Mukluk or Pugsley ahhhhh cant decide!!!!!- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 38 of 38
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    107

    Mukluk or Pugsley ahhhhh cant decide!!!!!

    what would you guys go with? Obviously a moonlander would be rad . Also I am 5'10" and do you guys think i would be good on a large mukluk if thats what i went with?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    481
    I would get a Mukluk.

    I am 6'-6'1" with a 31-32" inseam. I ride a large 9 zero 7.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    84
    I'm 5'9" with a 30 inch inseam and ride a Medium Muk. It fits me better than my medium Trek Fuel I think. As for which bike, test ride both and see which feels better.

  4. #4
    Geordie biker
    Reputation: saltyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,376
    Both are great bikes, it's down to spec and colours, steel or aluminium, try and get a test ride, I have owned both so I'm not biased.


    What ever you choose, the most important thing is frame sizing, get it right and enjoy the fat bike!
    2014 milage so far - 2,485
    www.ukfatbikes.co.uk

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,134
    Also keep in mind issues like:

    - Muk has 170mm rear hub [better for 29er MTB wheels]
    - Muk has more stand over if you have shorter legs
    - Muk won't rust
    - Pug has 135mm rear hub with horizontal dropouts [better for IGH or SS]
    - Pug wheels can be swapped front to back if your rear drivetrain fails
    - Pugs will need some love occasionally to keep it rust free

    Personally I really like an IGH on a Fatbike so that would keep me on a Pugs if I had to pick between the two.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,516
    Pug has more aggressive geometry for mountain biking, Muk has more of an upright geo. both are comfortable and fun, you'll be extremely happy with either choice. Medium/18" would be my size reccomendation.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountfargo.com

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jaredbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    258
    I have a pug's and recently did a test ride on a Mukluk 2. I was surprised by and did not really like the taller head tube and tall handle bar feel on the Mukluk (even as a fat 40 some year old person). Kind of like my Pugs would feel right for people coming from a road bike past and the Mukluk for people coming from a freeride bike past. Again it was one quick test ride but I am curious if this has been others experience.
    laotzucycles.blogspot.com

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Also keep in mind issues like:

    - Muk has 170mm rear hub [better for 29er MTB wheels]
    - Muk has more stand over if you have shorter legs
    - Muk won't rust
    - Pug has 135mm rear hub with horizontal dropouts [better for IGH or SS]
    - Pug wheels can be swapped front to back if your rear drivetrain fails
    - Pugs will need some love occasionally to keep it rust free

    Personally I really like an IGH on a Fatbike so that would keep me on a Pugs if I had to pick between the two.
    You can get a 35mm spacer for the mukluk. So you can run a 135mm rear hub, in an offset wheel. You'd still need a 170mm skewer though (can be bought separatly). So I'm not sure if it allows for many IGH options.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallfurry View Post
    You can get a 35mm spacer for the mukluk. So you can run a 135mm rear hub, in an offset wheel. You'd still need a 170mm skewer though (can be bought separatly). So I'm not sure if it allows for many IGH options.
    So far the only IGH option I can see working is the QR Rohloff and I haven't seen even that confirmed yet. You'd also need a chain tensioner or some other way to take up the chain slack. Bottom line it's not going to be an elegant solution for an IGH so if that matters to you I'd get a different frame rather than try something heroic to cobble together a less than ideal solution.

    A lot of people don't want an IGH so this really only matters for those that want an IGH. The Muks 170mm spacing makes it easier to build up a strong 29er MTB rear wheel.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bprsnt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    293
    With a 30" inseam you may want a 16" Pug.

    I have a 30" inseam and with boots on 16" is perfect.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaredbe View Post
    I have a pug's and recently did a test ride on a Mukluk 2. I was surprised by and did not really like the taller head tube and tall handle bar feel on the Mukluk (even as a fat 40 some year old person). Kind of like my Pugs would feel right for people coming from a road bike past and the Mukluk for people coming from a freeride bike past. Again it was one quick test ride but I am curious if this has been others experience.
    I had the same experience as you when I tested both. I ended up buying a pug. I primarily ride road. In the end you can't go wrong with either bike. Just pick the one that feels the best.

