Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 59
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69

    Mukluk2 front shifting issues-2013

    I have a 2013 Mukluk 2. It shifts poorly or not at all in the front. It has been adjusted several times, and seems as good as it will get. 22-36 e thirteen crankset, Sram x7 direct mount frt derailleur with a Problem Solvers standoff for the 100mm bottom bracket. Stock KMC 10 speed chain. Sram x7 triggers. - Reading Srams website, the face of the mount for the derailleur is to be 43.5 mm from the centerline of the frame. Not so on the Muk2-it's about 40mm(I need a more exact read to get a better #). Likewise, 6-7mm from the face of the bottom bracket to the face of the derailleur mount, but on the Muk2, it's close to 11.5 mm. Ok, when one shifts, the derailleur binds on itself and won't complete the shift. To complicate the matter, Salsa has spec'd the 45t standard cage front derailleur instead of the(correct?) 38t compact cage front derailleur. This combination does not play well together. What is everyone else doing? Living with this clusterf _ _ _? Or fixing it? Or is mine the only one? This 2x10 setup should shift very sweetly, not after a fashion. Thanks for any help. PS.... Salsa tech was rude and no help. This over a phone conversation -"I didn't know what I was talking about" - and when I called him on his attitude through several emails, he said "salsa could spec whatever it wanted and he didn't have to talk to me anymore". Oh well, no loss there.

  2. #2
    Big "T"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    369
    I've been having this exact same problem with e Thirteen XCS cranks and the 36-22 integrated double rings that were sold with the cranks on fatbikes.com

    I'm running XTR front deraileur and XT chain with an XT cassette and XTR rear deraileur.

    I had half a dozen incidents (two of them the first two days I rode the bike) where what you described happened when trying to shift down to the 22t ring. At first I thought is was the deraileur adjustment. But I found that no matter how I adjusted the deraileur it did this, especially if there was any torque at all on the chain when shifting, or if my pedal cadence was low. After closer inspection we found that there was a section of teeth that weren't allowing the chain to downshift. If the deraileur hit the chain while it was over those teeth, it would jam.

    For the past week just stopped shifting down to the 22t. I was thinking about turning it into a 1x10.

    After less than twenty rides on the bike, though, the 36t ring is unrideable. It started experiencing horrible chainsuck the other day. Stand and put a lot of torque into the cranks and it wraps around the ring. All the chain drops have severely gouged up my Beargrease frame. I've bent up my deraileur hanger, my rear XTR deraileur and the other day my XTR Front deraileur was ruined when the chainsuck started. The bike has only cold or dry rides. No mud, and all the other components mounted with it were brand new at the time of the build.

    I do not believe this is an issue with Salsa, Sram or Shimano. IMO either there's an issue with the machining of the teeth on the rings, or the ring is too wide for a 10sp chain.

    the one sure thing is that I won't buy from eThirteen anymore.

  3. #3
    29er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    859
    ouch, no what i want to hear as i get ready to buy a muk 2

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    What you describe is the opposite of what I am experiencing. My problem is upshifting to the 36. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. From what you say, I would raise the front derailleur on the mount. It just sounds like it's too low. The teeth on all big rings vary in height to help the shift take place. If the derailleur is adjusted on the low teeth, it can be too low for the high part of the ring. Then it would bind. I'm sorry to hear about the frame damage. That hurts. I too see a lot of wear on the big ring of the ethirteen crank. I was surprised at that. I am currently just using it as a single up front because of the shift issue. I have a Specialties TA 28 tooth 64bcd small ring that is working very well-after I relieved a bit of the mounting boss(es) so they wouldn't contact the bottom bracket!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    I also have an On One Fatty. Way happier with that bike. On the Mukluk 2, if you have the ability, or a good friend who can, it is advisable, if you need the Salsa thing, to buy just the frame and fork. Then put on the parts you want. The price is almost the same, and you'll get stuff that works. If you don't need the Salsa bs(blog stories), buy the 9.0.7 - $599-great stuff and similar to the Mukluk, made in Taiwan, or for the USA made frame a Fatback at $800. This one has a higher bottom bracket than the 907 or the salsa. IMO the taller the person, the lower the bottom bracket should be. If you're 5'9"(highly subjective #) or shorter the On One Fatty or the Fatback would be the way to go. For my money, if you are over 6' , a lower bb makes sense. 907 or -choke-salsa. I know, some people have other reasons for a higher bb. I understand and agree. It's all subjective. Happy Riding!!! and FAT RULES !

