Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 128

Thread: Mukluk Carbon

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    17

    Mukluk Carbon

    Now that these are hitting the stores, has anybody had a chance to ride one yet? Trying to decide between one of these or a Carbon Beargrease!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    13
    None of the LBS near me will have any stock until after the Holidays so if you see one and like it, grab it. My vote will always be for the Mukluk as the geometry is now nearly identical and you can run 4.8.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    17
    The only LBS that carried Salsa dropped them because of the REI deal (are local REI is not getting them)and the new Salsa dealer is not going to carry any inventory! My only other option is to drive 75 miles to a LBS that says they will have them in the next week or so. I know that some dealers have got them in stock already!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    157
    I rode the GX1 and X1. The green color on the X1 is pretty sweet... has this iridescence to it rather than being olive drab. The reddish/brown of the GX1 doesn't do much for me. Note that the cranks are different and this results in a different q-factor. (X1 is narrower and closest to older Muks). Honestly, the spindle spacers on the GX1 just look silly. Both bikes rode well enough, however, I kept suffering heal strikes on the chainstays. I figure if I even hit it a few time with shoes, things won't improve for boots. Presumably this is just a stupid bio mechanic issue with me. If they made a 170/177 version I'd be all over it, because I liked everything else. Instead, I'm going to pick up a Beargrease.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    157
    Regarding the Beargrease, the 'Team America' Bomb Pop edition is pretty sweet in person. The NX1 color scheme is also rad, I'll be picking of of these up. The NX1/GX1 felt similar in shifting performance, however, the brakes on the NX1 are the biggest weakness. Out of the box, I'll be picking up new brakes and putting carbon bars on the Beargrease.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,053
    So the new Mukluks are the same geo as the Beargrease? I thought they were going to mimic the Blackborow?
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    63
    Yes, LBS got them in stock a week ago and picked one up on Friday. I had wanted a beargrease for a while but the carbon NX stock sold out almost immediately and LBS said they wouldn't get anymore until next year. The 2017 orange GX beargrease is pretty hot in person, but I personally don't like that they chose to spec it with GX 2x10 instead of GX 1x11. I'd also much rather have the Dillinger 5's than the husker du's that come stock on the BG so when I factored in the better build spec, better clearance and the fact that the carbon muk doesn't even have much of a weight penalty anymore just spending the extra few hundred for the mukluk was worth it to me.

    I set mine up tubeless but haven't weighed it yet, according to Salsa though the 2017 gx BG is 29 lb even in size medium and the 2017 carbon mukluk gx in size L is 29lb 7 oz. There might not even be a penalty between 2 size L's, but even if there was, I think you're getting a lot more bike for that 7oz but admittedly I'm probably biased since that's the way I went.


    Mukluk Carbon-0acfa159-a10d-4be1-9bce-8bfb61d765b0.jpgMukluk Carbon-a353bcae-ccee-4d19-8366-2b774465968e.jpg
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Mukluk Carbon-0acfa159-a10d-4be1-9bce-8bfb61d765b0.jpg  


  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,790
    I wonder which frame colorway they'll offer for a frame-only option?
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    63
    Not sure, I haven't seen/ridden the X01 but I test rode both the green X1 and the red GX1 and I think they both look quite a bit better in person. Unsurprisingly the red is my favorite. It tends to look more brown/copper in photos but in the sun it has a beautiful red flake throughout the paint that gives it this sort of warm glow. To each their own though.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    157
    The geo is a little different, but I found both comfortable to ride other than the heel strikes on the Muk. Our LBS weighed the bikes and found the weight difference between the medium BG NX1 and Mukluk GX1 was within a pound. Basically the tires made the difference.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,053
    I know it's stupid, but I'd keep thinking that the bend in the top tube would snap. Sweet bike.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    17
    Thanks to all for the replies and feedback! Lot's of interesting details to check out for sure.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,034
    The Muk is steeper, longer, and wider.