  12. #12
    Squishy Fishy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    234
    I have a Mukluk- love it. I do also have a few miles on a pugs. Muk definitely has an upright geo-- I like it. Seems to make sense in this application. Not to say that its lacking on singletrack, still fast and fun. Given the ability to use either wheel standard I vote for the Mukluk.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    480
    I recently made the exact decision... Muk or Pug. Ultimately, I went for the Muk due to a couple reasons. One, I liked the frame geometry a bit better (it was not the deal-maker for me). Two, I liked the components and the Aluminum frame (it WAS the deal-maker for me). The steel frame on the Pug and the extra care were something I do not want to deal with. An added plus for me was the Mukluk 2 just looks badass.
    I would not discount the Pug though... it comes down to personal preference. Ride both, then decide.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    56
    Rideturner, I can't sp4ak to a pugs vs. mukluk, as I've never ridden a mukl;uk.

    However, for sizing considerations, I have a 20" Pugs, and I am just about 5'11". My inseam with shoes is about 31". I feel ok on the pugs on street, and it fits fine. But it's a little troublesome on trails, as I have almost no standover room. This, obviously, makes for a need to very carefully dismount. :-)

    So I would probably be better off with an 18" if I were to do it again. In my opinion, extra standover is really valuable, especially when hitting areas with crazy terrain.

    HTH,
    Anthony

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,134
    Quote Originally Posted by antpal01 View Post

    So I would probably be better off with an 18" if I were to do it again. In my opinion, extra standover is really valuable, especially when hitting areas with crazy terrain.

    HTH,
    Anthony
    It's interesting because I have no standover clearance on my Pugs and it's never been a problem on any terrain. I don't pay any attention to it and whether I stop intentionally or I fall off unexpectedly I've never hurt the boys.

    The Muk offers more standover for a similar size TT than a Pugs if that's a concern.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: deleteyourselph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    125
    I'm just a hair under 6'1" and I typically take a 30" inseam pant. What people keep forgetting is that your cycling inseam is different from your pants inseam. I test rode an 18" Pugs and ordered a 20" because it felt too small. I do have shorter legs and a long torso, but typically my boys are right at the TT and I can't remember the last time I racked them. I see where people are coming from with the idea that in deeper snow/sand you might be dismounting a lot, but I also don't think I'll be riding on that terrain at 15 mph with no chance to get off the bike properly. It definitely sounds like the Mukluks can solve the standover problem, but my shop had no chance of getting any till March I think, and I've also dove into the "steel is real" club so it didn't matter to me personally. If standover is really a huge issue, a Fatback would probably be the best choice, with it's bent TT. It really seems like each fatbike mfg. brings something to the table which is nice how they can accomodate so many different people.
    "You don't cross my ***** line, I don't cross your ***** line".
    - James Lahey Sunnyvale Trailer Park Supervisor

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    17
    I'm 5'11" and very happy on a 17" Mukluk. No way I'd ride any larger!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    I'm with spdiers. I'm a bit over 6' with a 32" inseam. After trying some different sizes, I'm in love with my 17" Muk 2.

    As Vik noted, if you're going IGH, the Pugs has some significant advantages. The only known IGH options for a Muk are a 3 speed Sturmey-Archer, or a problem solvers adapter + QR IGH + eccentric bottom bracket or tensioner...and while I've read about those, I haven't seen one in person.

    Otherwise, I personally prefer the Muk's geometry, significantly lighter weight (several pounds), and corrosion resistance.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by bprsnt View Post
    With a 30" inseam you may want a 16" Pug.