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    144
    Muk 2-stock build- no issues with front shifting. Not sure what to tell you guys, but if you need any pictures of the setup, I'd be happy to take some.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    I know some of them must shift ok. There are many out there-even more muk3's, which have the same set-up I think. If yours is the same spec as mine I would be curious to know which front derailleur you have. If you could look at the back of the cage there is a # for max chainring teeth stamped there. It's probably the same as mine, but it may be different. Let's find out! And are you running the MRP bash guard that came with it? If one removed the bash guard, it would, in effect, move the derailleur closer to the crankset. Thanks!

  8. #8
    Big "T"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by builder View Post
    What you describe is the opposite of what I am experiencing. My problem is upshifting to the 36. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. From what you say, I would raise the front derailleur on the mount. It just sounds like it's too low. The teeth on all big rings vary in height to help the shift take place. If the derailleur is adjusted on the low teeth, it can be too low for the high part of the ring. Then it would bind. I'm sorry to hear about the frame damage. That hurts. I too see a lot of wear on the big ring of the ethirteen crank. I was surprised at that. I am currently just using it as a single up front because of the shift issue. I have a Specialties TA 28 tooth 64bcd small ring that is working very well-after I relieved a bit of the mounting boss(es) so they wouldn't contact the bottom bracket!
    If you bought the bike from a Salsa dealer they are on the hook to fix/replace the component.

    no. my deraileur is not too low. went there and did that already

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    144
    Yep, I'm running the bash guard- 45T is stamped on the back of the derailleur. The only modification done is an additional washer on the BB- added by the LBS to try and take care of a bit of of a creak. It seemed like the plastic washers+ that hand tightening screw dealio gave it just a smidgin of play after ~500 miles or so of riding.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    253
    I'd suggest raising the front derailleur a bit. I'm running a 2x10 on my On-One Fatty (Race Face crank 24-26-bash, XT everything else).

    My front derailleur came with that little alignment sticker that helps you to set it at the proper height above the big chainring; 2-3 mm IIRC. However, if I did that, the derailleur cage would hit the bash ring. So I had to raise it up till the cage cleared the bash.

    Shifting is just fine.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    I read of a number of people with the ON ONE Fatty that are using Shimano front derailleurs with no issues. Sounds like the way to go. Thanks!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    109
    2012/13 Muk 2, stock setup, roughly 500 miles on it, no shifting issues whatsoever.....

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    13
    2012/13 Muk 2, no shifting issues, but sometimes the chain is stuck on one of the rings like Scottytheoneandonly described.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    Early on I had issues with the chain jamming as well. Now that it's pointed out to me, it was probably stuck on the big ring. It really seems like a clusterf _ _ _ on the front. Some shift, some do not. From pictures, which you can't go by on the net, it looks like the Sram x9 has a straighter cable pull than the x7? And the Shimano fronts also look better. I'm going to continue to try and get some positive response from Salsa, but in the end will probably go with one of the above. It's 1x10 for now.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    PS...... and also change the 36 tooth ring to one from Shimano. I have a 32 so will probably just use that.

  16. #16
    Big "T"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    369
    I contacted fatbikes.com, since they advertise the crank I purchased as "exclusively available at fatbikes.com"

    they suggested I buy a different brand of chainring or call eThirteen myself

    the problem with this crankset is that the inner ring bolts to the middle ring, not to the crank arm. it limits replacement ring options.

    buyer beware, I guess. I always buy from my LBS. i stopped buying from online retailers years ago because of service/quality issues.