    The Beargrease can run 4.6 as a 1x, but it's tight. I put on a Minion 4.6 last night and the clearance for the chain is 1/8"+, 3/8" at the stays. I'll either run 4.6 tires or I'll stick with 4" and go to a 27.5 x 4, or I'll get a Farley EX

    The only thing I would stress is that CF is much stiffer than metal, the stiffness causes bounce and vibration, not a bad thing when you have suspension, but running rigid or even hardtail can be uncomfortable.

    If I was not going to get a suspension fork, I'd get steel.

    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?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    666
    Note for the tall folks, the Mukluks are longer (reach) than the Beargrease, especially in the XL size. The XL Muk is 20mm longer than the Beargease!

    I am bummed that there only two, nearly identical, low end builds with the alloy frame.
    It would be nice to have the option of a decent build with an Xd free hub on an alloy frame to keep the cost reasonable.
    Like last years Blackborrow suspension.

    Does anyone know what the spokes are? Since they are listed only as 2.0, I assume they aren't butted. A bit of a bummer with the lightweight rims, it would be nice to see butted spokes at least on the $3500 bike.

  15. #15
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee View Post
    I wonder which frame colorway they'll offer for a frame-only option?
    I've been wondering this as well. I'm seriously hoping it's the black/blue.

    Anyone know frame/fork weight?

    Just as importantly, anyone know what the frameset is actually going to cost? Salsa lists it @ $1999 for just the frameset (but you can get the get the complete GX build for $2699?). Beargrease frameset is listed @ $1499. I'm hoping that's a typo...
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,325
    I've got to say I'm not a fan of the new Salsa carbon aesthetics...

  17. #17
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    I've got to say I'm not a fan of the new Salsa carbon aesthetics...
    Nor am I.

    I've been kicking around the idea of replacing my Blackborow at some point. But the more I look around, the more I come to the conclusion that I'm pretty happy with what I have. And while every now and then I think about going with a full carbon bike, I know it isn't really what I want. Plus, there is no freakin' way I'm going to pay $2k for a plastic frameset.
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    I've been wondering this as well. I'm seriously hoping it's the black/blue.
    Saw this posted elsewhere, strongly suggests the frameset option is the black/blue: https://nuxx.net/blog/2016/12/10/fat...mukluk-carbon/

  19. #19
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,220
    I don't mind the looks. I am just glad they've put form<function and designed the frame with the biggest framepack capacity. That is my only complaint on my Blackborow. It's like an XS frame looking at the front triangle.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ReXTless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    Nor am I.

    I've been kicking around the idea of replacing my Blackborow at some point. But the more I look around, the more I come to the conclusion that I'm pretty happy with what I have. And while every now and then I think about going with a full carbon bike, I know it isn't really what I want. Plus, there is no freakin' way I'm going to pay $2k for a plastic frameset.
    I considered getting a new fatbike this fall. Something to replace my "dated" 170mm aluminum 907. The carbon bikes didn't appeal to me that much. Decided if I do something, I'd probably order a custom steel frame from somewhere fun, instead (Forty Four, Retrotec, Walt, etc.).

    But, then I rode the 907 in snow again, and was reminded that it works fine and the incremental benefit to a new frame isn't worth the cost to me. I only ride the fatbike in winter, and by the end of the season I'm sooooo ready to return to riding normal bikes.

  21. #21
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by tgarson View Post
    Saw this posted elsewhere, strongly suggests the frameset option is the black/blue: https://nuxx.net/blog/2016/12/10/fat...mukluk-carbon/
    Thanks for that. In addition, I only see the frameset listed under the X01 option, which also supports this.

    Quote Originally Posted by stremf View Post
    I don't mind the looks. I am just glad they've put form<function and designed the frame with the biggest framepack capacity. That is my only complaint on my Blackborow. It's like an XS frame looking at the front triangle.
    Agreed. I ride a large Blackborow, and it feels more like a medium. In fact, the medium frame bag I used to run on my Fargo fit the large Blackborow triangle really well.

