Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 60
  1. #1
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!

    Well it had to happen and after 2 rides on my first Fatbike I had to put it on a diet. It was 33.09lbs and here are some pics of the progress so far. I'm still waiting on a handlebar and seatpost that haven't come in yet but so far I've built a new wheelset, changed tires and tubes from Larry's and Endomorph to Escalators and Bontrager lite fat tubes, switched the for to a Carver carbon fat fork, switched the cassette, stem, pedals, headset and ALL the bolts on the bike are now Ti or aluminum. I have new brakes but I'm waiting for the bar.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails My Mukluk is on a Diet!-fat-bike-pose.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-fat-bike-weight.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-005.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-016.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-007.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-006.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-008.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-019.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-009.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-010.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-012.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-013.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-014.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-021.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-017.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-018.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-024.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-025.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-011.jpg  

    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Weinerts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    280
    Now I I know it is not polite - but how much per pound upgrade?
    There has to be a formula (like golf scores) of the cost of weight-loss
    My bike is heavier than yours - it does not have Carbon or Titanium parts - I love it!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mochunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    115
    What are those spokes?!! I am looking to do a carver fork in the future and build another symmetrical marge lite and that looks like what I'd like to accomplish (albeit with a white rim).
    Fatbike Chicago on Facebook

  4. #4
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,736
    Damn, you gonna be missing some easy gears with that new cassette??

  5. #5
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    Yeah the cassette was a trade off, we don't have hills here in Houston and if I go to the Texas Hill Country a 32x26 will be more than enough. Heck I've been on a 32x17 for 4 years now. The spokes are Ty-Dyed Titanium.

    I'm not sure of the cost to weight reduction formula but when it's all done I will let you know. Does it matter that I get everything for cost? I'll do it Retail.

    Have I mentioned that I really, really enjoy this bike? I DO!
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  6. #6
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by mattkock View Post
    Does it matter that I get everything for cost?
    The question is, would/could you do it, getting everything at retail? It should be an interesting number, and I'd like to see BOTH.
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: E6roller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    154
    I like your style!

    The comparison photos are a great touch.

    I haven't taken the time to total your savings yet, but what is the savings so far?

    ...the weight savings?



    oh......and what tires? you could do some savings there as well if weight is the ultimate goal.

    Also, rim strip. What have you got there?

    Thanks. D

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Did I miss it ... What's it weight ?
    I don't want to do the math to figure it out.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: E6roller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    154
    My math shows an 1887.8 gram or 4.16 pound savings

    I'd love to have someone check the math

    A 28.93 pound Muk is pretty cool.



    ......old Phat-riders please don't bother calling Matt a weight weenie. He already admitted such when he "admitted" to buying a fatbike in his first post/thread.

    ....the first step to helping oneself is to realize you have a problem and admit it to someone else.

  10. #10
    Smash Mode: ON
    Reputation: Dustin Mustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    299
    Is that the bike in the picture? I am wondering how you started off at 33 lbs... The blue muk3's I have weighed are around 36 lbs.
    Whatever floats your bike, dude

  11. #11
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    @ Dustin Mustangs, I bought it used with a 1x9 drivetrail and flat pedals. It had a carbon bar but I replaced it.

    To everyone else, I have switched the tires to Escalators. The First pic is after I unboxed it and built it up and threw it on the scale.

    So far the weight savings is 5.5lbs or 2494g and retail would have been $1910 for $347.27 a lb. or 76 cents a gram. Here is a Teaser pic. I'm still waiting on a couple things.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails My Mukluk is on a Diet!-028.jpg  

    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    146
    Tubes gotta be the best price per/lb of that whole getup. Gotta get around to doing that... Bike is lookin good!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: E6roller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    154
    I wanna see that thing on the scale again with the new parts.




    ...............and I expect it to have handlebars, too!!

  14. #14
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    Yeah the new weight is just hypothetical until the new bar and post come in but I did weigh it with the WTB saddle, a KORE alloy bar, lock-on grips and the brakes but I didn't want to post that pic because it's still going to be lighter. It's was 27.06lbs. like that.

    Looks like the bar is in the Houston Sort Facility but the post still say's In Transit. May be July 9th. before the post get's here. :-(
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  15. #15
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,053
    Matt those cranks are boat anchors in disguise, you could easily drop a load there.