    I have a 30" inseam and with boots on 16" is perfect.
    Me too. Feels perfect.
    CRAMBA Chairman

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    55

    I have Pug and a Muk see pic

    I have a Mukluk and Pugsley and love them both. However they are vastly different. I'm 6'2" and ride a 22" Pug and a Large Mukluk. The size difference is so slight with the Pug being minimally larger. My wife who is 5'11" rides the Mukluk when we go out together, but on occasion we switch mid-ride.

    The Pug is definitely stiffer and you feel more of whats being squished by your tires. I like the triple chain ring to hit the exact gear combo. The trigger shifts are also more familiar so shifting is more innate. Bigger gloves when cold make shifting more cumbersome. I feel more steering response on the Pug even in the larger size.

    The Muk has a smoother more compliant feel. Steering has more of a subdued response but gets the job done. You feel slightly less connected. Extremely comfortable ride. Less flexible gear ratios with the 2 x 9 gears. Grip shifts are nice but I need to ride more to make it more automatic for myself. I will get there.

    Both are phenomenal and I am hooked on the Fatbike experience. Every ride puts a smile on my face. I'm pushing 50 yrs old and love blasting thru my neighbors leaf pile in front of their homes. Our normal ride entails a 2 mile ride through neighborhoods on streets to some single track followed by a jaunt through an old quarry. We also do some city riding and these bikes are the most fun for city streets.

    If I had to choose one, I'm riding the Pugsley, my wife concurs.

    Hope this helps.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jaredbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    258
    I am also a hair over six feet and wear 30 inch inseam pants. I think my 20 inch pugs is perfect for me.
    laotzucycles.blogspot.com

  22. #22
    blood in / blood out
    Reputation: majack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    357
    I'm 5'-10" and I ride a medium 17" Mukluk 3. So far it seems to be a good fit once I got some of the fit bugs out of it.
    RICOH for LIFE
    Pain is Weakness

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    40
    I'm 5' 7" and my pug is 16" and is a very nice fit.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    Hello everyone, this will be my first post on this site, so go easy on me lol! (I was going to start a new thread, but I don’t have the post count to do so) Last fall my husband had a local bike shop put a Salsa Enabler fork and VC Graceful Fat Sheba rim on my 29er so I could ride on snowpacked roads during the winter. Long story short, I never had the fat tire pulled off in the spring, have been running it all summer on the trails and want a fat tire bike; one fat tire is not enough!!

    My question is, since I have “some” of the components of a fat tire bike, would I be money ahead to have a bike built using the components I already have and put my 29er back to stock, or just buy a ready to ride bike? I’m leaning toward the Mukluk 2 or the Ti, but a Pugsley wouldn’t hurt my feelings either. We live in Northern Michigan in BFE so the chances of finding a good deal on a used or close out Mukluk or Pugsley will be difficult or non-existent since I need a 15 or 16 frame (I’m 5’4” with a 29” inseam). So comparing a new bike purchase to building one with the few components I already have purchased, which would be cheaper or is it a wash?

    Thanks in advance for any help here, or suggestions, or leads on a used Mukluk or Puglsey!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sevenz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Chop Suey View Post
    Hello everyone, this will be my first post on this site, so go easy on me lol! (I was going to start a new thread, but I don’t have the post count to do so) Last fall my husband had a local bike shop put a Salsa Enabler fork and VC Graceful Fat Sheba rim on my 29er so I could ride on snowpacked roads during the winter. Long story short, I never had the fat tire pulled off in the spring, have been running it all summer on the trails and want a fat tire bike; one fat tire is not enough!!

    My question is, since I have “some” of the components of a fat tire bike, would I be money ahead to have a bike built using the components I already have and put my 29er back to stock, or just buy a ready to ride bike? I’m leaning toward the Mukluk 2 or the Ti, but a Pugsley wouldn’t hurt my feelings either. We live in Northern Michigan in BFE so the chances of finding a good deal on a used or close out Mukluk or Pugsley will be difficult or non-existent since I need a 15 or 16 frame (I’m 5’4” with a 29” inseam). So comparing a new bike purchase to building one with the few components I already have purchased, which would be cheaper or is it a wash?