    A number of the new Salsa frames have greatly expanded the triangle area - Cutthroat, Woodsmoke, etc. Which is why I'm still scratching my head at the weird notch in the top tube on the new Muk, since it doesn't actually help the interior triangle volume at all. Yes, I know theoretically it's for 'standover height' but really?
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert

  22. #22
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by ReXTless View Post
    .....was reminded that it works fine and the incremental benefit to a new frame isn't worth the cost to me. I only ride the fatbike in winter, and by the end of the season I'm sooooo ready to return to riding normal bikes.
    Same here. And if I'm dropping $2k or more on a frame, it's going to be ti, not plastic.

    So, I guess I've just talked myself out of a new Muk frame! Thanks, all!
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert

  23. #23
    Not really fixed.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    133
    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.

  24. #24
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,939
    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.
    Or sunsetted the Muk and continued to push the boundaries of a true exploration fat bike sticking with the Blackborow, ideally in alloy and ti versions.

    But I wouldn't be surprised if something along those lines may still be a possibility in the future....
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert

  25. #25
    The Dog.
    Reputation: Dogdude222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by tgarson View Post
    Saw this posted elsewhere, strongly suggests the frameset option is the black/blue: https://nuxx.net/blog/2016/12/10/fat...mukluk-carbon/
    Gorgeous. Want.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    63
    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.
    To each their own, but all the grumbling about the toptube bend is amusing to me. While I freely admit that I found it off putting in comparison to say the simple and clean double diamond shape of a Beargrease, it is essentially the same shape as a Blackborrow, RSD the mayor or countless other fat and mountain bikes. All of these bikes have a top tube angle that would join the seat tube at a low point. The difference with the new Muk is that adding the bend allowed them to remove the second vestigial tube junction between the top and seat tubes. It takes a little getting used to, but the result IMHO is a cleaner than having a second triangle at the seat tube.

    If you guys want to see proper ugly or mourn the loss of 'traditional frame aesthetics', take a look at what's going on in the triathlon space:

    Mukluk Carbon-150042-largest_p5x-profile800.jpg

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by tgarson View Post
    To each their own, but all the grumbling about the toptube bend is amusing to me. While I freely admit that I found it off putting in comparison to say the simple and clean double diamond shape of a Beargrease, it is essentially the same shape as a Blackborrow, RSD the mayor or countless other fat and mountain bikes. All of these bikes have a top tube angle that would join the seat tube at a low point. The difference with the new Muk is that adding the bend allowed them to remove the second vestigial tube junction between the top and seat tubes. It takes a little getting used to, but the result IMHO is a cleaner than having a second triangle at the seat tube.

    If you guys want to see proper ugly or mourn the loss of 'traditional frame aesthetics', take a look at what's going on in the triathlon space:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	150042-largest_P5x-Profile800.jpg 
Views:	138 
Size:	38.0 KB 
ID:	1110351
    You're right, that thing is ugly!

    As to the new Mukluk, for me, it's not just the fact that there is a bend in the top tube, although that's part of it. I dislike the sharp angle that the bend makes, a more gentle curve would be much nicer, and I feel like it would be stronger as well. But, I also dislike the squarish shaping of all of the tubes, as well as the bend at the bottom of the downtube. Then again, I'm not in the market for something like this anyway, as I still prefer metal.

  28. #28
    Not really fixed.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    133
    I'd rather have a fat bike with no seat tube like that P5X

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    Or sunsetted the Muk and continued to push the boundaries of a true exploration fat bike sticking with the Blackborow, ideally in alloy and ti versions.
    What do you mean by push the boundaries? More brazeons? More tire clearance? Seems the new Muk is at least as capable as the BB but with slightly more progressive geo and a happier entry level price. Really its more last year's BB than last year's Muk.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,790
    Does it fit the 2XL Snowshoe? That's the only thing that looks up in the air at this point.
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440


    I picked up my Mukluk Carbon frame last week, swapped most of the parts over from my Blackborow, and ended up with this.

    Only a couple of rides on it so far, but I'm liking it. I went with XO1 fatbike cranks and got a couple heel strikes while riding (mostly when cornering hard with pedals level) with Wolvhammers. To mitigate this I'm getting the extended spindles for Crank Brothers pedals which should push my shoes out another 5mm per side. I think this'll do the trick.

    Still need to swap brake rotors and a couple other tweaks, but it's mostly done.

