, the cranks and ring are too far out for my liking. Real want a 180 cinch spindle.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    174
    So what specific bag is it that you are talking about?

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,798
    Quote Originally Posted by bikedrd View Post
    I like the gap where the top tube bends up above the bag a lot! I can pick the bike up there.
    Oooh, that is a good idea. I have a Revelate Ranger bag floating around. If it otherwise works I'll just roll with it.
    Yamaguchi Cross YT Jeffsy Salsa Mukluk & Vaya Canyon Commuter

  4. #104
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by 12:00 RIDER View Post
    So what specific bag is it that you are talking about?
    I guess it is just the old mukluk bag.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    798

    frame bags

    Quote Originally Posted by schnee View Post
    Salsa make their own bags starting 2017, so they've stopped using Revelate, and Revelate's frame bags stop at the 2016 models.
    The Salsa bags don't have one for the Mukluk for it yet. The only frame bags they have for 2017 are for the Cutthroat.
    I have a bag that fits my 907 that might work - it's the same general shape, even with the slight 'up' on the seat tube. .
    I had a 2013 9zero7 alloy XL, and the Revelate frame bag made for 9zero7 did not fit my Mukluk Carbon xl very well at all.

    I am getting a custom bag from Defiant pack, so if you have an XL you won't even have to make a pattern for it ;-)

    I got a Defiant bag for my Blackborow and they were great to work with, affordable and the bag is great. I went with them because I ripped the zipper on my Revelate and wanted a zipper-less design.

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by chris_nwb View Post
    How about the Specialized IRCC dropper, anyone using this in cold temps? This is mechanical too.
    The only mechanical part about it is the locking, it is still an airspring.

    I had an old Commandpost and it didn't do great in the cold.

    I have a Commmandpost IRCC on the mtb, will try and use the dropper a few times the next time we get real cold weather. Right now, (18F) it's fine in the garage(unheated).

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,798
    So, for the first time in a long time, I'm downsizing from an XL to a L. I'm right on the edge between sizing, with long arms, which means I usually size up.

    But, Salsa adopted 'nu skool' trail bike sizing. They pushed the top tube 2cm longer, which means I'd be running a 4-5cm stem on an XC bike, and the seat tube would be so tall I'd have very limited options for a dropper. Nah.

    This is an XC / bike camping bike for me, so I don't need a position that's good for 1-2 hours of ups and downs, I need 4-8 hour comfort. So, for the first time, their sizing saying '180-191cm tall' actually makes sense for 188cm me.

    Gonna need a spacer or two, though. And the wheelbase is gonna be freakishly short compared to what I've become accustomed to.
    Yamaguchi Cross YT Jeffsy Salsa Mukluk & Vaya Canyon Commuter

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    17
    I bought a GX 1 a few weeks ago. This is my second fat bike and I really like the fit and performance -except for one thing. The chainline with the Aefect cranks and spindle results in a chain line that drops the chain off the cassette. Sometimes this is just irritating like when rolling the back backwards or lubing the chain by running the cranks backward, but for me it's a performance issue in technical terrain or tough snow conditions where I back the crank to a new starting position after a stop. The chain fall to 3rd or 4th gear from 1st and jams into the cogs.
    I didn't notice this much on my initial rides but then we got snow and wind, and I delved into tougher trails.
    The X 1 has a narrower crank spindle, the Turbine, so I'm thinking I'll have to order this to fix my problem.
    It doesn't seem like others with this build are having any issue with this? I'm suprised though that Salsa would spec a bike with a build that in some way is designed to fail...
    I guess the advantage to the wider spindles are, for fatter tire / wheels combinations and more heel clearance.

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by ak_fit View Post
    I bought a GX 1 a few weeks ago. This is my second fat bike and I really like the fit and performance -except for one thing. The chainline with the Aefect cranks and spindle results in a chain line that drops the chain off the cassette. Sometimes this is just irritating like when rolling the back backwards or lubing the chain by running the cranks backward, but for me it's a performance issue in technical terrain or tough snow conditions where I back the crank to a new starting position after a stop. The chain fall to 3rd or 4th gear from 1st and jams into the cogs.
    I didn't notice this much on my initial rides but then we got snow and wind, and I delved into tougher trails.
    The X 1 has a narrower crank spindle, the Turbine, so I'm thinking I'll have to order this to fix my problem.
    It doesn't seem like others with this build are having any issue with this? I'm suprised though that Salsa would spec a bike with a build that in some way is designed to fail...
    I guess the advantage to the wider spindles are, for fatter tire / wheels combinations and more heel clearance.
    Have you tried a SRAM chain? I've had back pedal issues with KMC chains that were fixed by switching to SRAM.
    '17 Cutthroat
    '16 Bucksaw Carbon
    '15 Fatboy Expert