    My spread sheet says 915g for the cranks and 515g for the BB. You could half that for $300ish.

    Its coming down nicely !
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  16. #16
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    Thanks Ozzy. It looks like some E-Thirteen or RaceFace cranks are coming soon. Here are the stock seat and post and the new seat and post.

    When I got home from work today there were 2 packages on my porch, a new carbon bar and KCNC post so I went to the LBS and finished it. Here it is SO far. 26lbs.15oz. I still have a KMC x9sl chain on the way.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails My Mukluk is on a Diet!-001.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-001.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-003.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-002.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-004.jpg  

    My Mukluk is on a Diet!-005.jpg  

    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  17. #17
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    Total weight loss so far is 3004.9g. Hopefully the new cranks and BB will drop some more.

    I do plan on riding this thing exclusively for a while so when I get back on my 14lb. Niner it will feel like a Rocket Ship!
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  18. #18
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    889
    Too bad you didn't spring for a better frame.

  19. #19
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    Well there's always one, Thanks Volsung. I bought it complete and used for a few hundred dollars and at cost I have another $960 in it so a total expenditure of $1760. Not to bad for a 26lb. Fatbike. Remember my other ride it a 13lb. Niner. If they ever get released I'll probably end up with a carbon frame.
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Volsung View Post
    Too bad you didn't spring for a better frame.
    What's wrong with his frame?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Weinerts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    280
    I remember my years of working in a bike shop - each paycheck went to parts. Those were the XTR days for me...

    Great work!
    My bike is heavier than yours - it does not have Carbon or Titanium parts - I love it!

  22. #22
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,712

    Re: My Mukluk is on a Diet!

    Crazy how much you lost on that. I remember when the first Mukluk came out and how it was the must-have frame. Funny when something sells so well how all of a sudden it can become not cool to some people.
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  23. #23
    nothing to see here
    Reputation: Stevob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,234
    Nice bike! Looks like it needs a short cage derailleur Matt. And that saddle makes my balls cringe when I look at it. I'd hate to get "snagged" on it . Other than that, great work.
    I see hills.

    I want to climb them.

  24. #24
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    Thanks Stevob. Yeah that's the derailleur that came on it but I have a short cage X7 on order.

    I always say that I'm training myself for prison when people ask me how I can ride that saddle. ;-) I've been on it for 4 years now.
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  25. #25
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,053
    Quote Originally Posted by mattkock View Post
    If they ever get released I'll probably end up with a carbon frame.
    Borealis Yampa

    Everytime I say the name of this bike I picture the Wampa out of StarWars
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  26. #26
    Human Test Subject
    Reputation: Volsung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by 98srx6 View Post
    What's wrong with his frame?
    Well, Salsa did change the geometry and come out with a lighter version of it, so there's those things.

    I didn't realize cost was an issue based on your other bike and the parts you've put onto this frame. It should all transfer over to a beargrease (carbon or not) no problem, but for now 38frameworks, 907, carver, and probably a few others soon to be released make better weight weenie fat bikes.

  27. #27
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    3rd. FatBike ride in the books and it's getting better and better. I have new cranks, bb, and new hubs on order so it looks like another 1.9lbs. is going Bye-Bye!!! So 25lb. Mukluk here we come. Before you ask it's E-Thirteen cranks and BB (-610g) and Hope Fatso hubs (-286g).

    When does the Carbon Beargrease come out again? ;-)
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: winkster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    149
    Thanks for the inspiration and providing before and after weights. My Necro is going on a strict diet starting with a Carver carbon fork.

  29. #29
    Levi Early
    Reputation: Levi707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    223
    that thing is just pure sexy! I would love to have my muk below the 30lb mark. Right now it is sitting right at 33lbs. It was 36lbs stock when I bought it. Great looking build, I really like those wheels.

  30. #30
    JYB
    JYB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    213
    Here's a quick way to shave approx 300 more grams where it really counts:
    http://schlickcycles.com/shop/northpaw-s-47mm-rim/

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    41
    Not tubeless yet?

