Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 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
    1,055
    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
    65
    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
    1,800
    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
    65
    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
    1,055
    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
    3,070
    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
    691
    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
    2,032
    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
    3,393
    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
    2,032
    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
    65
    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
    329
    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
    2,032
    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
    2,032
    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
    134
    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
    2,032
    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
    65
    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
    3,393
    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:	143 
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
    134
    I'd rather have a fat bike with no seat tube like that P5X

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    518
    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
    1,800
    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
    1,800
    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
    2,032
    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
    1,800
    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
    8,251
    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 β€” Mjolnir of BjΓΈrn

    "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
    518
    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
    2,032
    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
    1,800
    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
    8,251
    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 β€” Mjolnir of BjΓΈrn

    "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
    8,251
    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
    1,055
    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.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tyriverag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,055
    Ah. I just read it differently than you wrote it.
    2015 Trek Farley 6
    2009 Fuji Cross Comp
    2001 Schwinn Frontier SS



  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    65
    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.

  53. #53
    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

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    409
    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.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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?

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.)

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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?

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    170
    I'm about to look into frame protectors too, just noticed a ding already

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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 12:58 PM. Reason: Corrected crank spec

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    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?
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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...

  67. #67
    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.. :/

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.)

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    65
    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.

  70. #70
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,032
    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


  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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!

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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/

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    See above. That's the Snowshoe XL 4.8 on a Clowshoe 100mm.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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..

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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 07:00 AM.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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...)

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.)

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691

    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.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691

    x

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


  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,393
    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:	75 
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.

  85. #85
    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

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.

  88. #88
    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

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691
    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.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c0nsumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    440
    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.)

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    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.
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    691

    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.

  95. #95
    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.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    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.
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  97. #97
    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?

  98. #98
    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.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: schnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by 12:00 RIDER View Post
    Anyone know if they change in downtube has an affect on frame bags/ what frame bags work with it?
    I dealt with this on the phone with Charlie the Bike Monger.

    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.

    That might not be the whole story, but it's what I could figure out.

    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. We'll see though. We might have to rely on custom.
    Yamaguchi Cross • YT Jeffsy • Salsa Mukluk & Vaya • Canyon Commuter

  100. #100
    Armchair Product Manager
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    229
    I am using the mukluk bag that I had on my blackborrow. It fits well. There is maybe a 1/4" gap from the bag to the downtube. I like the gap where the top tube bends up above the bag a lot! I can pick the bike up there.

Page 1 of 2 12 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: 268

Posting Permissions

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