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    455
    This sounds to me like a slightly bent derailleur hanger.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    17
    All the GX1 builds have the chain drop issue. At the store, REI, we compared mine to a brand new one on the floor and it has the same problem.The X1 build sitting on the floor at REI has the shorter Turbine spindle and does not drop the chain when run backwards in first gear.
    REI called Salsa. Salsa confirmed that chain drop is a known issue with this build and suggested that I should have bought the X1 build if I wanted a better performing shifting, or just never run the crank backwards. Kinda lame from a company whose byline is 'Adventure By Bike'.
    REI didn't have any Mukluks when I ordered mine -I wouldn't have thought to run the drivetrain backwards anyway.
    A SRAM chain would probably help since they seem to have 'looser' tolerances or are perhaps engineered toward 1x11 setups somehow.
    However REI has ordered the Turbine crankset which they offered to sell to me at wholesale and take the original crank in return. They agreed that the bike shouldn't have come this way and they too were disappointed in Salsa's response to the problem.
    I suspect for many riders this will not be an issue but for me it is. Yesterday I was riding a boardwalk bridge about 18" wide, half covered with snow and ice. I lost my balance, had to put a foot down, repositioned my pedal from a 6 o'clock to 2 o'clock position and the chain dropped from 1st to 3rd or 4th gear so I could not start pedaling again, then had to get off and push the bike to flatter, easier ground to get started again.

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by ak_fit View Post
    All the GX1 builds have the chain drop issue. At the store, REI, we compared mine to a brand new one on the floor and it has the same problem.The X1 build sitting on the floor at REI has the shorter Turbine spindle and does not drop the chain when run backwards in first gear.
    REI called Salsa. Salsa confirmed that chain drop is a known issue with this build

    I have the GX1 carbon and have not had any issues with backpedaling, in all kinds of conditions.

    However, I have mostly been running it with a 1.5 year old hub with XD driver and 10-42 cassette, so perhaps the new hub, had a bit more friction in the free hub body, perhaps the XD casette sits a tiny bit out.

    I did a few rides on the stock chainring, no issues, but most of my rides have been on an Absolute Black chain ring.

    If you don't want to switch to a different crankset, the first thing you could try is swapping a BB spacer to the non-drive side.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    798

    Frame bag for New Mukluk -moved post

    Moved post
    Last edited by Tjaard; 02-06-2017 at 09:14 AM. Reason: moved post

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    798

    Frame bag for new Mukluk

    just got my Defiantpack frame bag for the new Mukluk.

    I have had zipper failure on my previous frame bag, so I wanted to keep it zipper-less.
    Defiant does great work and they are super fast and very helpful.

    Features:
    2 stash pocket along side top(orange fabric)
    Internal mid panel compression strap with buckle to undo it.
    Wide mouth opening with one hand
    Reenforced bolt-on attachments

    So, if you have the XL carbon, you won't even have to mail in a tracing of your frame, since they already made a pattern from my tracing.

    Here is a first pic just to give you an idea. The bottom velcro straps are loose because this is a bolt-in bag (using the bottle cage mounts) and I wanted to see how it sat without the velcro. So, if it seems it sits wel and is stable I will remove those completely.

    Attachment 1119878


    Attachment 1119879

  15. #115
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by ak_fit View Post
    All the GX1 builds have the chain drop issue. At the store, REI, we compared mine to a brand new one on the floor and it has the same problem.The X1 build sitting on the floor at REI has the shorter Turbine spindle and does not drop the chain when run backwards in first gear.
    REI called Salsa. Salsa confirmed that chain drop is a known issue with this build and suggested that I should have bought the X1 build if I wanted a better performing shifting, or just never run the crank backwards. Kinda lame from a company whose byline is 'Adventure By Bi....
    You may consider spacing your chainring over if it has chainring bolts. Does it?