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kyttyra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by mattkock View Post
    3rd. FatBike ride in the books and it's getting better and better. I have new cranks, bb, and new hubs on order so it looks like another 1.9lbs. is going Bye-Bye!!! So 25lb. Mukluk here we come. Before you ask it's E-Thirteen cranks and BB (-610g) and Hope Fatso hubs (-286g).

    When does the Carbon Beargrease come out again? ;-)
    So, if you upgrade upgrade the frame too, you would have a fatbike weighing in at...23 lbs

    And a 33 pound Mukluk, if you saved the swapped-out parts

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: E6roller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    154
    "...European fatbike riders have known about the benefits of narrower rims for all-season fatbiking for several years and now that advantage is available to the US market..."
    .....from the Northpaw website.

    Funny, we in the USA have had rims available in this size range (40mm and 50mm) for many years. In fact, the fat REVOLUTION began with this range. I am not certain where NorthPaw got their information. It rankles a bit to read their statement.

    I will admit it looks like a nice rim with pretty fancy cut-outs.

    550 grams? All that lightening cutout effort and 28 percent narrower than MargeLites and only saving 140 grams from the MargeLites 690grams each? I guess there are tradeoffs no matter what. Still, another option is good.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mochunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by E6roller View Post
    "...European fatbike riders have known about the benefits of narrower rims for all-season fatbiking for several years and now that advantage is available to the US market..."
    .....from the Northpaw website.

    Funny, we in the USA have had rims available in this size range (40mm and 50mm) for many years. In fact, the fat REVOLUTION began with this range. I am not certain where NorthPaw got their information. It rankles a bit to read their statement.

    I will admit it looks like a nice rim with pretty fancy cut-outs.

    550 grams? All that lightening cutout effort and 28 percent narrower than MargeLites and only saving 140 grams from the MargeLites 690grams each? I guess there are tradeoffs no matter what. Still, another option is good.
    "the US market" As in we didn't have a native easy to get option?

    Aren't these a bit lighter? However can't be laced asymmetrically either... Shrug Trialtech | Sport Lite Front

    Ugh. Guess not. Weight: 608g
    Fatbike Chicago on Facebook

  35. #35
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    Yeah Kyttyra I saved all the parts so soon I will have 2 Fatbikes. Just got done with ride #4 and I am still in Love. I may not miss her that much in 3 weeks when I'm in Whistler showing my DH rig some Love! ;-)
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,564
    I can tell you from experience that trials rims do save weight on a fat bike, but the trade-off is that the tires need a few extra psi in them to keep them from being squirmy. I can ride 63 and 80 mm rims with most fat tires at 7 or 8 psi, but my 47 mm rims required about 10 psi, giving a rougher ride. If you are in it solely for the weight savings, it's a great option, but there is a change in performance.

  37. #37
    Nemophilist
    Reputation: TrailMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,873
    Quote Originally Posted by deuxdiesel View Post
    I can tell you from experience that trials rims do save weight on a fat bike, but the trade-off is that the tires need a few extra psi in them to keep them from being squirmy. I can ride 63 and 80 mm rims with most fat tires at 7 or 8 psi, but my 47 mm rims required about 10 psi, giving a rougher ride. If you are in it solely for the weight savings, it's a great option, but there is a change in performance.
    THIS is what I have been looking for someone to notice;

    And confirm. It stands to reason that the narrower base of a narrower rim would see the wide tire roll side-to-side more than on a wider rim. I've experienced that with "normal" tires; 2.5s on under 20mm rims. Not conducive to the inspiration of confidence. Not that I've read every thread, but you're the first person I've seen mention it.
    Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
    - John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,564
    Trails rims also "round" the profile of your tires more than a wider rim, so the contact patch is reduced. Again, not a bad thing in certain conditions, but different none the less.

  39. #39
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,949
    I've had my Moonlander on a diet since I got it and I'm thinking now about giving the Moonlander gastric bypass surgery by replacing the frame with a carbon frame from Borealis.

  40. #40
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by TrailMaker View Post
    THIS is what I have been looking for someone to notice;

    And confirm. It stands to reason that the narrower base of a narrower rim would see the wide tire roll side-to-side more than on a wider rim. I've experienced that with "normal" tires; 2.5s on under 20mm rims. Not conducive to the inspiration of confidence. Not that I've read every thread, but you're the first person I've seen mention it.
    I never could figure out why they went so narrow.