    I've been asking around to mechanics and a number of riders I know here and they all have negative comments regarding either the rings or the BBs on eThirteen cranks.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    177
    i haven'y had any issues with the stock set-up and none with the xtr set-up i am running...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    Thanks Scotty!! I am currently in contact with ethirteen. They say they "have stellar response from everyone on their rings". Oh well. Just for the record, the cranks on the Mukluk are different in their mounting of the rings. I can change my rings to whatever in a 104 or a 64bcd..... so I can at least salvage something from this mess. It sounds though like the ring design is the same on both types of crank. Ethirteen also said they design their rings around Shimano chains, so don't know where this leaves us. Out in the cold I guess.... pun intended..... :.((

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    Just in case one hasn't seen it, Fatback Bikes has an FSA crankset and bottom bracket that they spec on their bikes that I'm sure would work. These guys know FAT.

  20. #20
    Big "T"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by builder View Post
    Thanks Scotty!! I am currently in contact with ethirteen. They say they "have stellar response from everyone on their rings". Oh well. Just for the record, the cranks on the Mukluk are different in their mounting of the rings. I can change my rings to whatever in a 104 or a 64bcd..... so I can at least salvage something from this mess. It sounds though like the ring design is the same on both types of crank. Ethirteen also said they design their rings around Shimano chains, so don't know where this leaves us. Out in the cold I guess.... pun intended..... :.((
    have you taken the bike back to the shop that sold it to you? They should be the ones fixing it.


    I'm using a shimano XT/XTR drivetrain. the only non shimano component is the ethirteen crank/ring combo.


    if Shimano offered a 100mm crank option I'd be riding my bike right now.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    Scotty, shoot Charlie at ethirteen a note here.
    charlie.schneider@bythehive.com
    He's at least trying to help. He's offered to send new rings out to see if that would help.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: masterofnone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,211
    My '13 muk3 shifts fine.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,343
    Either of you guys have another mtb around?
    Swap the rings and see if it cures your problems...

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    236
    Just remove the front shifter entirely... zero shifting problems

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mnyquist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Scottytheoneandonly View Post
    I contacted fatbikes.com, since they advertise the crank I purchased as "exclusively available at fatbikes.com"

    they suggested I buy a different brand of chainring or call eThirteen myself

    the problem with this crankset is that the inner ring bolts to the middle ring, not to the crank arm. it limits replacement ring options.

    buyer beware, I guess. I always buy from my LBS. i stopped buying from online retailers years ago because of service/quality issues.

    I've been asking around to mechanics and a number of riders I know here and they all have negative comments regarding either the rings or the BBs on eThirteen cranks.
    Guys at Trail's Edge in Michigan have had nothing good to say about E13. I have had front shifting issues as well. Also, I have to tighten the left crank arm every few rides. Race Face crank might be in my future.

  26. #26
    Big "T"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    369
    fatbikes.com is going to let me return the crankset. thumbs up to them for helping me out. It took two email exchanges but they offered to take it back within 24 hours or so of me first contacting them.

    mnyquist, I've also heard comments regarding eThirteen. I knew the BB was "cheap" but I was Ok with the idea of replacing the BB after a season of winter riding. I've also heard about bolts coming loose on chainrings and the crank arm. fortunately, I have had no issues with these. All the bolts on mine are properly torqued, which may help. I've also got very very few miles on mine. They might not have had the chance to come loose.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    yes, that is what i ended up doing. what an option. works good though.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mnyquist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Scottytheoneandonly View Post
    fatbikes.com is going to let me return the crankset. thumbs up to them for helping me out. It took two email exchanges but they offered to take it back within 24 hours or so of me first contacting them.

    mnyquist, I've also heard comments regarding eThirteen. I knew the BB was "cheap" but I was Ok with the idea of replacing the BB after a season of winter riding. I've also heard about bolts coming loose on chainrings and the crank arm. fortunately, I have had no issues with these. All the bolts on mine are properly torqued, which may help. I've also got very very few miles on mine. They might not have had the chance to come loose.
    Scott-what are you going to replace the E13 with?