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by ak_fit View Post
    All the GX1 builds have the chain drop issue...
    ...I suspect for many riders this will not be an issue but for me it is.
    I've been riding the stock GX for months in all sorts of conditions and the chain has never dropped. Not that I doubt that it's happening to you, this is just the first that I've heard of this from anyone with this bike either online or from the handful of people I know in my area that have the same build.

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    17
    Follow-up to backpedal chain drop issue.

    Ultimately REI switched the stock 190mm Aeffect crank for a 170mm Turbine crank that comes on the X1 build. This has solved the problem for me. Now in 1st gear (42 tooth) I can rotate the crank backward without the chain dropping to a smaller cog on the cassette.

    As others have suggested this is a chainline issue; the chain is more angled or cross-chained as a result of a longer spindle on the crank. Though the Aeffect crank is made in a 170mm spindle length, the tolerances are such that it won't work on this frame which is why Salsa specs the 190mm.

    Other adjustments like switching bottom bracket spacer, switching to a SRAM chain and adjusting the derrailleur have helped other riders with different bikes but I tried all those and none were enough to fix it for me.
    As I said in an earlier post, this may not be an issue for many riders but it was for me and I would have bought the X1 build instead had I known.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ShamusWave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    308
    Just ordered Mukluk Carbon -frame.
    Does anyone have Next SL -cranks on Mukluk carbon, is it 170mm or 190mm spindle?
    I have had couple Beargreases before and now wanted to try Mukluk. Going to build it with carbon wheels and probably Sram Eagle.

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    85
    I also have the GX1 Muk. No chain drop issues or gear shifts when back pedaling for me. Which way was the chainring installed? The GX1 should have the chainring in normal position due to the wider BB spindle and affect crank. The X1 and Turbine crank has the chainring flipped. Just wondering if REI got some bikes with the chainring wrong.

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    17
    My GX1 had the chainring in the normal position, as did the other one sitting on the floor at REI and the one at another bike shop in town. To be clear the chain drop only occurred in first gear where 1/4 revolution resulted in a drop.
    I did hear from Salsa on the issue. They said the 170 crank was spec'd on the other builds due to the resulting narrower Q-factor and not the chainline difference. Both are significantly influenced by the 20mm shorter BB spindle however.

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    17
    GX1 alternator position
    Today I noticed the Alternator dropout on my bike came in the long position. I believe the other carbon builds are shipped with the dropout in the short position. I moved mine to the short position which results in a chain that's too loose. I was able to tighten the chain by tightening the B screw on the derailleur about 6 revolutions which seems to take care of it. Maybe this adjustment is obvious to folks with more bike-smarts. I did read Salsa's Alternator 2 instructions but saw no mention of how to accommodate for the slack chain so maybe this will be helpful to other riders.

  22. #122
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    245
    Shamus, 190. Some of us are trying to get some 180s made, which would be perfect.

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ShamusWave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    308
    Still waiting cranks and new drivetrain to arrive, but wanted to go out and ride!

    Mukluk Carbon-32264629264_3cd9103a73_b.jpg

    Mukluk Carbon-32264630074_c70087e6d9_b.jpg

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ShamusWave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    308
    Finally got my Mukluk ready...
    After three Beargreases I have now been riding two weeks with Mukluk and have not noticed any major differencies. Very happy with this.

    Mukluk Carbon-33440347665_1673670543_b.jpg

    Mukluk Carbon-33057229260_742a7345fd_b.jpg

    Mukluk Carbon-33399854096_bcde4c1c8f_b.jpg

    Mukluk Carbon-33057233150_8f22818d3f_b.jpg

    Mukluk Carbon-33440348235_4e5a975a9e_b.jpg

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by ak_fit View Post
    GX1 alternator position
    Today I noticed the Alternator dropout on my bike came in the long position. I believe the other carbon builds are shipped with the dropout in the short position. I moved mine to the short position which results in a chain that's too loose. I was able to tighten the chain by tightening the B screw on the derailleur about 6 revolutions which seems to take care of it. Maybe this adjustment is obvious to folks with more bike-smarts. I did read Salsa's Alternator 2 instructions but saw no mention of how to accommodate for the slack chain so maybe this will be helpful to other riders.
    The B screw is used to set the proper gap between the top derailleur pulley and the sprockets (about 6mm) for smooth shifting, not to adjust chain tension. Too great a gap will result in slow or sloppy shifting. If the chain is too slack you may need to remove a link or two to shorten it.
    '07 Spec Enduro
    '14 Salsa Mukluk 2
    '16 Salsa Bucksaw GX1

  26. #126
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    245
    [QUOTE=ShamusWave;13084478]Finally got my Mukluk ready...
    After three Beargreases I have now been riding two weeks with Mukluk and have not noticed any major differencies. Very happy with this.