    I've got a full writeup on the build here: https://nuxx.net/blog/2016/12/10/fat...mukluk-carbon/

    Photos-only here: https://nuxx.net/gallery/v/stuffivem...mukluk_carbon/

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee View Post
    Does it fit the 2XL Snowshoe? That's the only thing that looks up in the air at this point.
    If I was a betting man I'd go all in for NO.

    By the looks of the spacing and the tire specs this is not a replacement for blackborrow (which can fit 2xl)
    100mm bb and tight yokes looks very much like a clear no to me.

    Maybe on 80mm rims with tubes though..?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by tgarson View Post
    Saw this posted elsewhere, strongly suggests the frameset option is the black/blue: https://nuxx.net/blog/2016/12/10/fat...mukluk-carbon/
    I talked to Salsa. Yep, verified from me too, black and blue.
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee View Post
    I talked to Salsa. Yep, verified from me too, black and blue.
    This is correct, and that previous post (nuxx.net) is me. The 2017 Mukluk Carbon frameset is only available in black and blue.

    I personally would have preferred green and black, but it's not an option.

  35. #35
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Terp View Post
    What do you mean by push the boundaries? More brazeons? More tire clearance? Seems the new Muk is at least as capable as the BB but with slightly more progressive geo and a happier entry level price. Really its more last year's BB than last year's Muk.
    I guess I mean continuing with more of what the Blackborow was, and the new Muk isn't. They just aren't the same bike.

    To start with, just because they expanded the spacing doesn't make it a replacement for the Blackborow in my mind.

    And to each his own, but I'm not going to do an extended bikepacking expedition in a remote place on a full carbon bike. On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate with the Blackborow. But Salsa seems to be embracing the carbon big-time these days. Personally, I'd rather see ti.

    What would a 'next gen' 2017 Blackborow have looked like in my mind? I think it's damn good already, but it would have rack mounts. They add next to nothing in terms of weight, and for certain trips are really useful to have, while not in the way when you don't need them. I would also add a threaded bb, while narrowing the bb spacing (as the new Muk features). Bottom line is that the current Blackborow wouldn't need major changes, but it in my mind it would have continued tweaking in the direction of having all the features of a bike for extended touring in off-the-beaten path terrain. That is what was awesome and inspiring about the Blackborow, and I'm just not feeling that with it's supposed replacement.

    But no use crying over spilt milk - the Blackborow is gone, and the Muk has been updated instead. Just explaining why they aren't equally 'capable' in my opinion.
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,790
    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 long. That's just 1mm shorter than an ICT, and longer than the 2017 Blizzard.

    c0nsumer, looking at the frame, do you think 29+ run on the shorter alternator size?
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  37. #37
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    I guess I mean continuing with more of what the Blackborow was, and the new Muk isn't. They just aren't the same bike.

    To start with, just because they expanded the spacing doesn't make it a replacement for the Blackborow in my mind.
    I, like you seem to have been considering, was looking at a possible switch to this new carbon wonder bike. I actually was afforded the opportunity last August to take one for a test ride on our local single track.

    I remember when I got my Ti Muk I thought there could be no way it would ride better than my '11 aluminum Muk, but it was night and day different in a really good way. I was wanting to have that same feeling with the carbon vs Aluminum Blackborow DS I have. However; I was completely underwhelmed.

    The carbon did not add to the ride quality significantly enough, (for me) to consider a switch from my Blackborow DS. Plus, the handling felt slower/deader. I'm not sure if that could have been the tires/air pressures, but it could have been. They weren't Lous, as I have on my Blackborow DS, but I cannot recall now what they were. Anyway....

    And to each his own, but I'm not going to do an extended bikepacking expedition in a remote place on a full carbon bike. On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate with the Blackborow. But Salsa seems to be embracing the carbon big-time these days. Personally, I'd rather see ti.
    Again, I would agree with you here. Like I said, I have a Ti Muk, and I have sorely abused that bike in mud, grime, and all manner of slop, and it cleans up to look as good as the day I got it. Plus, frame bag strap rub is not a concern. I cannot imagine a Carbon Mukluk would not only not have a good finish by now after such abuse, but that it might even be compromised by the rubbing of straps caked in mud or damaged by grinding rock filled mud through the chain stays. Yet I have zero worries about that with Ti, and I don't have to take further measures to protect that frame from such abuses. I happen to like that.