    I think I will have Trail's Edge replace the BB and properly torque prior to Barry Roubaix. Right now it is just an annoyance. By the way, mine came loose on the first ride!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    "buyer beware, I guess. I always buy from my LBS. i stopped buying from online retailers years ago because of service/quality issues."
    Sad and funny both, I stopped buying from my local LBS because of service/quality/trust issues. It's a funny sport we love.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    173
    I re adjusted my front and rear der because they weren't shifting quite as crisp as I would like. It is a pretty new bike and needed it. It wasn't set up how I would expect from the shop but I've come to expect that sort of thing. *however, they have much more experience with this set up and I'm sure there was good reason* Shifts very well now. The front needs a little added input when going from small to big but I expected that. That is a big jump. Inconsequential to me or my riding to push the trigger for an extra moment. I'm really happy with gear so far.
    Last edited by Hoka Hey; 01-16-2013 at 06:57 AM.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    That's exactly what I did after buying mine. Then I made the mistake of actually looking at why you had to give it "that extra push" - which is not normal. And now I am fighting the Corporate Behemoth that is Salsa/QBP/Problem Solvers, et all. Very difficult trying to talk sense to corporate cubicle jockeys only concerned with covering their as_ . And mention anything that has to do with engineering, wow, what a blank look then. How has our sport been reduced to this? And when has hiring smarmy pr types become more important than people who know how something works? E thirteen is the only company I have talked to that has tried to do something about the issue-and it's not their issue. They've just been thrown into the cluster-f_ _ _ of Salsas and Problem Solvers front shifting debacle. Now Salsa is willing to throw the correct front derailleur at the problem - will see how this works...... but it does nothing for the placement of the derailleur relative to the centerline of the frame, which is the main issue. I can only hope the new derailleur is of a different enough design to overcome the mounting problem.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    173
    Have you thought about adding a shim behind the front der to bump it out a bit?
    I am normally very particular with this sort of thing and expect things to be north of mediocre. But, I couldn't imagine this arrangement with super smooth shifting characteristics..although going from big to little is instantaneous
    I would be bummed if I was derailing or having to alter my riding just to make the shift.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    I believe the shim would have to be in the vicinity of 5 mm. That would require a specially machined piece of metal. No, not a good idea. The interface between the derailleur and the mount must be exact, very strong and secure. Any shim inserted would hurt more than help. Thanks for your suggestion.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    173
    Would be a very simple experiment plenty strong and secure. Could be done with UHMW or aluminum or probably even ABS. Would take 5minutes. You may be getting a tad carried away with the exacting thing? 3mm could make a world of difference...

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    I agree, 3 mm would make a world of difference. But you aren't going to get a good interface with any kind of shim.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    173
    disagreed and too easy not to try

  37. #37
    29er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    859
    you can "suppose" all you want
    can't say definitively until you try

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    Just for the final record, usless anyone has more to add, Salsa, after saying they would replace the front derailleur with the correct one, has reneged on that promise. And once again, It's my fault, just take it back to the dealer, he'll fix it right...blah blah blah. Not once did they even try to understand Sram's design criteria. And again, smarmy semi-brainless cubicle types intent on covering the bosses as_ . Deniablilty being more important than understanding/fixing the issue. Not just for me, but everybody with a Mukluk 2x10 set-up. I will never understand how trying to marginalize your customers is going to grow your business. Seems like just throwing more fuel on the wrong side of the fire. I know I'll have nothing good ever to say about salsa. It'll save me alot of time from reading all those cute blog stories - as in bs. And have you noticed how cheap their stems, posts, and handlebars look? Sad.

  39. #39
    Smash Mode: ON
    Reputation: Dustin Mustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by builder View Post
    ...Not just for me, but everybody with a Mukluk 2x10 set-up...
    Not to be a d!ck, because I do sympathize with your situation, but nobody else seems to be having this issue. IIRC there is only one other person in this thread complaining about how the front derailleur on a '13 muk works, and he was clearly having a different issue than you are. There are a bunch of these bikes out there racking up miles and I think it is safe to say it would be all over these boards if everyone was plagued by this.