    Nice bike. Great pics.
    Last edited by bikedrd; 08-01-2017 at 07:37 AM.

  27. #127
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    245
    Finally got a proper fork on my Mukluk! Manitou Mastadon 120. Stiffer and better damped than the Bluto.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by bikedrd View Post
    Finally got a proper fork on my Mukluk! Manitou Mastadon 120. Stiffer and better damped than the Bluto.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    Any clearance issues with the Mastodon?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    184
    Will 27.5x4.5 tires fit the mukluk?

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by hwcn View Post
    Will 27.5x4.5 tires fit the mukluk?
    I was told 27.5x4.5" Gnarwhals on 80mm rims will fit.

  31. #131
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by compengr View Post
    Any clearance issues with the Mastodon?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    Not at all. Plenty of room.

    Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by bikedrd View Post
    Not at all. Plenty of room.

    Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk
    Good to know! My guess is Salsa was being conservative. According to them I would need a +3mm race and possibly a different compression knob to fit the Mastodon.

  33. #133
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by compengr View Post
    Good to know! My guess is Salsa was being conservative. According to them I would need a +3mm race and possibly a different compression knob to fit the Mastodon.
    Some pics. I really like the ride with it set at 120 on the ext. Feels more like my enduro bike.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by bikedrd View Post
    Some pics. I really like the ride with it set at 120 on the ext. Feels more like my enduro bike.
    Thanks for the pics! A bit late...ordered the frame on Monday!

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    237
    While waiting for my Mukluk Carbon 2017 Large frame, I need to decide what crankset to buy for these frame. A bit confused about it, since it is a 197mm rear spacing, and 100mm BB, still it needs crankset for 120mm BB??

    Anyone who knows what is the best crankset for the frame? I see Salsa states 75mm chainline in the instruction manual. That is possible to have with for example the Race Face Next with spindle RF169 (169.5) partnr F30031 with flipped chainring.
    Sram 5" crankset has chainline at 76.5 mm that is pretty close.

    In these thread there is written about issues with chain drop, due to wide chainlines with 120mm cranks? And there is to narrow with a 4" crankset?

    Pleased to get some good advices what to buy.

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish2010 View Post
    While waiting for my Mukluk Carbon 2017 Large frame, I need to decide what crankset to buy for these frame. A bit confused about it, since it is a 197mm rear spacing, and 100mm BB, still it needs crankset for 120mm BB??

    Anyone who knows what is the best crankset for the frame? I see Salsa states 75mm chainline in the instruction manual. That is possible to have with for example the Race Face Next with spindle RF169 (169.5) partnr F30031 with flipped chainring.
    Sram 5" crankset has chainline at 76.5 mm that is pretty close.

    In these thread there is written about issues with chain drop, due to wide chainlines with 120mm cranks? And there is to narrow with a 4" crankset?

    Pleased to get some good advices what to buy.
    I dont know about the Mukluk frame but I use a crankset for 100mm bb on my trek Farley which has a 197mm rear. However, the front chainring must be flipped so that it does not cut into the chainstay of the frame. The crank is a raceface turbine cinch with 100mm spindle.

  37. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish2010 View Post
    While waiting for my Mukluk Carbon 2017 Large frame, I need to decide what crankset to buy for these frame. A bit confused about it, since it is a 197mm rear spacing, and 100mm BB, still it needs crankset for 120mm BB??

    Anyone who knows what is the best crankset for the frame? I see Salsa states 75mm chainline in the instruction manual. That is possible to have with for example the Race Face Next with spindle RF169 (169.5) partnr F30031 with flipped chainring.
    Sram 5" crankset has chainline at 76.5 mm that is pretty close.

    In these thread there is written about issues with chain drop, due to wide chainlines with 120mm cranks? And there is to narrow with a 4" crankset?

    Pleased to get some good advices what to buy.
    I have a Next on the RF169 spindle with flipped chainring on a Yampa. The Yampa has 100mmm bottom bracket and 197mm rear spacing just like the Mukluk. It works perfect.
    Latitude 61

  38. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    237
    Thanks for replies! A question for these who have Mukluk with original with GX crankset, do you know for sure if it is the 5" crankset with 76.5mm chainline?