    Then there is the ride quality of titanium, which adds even more value to my mind. YMMV Bottom line is that IF Salsa were to do a Ti Blackborow, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

    What would a 'next gen' 2017 Blackborow have looked like in my mind? I think it's damn good already, but it would have rack mounts. They add next to nothing in terms of weight, and for certain trips are really useful to have, while not in the way when you don't need them. I would also add a threaded bb, while narrowing the bb spacing (as the new Muk features). Bottom line is that the current Blackborow wouldn't need major changes, but it in my mind it would have continued tweaking in the direction of having all the features of a bike for extended touring in off-the-beaten path terrain. That is what was awesome and inspiring about the Blackborow, and I'm just not feeling that with it's supposed replacement.
    Amen to the above. I am with you there.

    But no use crying over spilt milk - the Blackborow is gone, and the Muk has been updated instead. Just explaining why they aren't equally 'capable' in my opinion.
    Right. In my opinion, the Carbon Muk was not enough of an upgrade, or really an upgrade at all, over what I have now. Besides the aforementioned aesthetic appeal. or lack thereof, of the carbon renderings that Salsa has now. So, from my viewpoint, I have the fat bike that works best for my needs. I would only be swayed to swap to a titanium version of it, should that be an option for me down the road. I know custom is a path I could choose, but for now and for me, the Blackborow is the best fat bike for exploration/breaking trail,fun, and more that Salsa has yet made.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  38. #38
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    ...
    And to each his own, but I'm not going to do an extended bikepacking expedition in a remote place on a full carbon bike. On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate with the Blackborow. But Salsa seems to be embracing the carbon big-time these days. Personally, I'd rather see ti...
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    ...
    Again, I would agree with you here. Like I said, I have a Ti Muk, and I have sorely abused that bike in mud, grime, and all manner of slop, and it cleans up to look as good as the day I got it. Plus, frame bag strap rub is not a concern. I cannot imagine a Carbon Mukluk would not only not have a good finish by now after such abuse, but that it might even be compromised by the rubbing of straps caked in mud or damaged by grinding rock filled mud through the chain stays. Yet I have zero worries about that with Ti, and I don't have to take further measures to protect that frame from such abuses. I happen to like that...
    I think this "issue" is a bit overblown. Plenty have traveled thousands of miles on carbon frames. Maybe they're susceptible to strap rub, but some clear film takes care of that. There are few other seemingly weak points of CF, but there are a lot of advantages as well. Weight, for one. No corrosion. Also, as this guy mentions, no metal frame is easier to field repair than carbon:

    Salsa Beargrease: First Impressions — Mjolnir of Bjørn

    "It is often stated that steel is the best choice for road touring. One of the reasons is because if anything should crack on the frame it is the easiest material to repair. I don’t foresee myself carrying a welder anytime soon but I can envision carrying sandpaper, rubbing alcohol, two-part epoxy and carbon fiber patch material. My hunch is, this repair kit will remain unused and at the bottom of the pack but there is no other frame material I am aware of that someone in the middle of nowhere can field repair as readily as carbon fiber."

    I say this not owning a single CF bike. Most are steel with 2 Aluminum Salsa's. I don't plan on buying a CF bike anytime soon, but it would't prevent me from buying one--even for bikepacking purposes.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    But no use crying over spilt milk - the Blackborow is gone, and the Muk has been updated instead. Just explaining why they aren't equally 'capable' in my opinion.
    If your main beef is with carbon, check out the AL versions. Practically identical save for a bit more TT and HT on the new model. If you size down they are almost the exact same bike! Angles are within 0.5 and all dimensions are within 4mm. But of course that doesn't help you since you already have a BB and like you said, there is no TI version so all you'd get is minor geo tweaks...however, it also means the BB is not really gone.