    Thanks in advance for any help here, or suggestions, or leads on a used Mukluk or Puglsey!
    Cycle Haven is blowing out 2012 Pugz's...Give them a shout

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/CYCLE...11338492337632

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Test ride them both. No one here can tell you how you are gonna like a bike.

    I got the pugs after test riding it- it won out for me because it felt most like a regular mtb and it was the most easily modifiable- the pugs is pretty much designed to be a frankenbike...

    Also, the LBS that carries Muks refused to let me test ride, which definitely influenced my pug purchase.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    80
    ...there's no reason to get your feelings hurt if you buy a Pugs
    Last edited by I'm suba; 09-10-2012 at 12:14 PM.

  28. #28
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,158
    5' 3.465758696". I ride a 16in (sm) pugs. fits perfect. Wife is 5'.00000000000009. rides a 16in (sm) pugs. 50mm Thompson stem, 17degree salsa bar. Fits perfect. Looking at the geo of the new xs pugs frame when they publish it...may be more perfect for her.

    Then her frame would be more perfect for my next singlespeed!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    667
    The first time you have to fix a flat on the rear when it is -10F, you will have a whole new opinion of horizontal drops. If you do not specifically plan to run IGH or SS, then I would avoid the pug. Having to loosen the brakes and then wrestle the wheel out of the horizontal drops is no fun when you are out in the cold, dark, snowy night.
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by tedsti View Post
    The first time you have to fix a flat on the rear when it is -10F, you will have a whole new opinion of horizontal drops. If you do not specifically plan to run IGH or SS, then I would avoid the pug. Having to loosen the brakes and then wrestle the wheel out of the horizontal drops is no fun when you are out in the cold, dark, snowy night.
    You do not have to loosen your brakes on a pugsley.

    To make sure, I just checked- I loosened the quick release, bumped the rear wheel and it slid out, no problems, no brake interference. Went back in the same way.

    There are probably plenty of reasons not to get a pug, but this ain't one of them.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,134
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    You do not have to loosen your brakes on a pugsley.
    +1 - I don't touch the rear caliper when I remove the rear wheel. I've got an IGH and I can get the wheel positioned and bolted down in a few seconds now that I have done it a dozen times.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,126
    The first time you have to fix a flat on the rear when it is -10F, you will have a whole new opinion of horizontal drops. If you do not specifically plan to run IGH or SS, then I would avoid the pug. Having to loosen the brakes and then wrestle the wheel out of the horizontal drops is no fun when you are out in the cold, dark, snowy night.
    It was only on the original purple and grey pugsley frames that the caliper could foul on the disc removing the wheel, and it depends on which caliper/disc set up you use.
    This is the same on 1st generation Karate Monkeys.

    Hope Hydro calipers (Mini Mono) calipers have an open back so the disc comes straight out without fouling, i run this on my KM. On my pug i took a grinder to the rear of the BB7 caliper and made it the same idea, used this for 4 years on 2 calipers with out any failure

    New pugs since white models have bcaliper mounts moved.

    Complete build spec of Mukluks deft look better quality for same money,
    I buy a Pugsley if building a fat bike, Mukluk for complete build
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    35
    I'm 5'10" had have a large 2012 Muk, I'm from a MTB background and it suits me. A mate has a Pugs and even though it's nice to ride, I prefer my Muk.

    I race the Muk at MTB events and it works really well.