    Also do anyone know if it is possible to use 27.5"x4.5 Barbegazi in short chain stay position?

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish2010 View Post
    Thanks for replies! A question for these who have Mukluk with original with GX crankset, do you know for sure if it is the 5" crankset with 76.5mm chainline?

    Also do anyone know if it is possible to use 27.5"x4.5 Barbegazi in short chain stay position?
    I went with the GX Eagle Fat5 crankset, which fit perfectly. No issues shifting; no reason to question the chainline numbers. Don't know about 27.5" Barbegazi, but the 26" version (4.7") works fine in the front setting.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    237
    Thanks! Great pics! Shows plenty of room for both crank arms and tyre. Seems to be almost an inch in front of the 4.7 Barbegazi? Should probably be able to fit the 4.5x27.5" also in front positon?
    Any reason why you got the GX alu crank instead of a carbon? I see the Salsa stock bikes comes with Alu cranks too.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish2010 View Post
    Any reason why you got the GX alu crank instead of a carbon? I see the Salsa stock bikes comes with Alu cranks too.
    Didn't want to spend the extra $$$ on carbon cranks. The GX ones can be had for under $140 vs. $300+ for others. Couldn't justify paying that much more for relatively little weight savings.

    I should note that unlike the regular GX Eagle cranksets, this one comes with a machined (not stamped) ring, same as what comes on the carbon offerings.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    I have a Next on the RF169 spindle with flipped chainring on a Yampa. The Yampa has 100mmm bottom bracket and 197mm rear spacing just like the Mukluk. It works perfect.
    Next RF169 did not work on my Mukluk. There is touching on drive side between arm and stay. Have tried to space out with self made shims from aluminum sheets. There is maybe gaining 0.5mm extra. Still rubbing on drive side.

    So ordered a RF189 axle. But the chainline will be off, with chain ring in right position there is 78.5mm, when it should be 75mm. I will try to do 2 things. Move one 2mm BB spacer from drive side over to non drive. I will try to space out the chain ring maybe 1 mm if possible. There is small amount of threads on the chain ring mount so I am in doubt.

    If I was sure I would tried to space out with shims on the RF169 splines, but I am not sure if there will be sure to do. I could make a shim to stop the splines 1 m before stopping at original. That will maybe compromising the spline holding the axle though?

    Would love to have a RF179 option, but it will probably not be available.....

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish2010 View Post
    So ordered a RF189 axle. But the chainline will be off, with chain ring in right position there is 78.5mm, when it should be 75mm. I will try to do 2 things. Move one 2mm BB spacer from drive side over to non drive. I will try to space out the chain ring maybe 1 mm if possible. There is small amount of threads on the chain ring mount so I am in doubt.
    The solution to get the correct chainline, was to take off one of the bearing spacers and move to non drive side. This is getting almost the correct chainline by 76,1, though I have learned that 75mm is the correct.

    None drive side crank arm gets far more out then drive side, so I needed to manipulate the cleats on my shoes to get the foot position more centered.

    Will try this for some rides, and see if it will get my knees hurt.

    I do not know if other crank arms, maybe alloy with more narrow profile, will clear the chain stay, with 100mm axle spacing. If not, I think there is not a thought through design by Salsa. Cannot figurea out the reason to have 100mm BB shell when you need to use 120mm axle/crank combination anyway??

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    I built this frame from scratch and used Next sl's with the RF169 axle. I was able to get it with a few 0.5mm spacers between the crank and dust cover over the bearings (spacers were on the spindle) on the drive side and still have enough adjustment on the ring on the non-driveside to make it work. That includes tightening the crank bolts down to the recommended 37 ft/lbs. The bottom bracket spacers are 2 2.5mm on the driveside and 1 1mm plus 1 2.5mm on the non-drive.

    The clearance is the tightest I've ever seen on any bike (~2mm each side), and much tighter then the minimum factory built industry recommendation of 10mm, but I haven't gotten any rub or frame contact even hammering out of the saddle up hills. I weight about 200 with gear and these are 170 cranks. Frame is XL. I think it works because both frame and cranks are carbon with basically no flex, I wouldn't trust aluminum with that clearance. I don't have chainline down to the mm but the chain runs straight on the middle ring of an 11 speed rear, chainring is obviously flipped.