    As for me, the Carbon X1 is what I'll be saving up for to replace my 2014 Muk. In my case everything about it is an improvement.

  40. #40
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,939
    Quote Originally Posted by stremf View Post
    I think this "issue" is a bit overblown. Plenty have traveled thousands of miles on carbon frames....
    Yeah, it's entirely possible that at least some of it is just perception on my part. Carbon frame building has certainly come a long way lately. As far as weight goes however, I think it can often be an interesting exercise comparing carbon and aluminum frame weights for the same model - they often aren't as different as people would assume. And, unless you're a gram-counting racer, I think that for a fat bike/expedition rig, the weight difference would have to be pretty significant to actually mean anything.

    People have definitely traveled thousands of miles on carbon frames....but the vast majority of those were on roads and mild terrain. Those that deliberately choose an all-carbon rig for the kind of conditions that something like the Blackborow is specifically made for, continue to be a minority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Terp View Post
    If your main beef is with carbon, check out the AL versions....
    Thanks, and I have considered that, but honestly the new aluminum Muk just doesn't represent any improvements for me over what I already have. I think I'm in the same boat as GT - if they came out with a ti Blackborow (or something truly comparable), I'd be all over it like a puppy on a pork chop. But otherwise, I can't find a reason to upgrade.

    To be clear - I am in no way dissing the new Muk. I'm sure it's a great bike, and I have a couple friends that have recently bought them and appear to be very happy with them. They are also experienced riders, who evaluate their choices critically. I'm just explaining why I remain unconvinced that it is a replacement for the Blackborow.
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,790
    My hypothesis is they realized the bulk of true expedition nutcases were well enough served by the Moonlander already. Making the new 5"-tire bike racier would sell more.

    I wonder if the wide Q-factor also came up as a big barrier to buyers in their research, because the limited tire size capability can be almost directly linked to the narrower BB on the 2017.

    I can buy 2015 and 2016 Blackborow frame sets for steep discounts from at least three online shops in the EU, so maybe it didn't sell quite as well as they'd hoped either.
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  42. #42
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    Yeah, it's entirely possible that at least some of it is just perception on my part. Carbon frame building has certainly come a long way lately. As far as weight goes however, I think it can often be an interesting exercise comparing carbon and aluminum frame weights for the same model - they often aren't as different as people would assume. And, unless you're a gram-counting racer, I think that for a fat bike/expedition rig, the weight difference would have to be pretty significant to actually mean anything.

    People have definitely traveled thousands of miles on carbon frames....but the vast majority of those were on roads and mild terrain. Those that deliberately choose an all-carbon rig for the kind of conditions that something like the Blackborow is specifically made for, continue to be a minority.
    Agree, frame weight definitely isn't a factor when you're talking about a loaded bike weighing 100lbs. But CF does win out on weight and maybe more importantly, strength/weight ratio. You've probably already seen that Pinkbike CF vs AL test. It's not even close.

    But most blogs and articles on long expeditions are typically on metallic frames, I agree. Whether that's due to cost, function (steel/ti both offer bigger frame space), customization (much easier to have a custom builder to weld up a frame exactly how you want it), or maybe just pure skepticism of CF, I don't know. But the guy's blog I linked above--he's from Alaska, riding on CF Beargrease. Definitely not mild terrain up there.

    I still love my Al Blackborow. I will say, though, if opportunity came to trade the frameset straight across for a CF Mukluk, I would do it. Solely for that huge frame bag capacity.

  43. #43
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by stremf View Post
    I think this "issue" is a bit overblown. Plenty have traveled thousands of miles on carbon frames. Maybe they're susceptible to strap rub, but some clear film takes care of that. There are few other seemingly weak points of CF, but there are a lot of advantages as well. Weight, for one. No corrosion.
    Sure, you are right about this, but I have seen carbon fail in the field. I have seen carbon chain stays worn through by grinding mud between the tire and stay. I have seen a broken carbon rim structure that was punctured by a simple shard of broken glass. Anything can and will break, but I seriously consider a metal frame to be more robust. And to your point about frame bag rub- I simply do not even have to think about that with my Ti Muk. Nothing wrong with frame saver tape and all. heck, I use it on my painetd frames, but my original point was that Salsa, should they make a Ti Blackborow, (hopefully not half painted ), I would be very happy to strap a frame bag on that and never have to think about frame saver tape again.