    Having done a lap on my Muk at Sleepless in the Saddle (24hr UK MTB race) my Pugs owning mate is investing in a Beargrease (A Lighter Racing Mukluk)
    www.godivatrailriders.org <<-->> The ramblings of a grumpy old mountain biker - http://floydrides.wordpress.com/

  34. #34
    undercover brother
    Reputation: tangaroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    893
    I'm 5'10 and ride a medium pug. I love my pug and wouldn't trade it for the world, except for maybe a moonlander . But I chose the pug because of a couple reasons:

    - My favorite LBS sold surly, not salsa (but there are plenty around me that do sell salsa)
    - The pugs are definitely more of a frankenbike capable frame, and I am one to constantly upgrade and change things
    - I prefer a steel frame after riding an aluminum hardtail (even though on a fat bike I doubt that makes for a vast difference in ride compliance)
    - The pugs horizontal drop outs (I plan on making my pug SS sometime in the distant future)

    I'm not dissing the mukluk by any means, and I would advise you to ride both and see for yourself. Both are awesome bikes, and both have their advantages (of course).

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by I'm suba View Post
    It's not a question of what's cheaper or being a wash. Personally I'd put your 29er back together. I wouldn't be so quick to incorporate your salsa fork and fat sheba with your fatbike build. I bought a used purple pugs on ebay. I spent over three years tweaking/upgrading to what I believe is a fantastic driving machine. What I'm saying is that good things come to those who practice due diligence. Slow down grasshopper and hastily proceed with caution

    BTW...there's no reason to get your feelings hurt if you buy a Pugs
    Looks like we have decided to build over the winter and it' won't be any cheaper. Right now is not a good time to pull $ out of savings for a complete bike. Suba, why wouldn't we use the enabler fork and rim/tire in the build (the tire is a Surly Larry 3.8) - I'm confused over that. The bike shop we're dealing with has already said they will back out the cost of a fork if we order a frame through them. Now the question is do we go with a 2013 Mukluk frame or an older one for half the cost. Sounds like the 2013 is an impovement over the older frames and that's the direction I'm leaning toward. For all the comments about riding both before deciding - I would love to have that opportunity, but not going to happen - I'd be lucky to find either to ride and the chance of finding two in my size to try would be like finding a needle in a haystack! Jumping on a larger framed version of either would not be especially helpful.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by RideTURNER128 View Post
    what would you guys go with? Obviously a moonlander would be rad . Also I am 5'10" and do you guys think i would be good on a large mukluk if thats what i went with?
    i'm 5'10" and took the one Necro my shop had in stock. it was a 20" and i felt it fit fine but i prefer a longer overall feeling bike since i'm more comfortable w road bike feel.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vmaxx4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaredbe View Post
    I have a pug's and recently did a test ride on a Mukluk 2. I was surprised by and did not really like the taller head tube and tall handle bar feel on the Mukluk (even as a fat 40 some year old person). Kind of like my Pugs would feel right for people coming from a road bike past and the Mukluk for people coming from a freeride bike past. Again it was one quick test ride but I am curious if this has been others experience.
    I guess if you plan on keeping the bikes completely stock.
    I ride a lot of XC on my FS mountain bike and I am also a roadie. I changed the feel of my 2012 Mukluk 2 completely by dropping and flipping the stem and replacing the "cruiser" bars with straight Pro Moto carbon.

  38. #38
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,111
    Another 5'10" with 32" legs. My ETT measurement for bikes is 600mm/24inches. Medium Mukluk fitted perfectly.
    Santa Cruz Hightower LT Evil Following Trek 9.9 Superfly SL IndyFab Deluxe 29 Pivot Vault CX Cervelo R3 Disc

Similar Threads

  1. Salsa Mukluk or Surly Pugsley in Alberta?
    By Trumpits in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 11-18-2011, 03:21 PM
  2. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 11-12-2011, 01:04 PM
  3. Mukluk Adapter on Pugsley Fork for Dynamo Hub?
    By commutebybicycle in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-09-2010, 09:25 AM
  4. Ahhhhh Help Me Decide - 05 Enduro Pro!!!
    By Stumpy_Steve in forum Specialized
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 04:30 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.