    Otherwise, this is the best fatbike I've ever ridden. I think the nailed the geometry and the adjustable drops are a plus. Just thought I'd let folks know that this combo works, although is very tight.

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Pig Bodine View Post
    I built this frame from scratch and used Next sl's with the RF169 axle. I was able to get it with a few 0.5mm spacers between the crank and dust cover over the bearings (spacers were on the spindle) on the drive side and still have enough adjustment on the ring on the non-driveside to make it work. That includes tightening the crank bolts down to the recommended 37 ft/lbs. The bottom bracket spacers are 2 2.5mm on the driveside and 1 1mm plus 1 2.5mm on the non-drive.

    The clearance is the tightest I've ever seen on any bike (~2mm each side), and much tighter then the minimum factory built industry recommendation of 10mm, but I haven't gotten any rub or frame contact even hammering out of the saddle up hills. I weight about 200 with gear and these are 170 cranks. Frame is XL. I think it works because both frame and cranks are carbon with basically no flex, I wouldn't trust aluminum with that clearance. I don't have chainline down to the mm but the chain runs straight on the middle ring of an 11 speed rear, chainring is obviously flipped.

    Otherwise, this is the best fatbike I've ever ridden. I think the nailed the geometry and the adjustable drops are a plus. Just thought I'd let folks know that this combo works, although is very tight.
    This did not apply for my RF 169 axle and frame at 175mm crank arms on a Large frame, but I did not try to use 1mm spacer extra on drive side though. But I think it did not have enough side way play to get 1 mm ekstra spacer. I think I will try again.

    Cannot remember that it was enough room that could make 2 mm space between arms and frame? Maybe it could be 1 mm at each side?

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    The combination of spacers above is what worked for me but the upshot is there appeared to be enough room, barely. The variable with yours cranks is the 175 length vs. my 170's which may be have a different profile. The rear end of these bikes is the same so that shouldn't matter unless manufacturing tolerances differ that much.

    You can test it by just putting the bottom bracket cups in the frame with no spacers, torquing the crankarms to spec, and seeing if you can get it to work by moving the cranks side to side until it clears both chainstays. If it does, then the it's just a matter of getting the right combination of spindle and bottom bracket spacers. The key is the 0.5 mm spacers that go between the crankarms and the dust cover of the bottom bracket on the spindle. This gives you the ability to fine tune it to half a millimeter.

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumblefish2010 View Post
    Next RF169 did not work on my Mukluk. There is touching on drive side between arm and stay. Have tried to space out with self made shims from aluminum sheets. There is maybe gaining 0.5mm extra. Still rubbing on drive side.
    I had the same problem... unfortunately the "narrow" NEXT SL (with the 169 mm spindle) DOES NOT work on that frame.

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Pig Bodine View Post
    I built this frame from scratch and used Next sl's with the RF169 axle. I was able to get it with a few 0.5mm spacers between the crank and dust cover over the bearings (spacers were on the spindle) on the drive side and still have enough adjustment on the ring on the non-driveside to make it work. That includes tightening the crank bolts down to the recommended 37 ft/lbs. The bottom bracket spacers are 2 2.5mm on the driveside and 1 1mm plus 1 2.5mm on the non-drive.

    The clearance is the tightest I've ever seen on any bike (~2mm each side)
    It's really hard to believe in that - in case I had about 0 mm clearance on one side and just about 1 mm on the other...




  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    Agreed, that non-driveside is too close. I just measured today and was able to put only two of the 0.5mm spacers between the crank and chainstay on each side, turns out it's only 1mm on mine! Like I said this has worked for me although it's within the range of manufacturing tolerances and at this point I wouldn't recommend buying this crank for this frame. Salsa should probably be made aware given the popularity of the next sl's. If you have the crank anyway it's probably worth a try.

    Mukluk Carbon-20180224_095906.jpgMukluk Carbon-20180224_095923%7E01.jpg

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Mukluk vs Mukluk 2 vs Mukluk 3 FRAME?
    By bikeny in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-28-2017, 07:59 PM
  2. Carbon Mukluk Fenders
    By Dustin Mustangs in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-27-2015, 05:18 PM
  3. Replies: 65
    Last Post: 03-30-2015, 08:45 AM
  4. Beargrease Carbon fork on a Mukluk Questions
    By Windigo in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-26-2014, 08:02 PM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-19-2013, 03:10 AM

Members who have read this thread: 184

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.