Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Mukluk vs Mukluk 2 vs Mukluk 3 FRAME?

10K views 12 replies 10 participants last post by  TomBrooklyn 
#1 ·
Which one do I get??? My fat rear experiment on the Carver 29er ended up not working once the tire stretched. But I got the bug and am taking the plunge on a real fat frame. Looking to do this as cheap as possible, and definitely want aluminum over steel.

So the front runner looks to be the original Mukluk which is $450 for frame and fork. But that got me looking and the Mukluk 2 and 3. What exactly are the differences between the FRAMES? Here is what I found so far: The 2 is anodized instead of paint, should a be a touch lighter and more durable. I also saw mention of a bent downtube and gusset on the 2 and 3. Any geometry changes or other stuff I should know about that might sway me?

Thanks,
Mark
 
#2 ·
The original Mukluk is not certified in the EU as a mountain bike. The gussett added to the front (and I suspect other things) brought it up to be strong enough to pass whatever tests.

The Mukluk 2 and 3 just vary in paint vs. ano. If you're wanting to go cost effective, I'd just get a Mukluk 3. The paint job on it is really nice and while it's a little heavier than the anodized version it's cheaper and still looks great.

Folks will argue about CEN testing being worthwhile or not, but I'd personally rather have the beefier frame since I'm a bit paranoid about potential frame failure anyway, and I tend to clomp over things.
 
#5 ·
Yes, the 3 is available in the US through some of the usual mail order places, the 2 seems to be harder to find. But like I said, I am trying to justify if the extra cost is worth it. $450 for the Mukluk 1 or $600 for the Mukluk 3?
 
#8 ·
BFL's on my Mukluk 3

I recently put Big Fat Larrys on my 2011 Mukluk (3). I used the Surley singlespeed kit to remove the smallest cog, mounted the tires, adjusted the derailleurs and it works just fine. I can run all 3*8 gears including the small/big with zero clearance or chainline issues. I have the stock FSA crank, X7 rear, etc. that was spec'd for 2011.

The extra float makes a significant difference, although the extra weight is apparent; the BFL's are my go-to tires for the extra soft/deep stuff now.
 
#9 ·
Unless you already have some parts, go with a complete. You will have over $600 just in wheels if you do a build, so the $150 you save on a frame will disappear quickly and in the long run will cost you more than what a new complete would cost you. If you are trying to do this on the cheap then there is no way you can get parts cheaper then the manufacturer can so you get a better deal buying a complete.
 
#10 ·
I was in the same boat. Loved the blue frame, but I wanted the build with Rolling Darryls and upgraded components. Ended up going with Muk2 because it was lighter, better components, and a good value, If I would have gone with the blue frame, I would have bike taped the heck out of the thing making it even heavier. And building up from frame only would have costed much more, probably about the same price if not more than the Muk2. The black anodized paint is pretty durable. I've been riding the bike like crazy since I got it the week they were released, and still with no scratches. Go with whatever you can afford, you'll be happy and won't regret any decision once you are riding it! Good luck.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top