    Like Smithhammer, I am not dissing anyone's decision to buy into carbon fiber for this application, I use the stuff for handle bars and forks, but I am loathe to get a carbon fiber bike for "adventure" riding, which for me means really severe conditions.

    Also, as this guy mentions, no metal frame is easier to field repair than carbon:

    Salsa Beargrease: First Impressions — Mjolnir of Bjørn

    "It is often stated that steel is the best choice for road touring. One of the reasons is because if anything should crack on the frame it is the easiest material to repair. I don’t foresee myself carrying a welder anytime soon but I can envision carrying sandpaper, rubbing alcohol, two-part epoxy and carbon fiber patch material. My hunch is, this repair kit will remain unused and at the bottom of the pack but there is no other frame material I am aware of that someone in the middle of nowhere can field repair as readily as carbon fiber."
    I don't foresee anyone fixing a frame out in the Styx. maybe they would, but in my experience, from what I have witnessed, carbon fails in such a way that it isn't really a field serviceable repair. Especially in severe conditions. (Mud, snow, etc)

    Besides, failure mode isn't mentioned. I would place my bets on Ti or steel here. And that is what I do. YMMV

    I say this not owning a single CF bike. Most are steel with 2 Aluminum Salsa's. I don't plan on buying a CF bike anytime soon, but it would't prevent me from buying one--even for bikepacking purposes.
    Again- to each their own, but getting back to the finer points of the original discussion where I jumped in, for me carbon fiber frame material isn't in and of itself a selling point. How it is executed and how much of a ride performance advantage it gives is what I would be interested in. the Carbon Mukluk did not demonstrate, in my opinion, any real tangible advantages over my current Blackborow DS. It certainly did not have anything to outweigh my personal concerns with carbon fiber adventure frames. An example where I feel carbon might sway me is the Warbird. I have ridden a Cutthroat a couple of times as well. There the advantages are compelling, but I did not feel this with regard to the Carbon Mukluk.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  44. #44
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Sure, you are right about this, but I have seen carbon fail in the field. I have seen carbon chain stays worn through by grinding mud between the tire and stay. I have seen a broken carbon rim structure that was punctured by a simple shard of broken glass. Anything can and will break, but I seriously consider a metal frame to be more robust. And to your point about frame bag rub- I simply do not even have to think about that with my Ti Muk. Nothing wrong with frame saver tape and all. heck, I use it on my painetd frames, but my original point was that Salsa, should they make a Ti Blackborow, (hopefully not half painted ), I would be very happy to strap a frame bag on that and never have to think about frame saver tape again.

    Like Smithhammer, I am not dissing anyone's decision to buy into carbon fiber for this application, I use the stuff for handle bars and forks, but I am loathe to get a carbon fiber bike for "adventure" riding, which for me means really severe conditions.



    I don't foresee anyone fixing a frame out in the Styx. maybe they would, but in my experience, from what I have witnessed, carbon fails in such a way that it isn't really a field serviceable repair. Especially in severe conditions. (Mud, snow, etc)

    Besides, failure mode isn't mentioned. I would place my bets on Ti or steel here. And that is what I do. YMMV



    Again- to each their own, but getting back to the finer points of the original discussion where I jumped in, for me carbon fiber frame material isn't in and of itself a selling point. How it is executed and how much of a ride performance advantage it gives is what I would be interested in. the Carbon Mukluk did not demonstrate, in my opinion, any real tangible advantages over my current Blackborow DS. It certainly did not have anything to outweigh my personal concerns with carbon fiber adventure frames. An example where I feel carbon might sway me is the Warbird. I have ridden a Cutthroat a couple of times as well. There the advantages are compelling, but I did not feel this with regard to the Carbon Mukluk.
    Of course you've seen stuff fail. You organize and participate in some crazy long events. But how many CF frames have you seen make it through events without issues? Millions? What's the actual failure rate? 0.1%?