    Likewise, it seems pretty logical that this is being caused by either an out of tolerance part or a mistake during assembly. You seem to be dancing around this, but who put this bike together and why are they not the ones trying to figure this out??
    Whatever floats your bike, dude

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    It's mostly me trying because I'm 100 miles away from my dealer. Not everyone has one next door. Yes, I should be taking it back. BUT, if the numbers are wrong, it's just not gonna be right. If you read all the thread, the guy with the same issue that just "didn't mind pushing a little extra" is having the same trouble. The fact that there are so many out there and no ones upset about it, well, maybe they're like this guy. Just in love and hasn't come up for air yet. I was too. But.... you can make it shift kinda, never said you couldn't. But a 2x drivetrain should be instant and effortless. I've ridden 3 of them, and none of them were. So - for whatever it's worth, I'm trying to get the root cause cured. Look at the cable as it comes through the arm of the derailleur. It comes out at a sharp angle. Now watch it closely when you shift. The cable hits the arm of the derailleur that holds the cable housing. Nothing you can do about it. The Muk3's may not be as bad, with a different crankset-possibly a little bit different chainline. It wouldn't take much to be a touch better. Look at the Shimano derailleur. I haven't seen one in the flesh, but it looks like the arm is out of the way of the cable/cam. I'm hoping that will help a bit too. That's my next move.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gingerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Dustin Mustangs View Post
    Not to be a d!ck, because I do sympathize with your situation, but nobody else seems to be having this issue. IIRC there is only one other person in this thread complaining about how the front derailleur on a '13 muk works, and he was clearly having a different issue than you are. There are a bunch of these bikes out there racking up miles and I think it is safe to say it would be all over these boards if everyone was plagued by this.

    Likewise, it seems pretty logical that this is being caused by either an out of tolerance part or a mistake during assembly. You seem to be dancing around this, but who put this bike together and why are they not the ones trying to figure this out??
    I tend to agree. Post up a pic of the FD and crank setup, and see if someone here can spot something.

  42. #42
    AKTed
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    39
    Builder, I agree with the last two posters. Get someone knowledgeable to look at it.

    It seems to me that even if the Problem Solvers Direct Mount Adapter is out of spec (doesn't position the FD out far enough by a few mm's) and you have the wrong or, at least less than ideal cage on the X7 High Direct Mount derailleur, with proper adjusting the thing should work reasonably well.

    I don't understand what you are describing about how the cable is exiting the derailleur, and in one post you mention the derailleur binding on itself. Perhaps there is a problem with the derailleur itself. But it seems to me that it is most likely a setup and adjustment issue.

    Good luck.
    Last edited by AKTed; 01-17-2013 at 02:50 PM. Reason: spelling correction

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    80
    Builder: I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish when you posted this thread. You bought a cool new bike and it doesn't work. We get that. You're frustrated, we get that, too. But people have offered solutions and advice and you've shot them all down. People have asked for pictures, and you haven't posted any.

    If you are angry at Salsa customer support and just want to vent, that's cool. If you are posting to get feedback , help or suggestions, it would help if you displayed some courtesy and treated those posters with the same level of respect that you expected when you called Salsa.

  44. #44
    29er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    859
    Get some who is more knowledgeable to look at it.
    Height
    Angle
    Low limit
    High limit
    Cable tension