    My 80's MTB had Araya RM25's that were around 35-40mm wide.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by mattkock View Post
    If they ever get released I'll probably end up with a carbon frame.
    Hogback Sighting | 38 Frameworks

  42. #42
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    I'm sure that there is a Carbon FatFrame in my future. I am really having a blast on my Mukluk. It's making all my old trails seem new again. I went from being the fastest guy in the fast group to the Not fastest guy in the slower group on our group rides and I Love it!
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  43. #43
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,053
    That's the beauty of rolling a fatty, not only are you not the fastest anymore.... you now don't care you are slower and you have a smile on your face.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by TooSteep View Post
    Very heavy for carbon frame. It would be better to wait carbon Beargrease

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Weinerts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    280
    Have you thought about having it removed? They have surgery for that now!

    Quote Originally Posted by mattkock View Post
    I always say that I'm training myself for prison when people ask me how I can ride that saddle. ;-) I've been on it for 4 years now.
    My bike is heavier than yours - it does not have Carbon or Titanium parts - I love it!

  46. #46
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    Amen Ozzy! It is a Huge Smile that's for sure.
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by TrailMaker View Post
    THIS is what I have been looking for someone to notice;

    And confirm. It stands to reason that the narrower base of a narrower rim would see the wide tire roll side-to-side more than on a wider rim. I've experienced that with "normal" tires; 2.5s on under 20mm rims. Not conducive to the inspiration of confidence. Not that I've read every thread, but you're the first person I've seen mention it.
    Just like everything in life there are trade offs. The narrower rims are typically lighter, whether you think 300 gms per pair is a meaningful amount is up to you. They also round out the tire shape which for some people on single track is a good thing, once again depends on the rider. They do need to be run a little firmer to avoid squirm. This does make them more bouncy, for me a sweet spot does exist and the trade off between weight/shape/bounce works. For others maybe not. There is a place for 47mm rims and 100mm rims and widths in between as no one size is perfect for all applications.
    Latitude 61

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: E6roller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Just like everything in life there are trade offs. The narrower rims are typically lighter, whether you think 300 gms per pair is a meaningful amount is up to you. They also round out the tire shape which for some people on single track is a good thing, once again depends on the rider. They do need to be run a little firmer to avoid squirm. This does make them more bouncy, for me a sweet spot does exist and the trade off between weight/shape/bounce works. For others maybe not. There is a place for 47mm rims and 100mm rims and widths in between as no one size is perfect for all applications.

    spot on!!!

    Also, 300 grams is meaninful weight savings in rotating mass, without question!! In my earlier post I was saying that I had thought those 47's would have saved MORE than that.

    The "take home" message............."...no one size is perfect...". .....and it takes multiple riding seasons to build a knowledge base on even something like the "right" tire pressure.


    .....this is still a new sport!

  49. #49
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,087
    My new e-Thirteen cranks and BB should be here on Monday, goodbye 560g!!! When I get my new hubs I can say goodbye to another 285g. 25.1lb. Mukluk here we come!

    I suppose you all may have guessed it but whenever the Carbon Beargrease frame is available it will be mine. Muah, ha, ha!
    I got some pretty decent Niners!

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,824
    Quote Originally Posted by mattkock View Post
    My new e-Thirteen cranks and BB should be here on Monday, goodbye 560g!!!
    As a fellow fatbike weight weenie I have to ask, since I've been wondering since the first time you mentioned this weight savings. What crank are you using now? I think the E13 with BB weighs on the order of 850 g add 560g and even if your existing bottom bracket is 400 g, that is one heavy crank.
    Latitude 61

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. new Mukluk 3 going on a diet
    By J_Sims in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-29-2012, 06:10 PM
  2. Diet?
    By tomeeskeburbs in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-21-2012, 04:44 AM
  3. Mukluk vs Mukluk 2 vs Mukluk 3 FRAME?
    By bikeny in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-06-2012, 08:25 PM
  4. Help my LTc with it's diet...
    By bassn in forum Santa Cruz
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 06:09 PM
  5. What's your diet like?
    By bwheelin in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 11:12 PM

Posting Permissions

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