    Despite your (anecdotal) experience, all it's doing is feeding into the fragile CF myth. Perhaps in the infancy of CF, there were some teething issues, but I just don't see any hard data that would prevent me from considering a CF bike today. Sure, there are some measures that need to be taken, such as protective film, but again, there are pros/cons with any material.

    As you said, we've all got our own preferences. If CF (or whatever) isn't your thing, then that's fine. We all avoid stuff for sometimes, unrealistic reasons. My friend will not go hiking in the woods for the fear of Mtn lions. (Fact is, you're more likely to get killed by a vending machine). Still, that's fine with me. If he feels uncomfortable, I won't force it on him. But I do get bugged when he tells everyone that they'll die if they go hiking.

  45. #45
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by stremf View Post
    Of course you've seen stuff fail. You organize and participate in some crazy long events. But how many CF frames have you seen make it through events without issues? Millions? What's the actual failure rate? 0.1%?

    Despite your (anecdotal) experience, all it's doing is feeding into the fragile CF myth.
    Hmmm....... It would seem that you are not reading what I am writing, or you are not understanding it. Either way.....

    What I am saying is that for myself, the Carbon Mukluk is not a Blackborow replacement. What I am saying is that due to seeing carbon fail in situations not unlike how I use my Blackborow, I am not going to put that chance of that happening into the mix for myself

    I believe I also said that I, like Smithhammer, was not condemning the bike for others. Do whatcha wanna do. As you also said, I see. Okay?

    I don't think we're that far off from each other excepting for that you seem to think I am saying no one should ride carbon fiber because it is bad, or that I am "feeding a myth", or whatever you are inferring from my original post.

    Of course, that doesn't stop anyone from thinking that, obviously.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  46. #46
    .44
    Reputation: stremf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    Hmmm....... It would seem that you are not reading what I am writing, or you are not understanding it. Either way.....

    What I am saying is that for myself, the Carbon Mukluk is not a Blackborow replacement. What I am saying is that due to seeing carbon fail in situations not unlike how I use my Blackborow, I am not going to put that chance of that happening into the mix for myself

    I believe I also said that I, like Smithhammer, was not condemning the bike for others. Do whatcha wanna do. As you also said, I see. Okay?

    I don't think we're that far off from each other excepting for that you seem to think I am saying no one should ride carbon fiber because it is bad, or that I am "feeding a myth", or whatever you are inferring from my original post.

    Of course, that doesn't stop anyone from thinking that, obviously.
    I did read all of what you wrote. If I am misinterpreting, I apologize.

    But if I'm reading into it correctly, aside from the fact that the Muk's ride quality wasn't what you expected, all I'm seeing is your hesitancy to choose a CF bike based on a few failures you've witnessed. We all have our reasonings to choose X over Y, but just because you precede with "For me", doesn't preclude you from at least presenting some legitimate/significant facts. (And let me preface that with the FACT that you have a great deal of influence on this forum, and thereby holding you to a higher standard, whether you like it or not ). And to be clear, I never said you condemned anyone from choosing whatever frame over another. That wasn't the point of my posts.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd choose Ti as well. It's shiny, pretty, and matches my wedding band. But I'd never choose it over a CF due to concerns from insignificant failure rates, which has been implied several times in your posts.

    What I do agree with you on is, I won't replace my BB DS with the Muk, unless I can do it with no cash out of pocket. There is just no advantage I see in the switch. Had this been 2 years ago, though, I'd probably go with the Muk.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantTurd View Post
    Tried at the shop, NO WAY a 2XL fits, not even close on a 80mm rim. Had one on order, just cancelled.
    That's sad.. What was the biggest problem? What size frame?

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by tgarson View Post
    I set mine up tubeless but haven't weighed it yet, according to Salsa though the 2017 gx BG is 29 lb even in size medium and the 2017 carbon mukluk gx in size L is 29lb 7 oz.
    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.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,053
    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



  50. #50
    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Carbon Mukluk Fenders
    By Dustin Mustangs in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-27-2015, 05:18 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, 08:02 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, 09:25 PM

Members who have read this thread: 390

Posting Permissions

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