    If any one of those are incorrect by a little it will shift like crap

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    Ok, I appreciate the suggestions. I've either tried them, or they aren't viable. I should have given better responses to my ongoing attempts at shifting. Guys, if I knew anyone "more knowledgeable", I would be there in a heartbeat. Not sayin' there aren't alot of guys out there, I just don't know any-or they are many multiple hundreds of miles away. I am going to my dealer today to show him the progress I've made. He can take the problem from there. Salsa's not interested, and neither am I any more. The derailleur isn't spaced out far enough to shift properly, as per srams specifications, plus it's the wrong model. It shifts, but only kinda. Don't believe me, look at Srams specs for the front D on a fat bike, then measure the stand off on the Muk. If someone is having the same issues, I would suggest a Shimano front D. From what I have found out, they have more travel than the sram. I haven't tried it yet, but it may help. Don't know what else to say. Picture, yup, that'd be fun, but I'm no photographer, and I haven't figured out how to post them here on the thread. And this seems to have been a waste of time instead of all of us being out riding. So that's where I'm going. Never said I didn't like riding the thing, just hate something that doesn't work properly. Anyone want to buy an overpriced frame and fork? Large. white with salsas graphics.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    69
    On what I hoped to accomplish, I hoped to find enough other people with the same issue to make salsa look seriously at the problem instead of just blowing me off. Seems the only other guy with the issue doesn't think it's bad. OK. The "waste of time " was not meant to imply any of the comments weren't good or apperciated. Only that the corporate mind at salsa isn't open to looking at an issue. They made no attempt to understand at all. Just obfuscate and deny and blame me. Oh boy. That's where the "waste of time" comment came from, not this thread. Thanks to everyone who was at least interested enough to post. Watch for the longer stand off on next years Mukluks.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    173
    You are too hung up on the specs. It is apparent that it will never satisfy you regardless of how it shifts. BTW, this derailleur doesn't need more range of motion.
    I don't appreciate threads like this. When I first read it I thought " oh no my new bike is a jalopy". One of the reasons I opted for the Muk 2 was this crankset. I wasn't wild about the x7 front der but a front der is cheap and I have kept one on another one of my bikes because it shifts soooo well...even though I have a "better" one ready to install.
    Based on how you responded here I can only imagine how you were with Salsa. The gear works well for me and many others I'm sure.
    I'm afraid all credibility is lost on this one.

  48. #48
    Big "T"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by builder View Post
    On what I hoped to accomplish, I hoped to find enough other people with the same issue to make salsa look seriously at the problem instead of just blowing me off. Seems the only other guy with the issue doesn't think it's bad. OK. The "waste of time " was not meant to imply any of the comments weren't good or apperciated. Only that the corporate mind at salsa isn't open to looking at an issue. They made no attempt to understand at all. Just obfuscate and deny and blame me. Oh boy. That's where the "waste of time" comment came from, not this thread. Thanks to everyone who was at least interested enough to post. Watch for the longer stand off on next years Mukluks.
    you need to bring the bike to the dealer from whom you purchased it. I realize that you live 100 miles away, but that's simply the way it works. the fact that you haven't found anybody else with this issue means it's an isolated incident. Something the dealer should be able to take care of.

    If you bought a car and you had a question about the transmission you wouldn't call Ford, you'd bring it back to the Ford dealer for repair.

    that's what the dealer is for.

  49. #49
    29er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    859
    if you don't want to drive 100 miles take it to any reputable shop and pay to have someone fix it
    i have over 10 years experience as a mechanic
    i got my mukluk 2 yesterday, built it last night. rode it today
    everything worked fine on the workstand, but on the trails was another story
    here are some notes, it shifted like crap. but since i was with a large group i just dealt with it. I didn't want to make them stop for me to adjust it. I got home, lowered the der until the cage almost hits the chainstay. adjust the cable tension and then set the limits. took it for a spin around town. Works FLAWLESSLY.

    the fact that you are saying that it needs to be 3mm more outboard tells me you are not adjusting the limit screws properly. you can easily make up more than 3mm with the limit screws.

    have a pro look at it, and tell him to take it for a test ride

  50. #50
    Heads up Flyboy!!
    Reputation: mountaingoatepics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,159
    One thing to note as Dan GSR has stated. Be sure when your front derailluer is mounted it is only 2-3 mm above the chainstay. I have the same derailluer mounted on my Mukluk and have had success with an Isis drive 36x22 FSA Crank and now with 36x22 Raceface Turbine Crank.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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