mukluk - S or M for 5'7" rider- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,241

    mukluk - S or M for 5'7" rider

    I've mostly convinced myself to go with a small based on the TT length of 22.8, and salsa's suggestions that the Small fit riders upto 175 cm (I'm 170, 5 ft 7in). I'm mostly just worried about the 15inch frame as it sure seems small to me.

    My Pivot Firebird has a 22.5 TT length and I was helped to size down into their Small instead of a medium by the Pivot staff at a demo day - love how i feel on that bike. My Kona 29er has a 23 TT length and i feel just right on it.

    The standover on the M mukluk would be darn near that on my 29er which sometimes feels tall when I need to bail in a hurry, the standover on the S would be comfortable for sloppy getoffs on the beach. So everything 'on paper' says go with the small for me, just worried i'll feel like I'm on a tiny bike.

    Anyone in my size with input -- it would be greatly appreciated!
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Small.

    I'm 5'7", and when looking at the Muk, I did'nt think twice about sizing. It was small all the way.

    There is an argument for increasing your TT, and running a uber short stem. But I dont like the idea of the wheelbase getting too long.

    Having spent silly amounts of time doing calculations, and comparisions. I specc'd my custom fat frame with a 22.8" ETT, and a reach of 16".

    I'm not sure why Salsa decided to lower the 'top tube - seat tube' junction as far as that. I ended up with a 16" (C-C) seat tube.

    Just because we are the same height, doesnt mean we should be on the same size. But I like to think I'm flexible, and like a more streatched out riding position. So its unlikely you'd want a longer reach than me. You get what you pay for with internet fitting though

    Hope that helps.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  3. #3
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,111
    Im a bees-dick off 5'10".... when spending a lot of money on a bike frame i alway use the ETT measurement to be the deciding factor as i have NEVER got to try a bike i was buying here in oz. My Muk is a Med, theres no way i was ever looking at a Large.
    Depends on you torso/leg length too, i would say you are a Small, but if you have long arms you would probably fit a Med too, go you're tried and tested ETT bike fit for the win i say
    Santa Cruz Hightower LT Evil Following Trek 9.9 Superfly SL IndyFab Deluxe 29 Pivot Vault CX Cervelo R3 Disc

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    Reach and Stack.

    Much more useful than ETT. As they are uneffected by the seat tube angle. Annoyingly uncommon to see them listed though.
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  5. #5
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallfurry View Post
    Reach and Stack.
    They can be altered after getting the bike by spacers and stem, the correct size of frame from the start is the base to adjust both the above.
    Santa Cruz Hightower LT Evil Following Trek 9.9 Superfly SL IndyFab Deluxe 29 Pivot Vault CX Cervelo R3 Disc

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    You're thinking of the overall reach and stack of the bike. I was thinking of the reach and stack of the frame. The dstance from saddle centre to hand position is often called reach. I wasnt exactly clear about it.

    My issue with ETT is its reliance on the seat tube angle being constant to be reliable. Once you know your reach and stack. Its easy to guage your size in a particular frame, and how you will need to set up the front end.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    A big boy did it, and ran away.
    62*28'

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    13

    5' 8" on a small

    I'm about 5' 8" and bought the 2011 Mukluk in a small. The cockpit felt cramped and the upright position combined with 170mm cranks didn't give me enough room to peddle, so much so that I started to get knee pain. I swapped to a 100mm stem, seatpost with 25mm setback and 175mm cranks; with the seat all the way back I'm now comfortable enough to do longish (2+ hour) rides.

    You might need to swap some stuff, but if you're shorter than me you should also be able to get comfortable on a small.

    I have to add that the super-low top tube is well appreciated when I'm crawling over deep, compacted snow and I have to stop. When you put you foot down and it lands a foot or more below the snow surface, the clearance is reeeeeally helpful.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fat Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    I'm on a small pug's... and I'm 5'7" on a long day... 5'6" on an average day... I feel a little cramped on the pugs, but with the heavy front end I'm glad to be able to dominate the bike when it gets rough.

  9. #9
    Wizard of the Trail
    Reputation: Geist262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    912
    I am 5'7" on a medium 2012 907. I love it!
    There is no charge for awesomeness......or attractiveness.

    Good rep does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the good.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,242
    My son is 5'9" on a medium Mukluk and it is pushing too big. I'd go with the small unless you really like big bikes.
    Latitude 61

  11. #11
    Smash Mode: ON
    Reputation: Dustin Mustangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    299
    The medium is certainly too big, you might want to even consider an XS. My brother is 5-7 and loves his 2012 XS. He did put a longer stem on it tho.
    Whatever floats your bike, dude

  12. #12
    Wizard of the Trail
    Reputation: Geist262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    912
    It all depends on body proportions and preference. I will never ride another small frame due to all the endos I kept doing. What I try to do is find the TT size that I like and find the bike with the lowest standover in that size. If the bike runs tall ie, Surly Moonlander, I look elsewhere. Your best bet is to try as many bikes as you can get your hands on. I had a fellow rider let me ride around in his muk in medium. I liked the length, but the SO was tall. The only time I really need more SO is on a steep uphill stalls.

    My friend is 5'10" tall and is riding an extra large. 907 first put him on a large. When he called and told Bill he was at the min. insertion point(seatpost), they told him to send it back. They sent an extra large and he loves it. His last bike was a medium cannondale that he endoed on alot. Just food for thought.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There is no charge for awesomeness......or attractiveness.

    Good rep does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the good.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    919
    have s and m

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: druidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Geist262 View Post
    I am 5'7" on a medium 2012 907. I love it!

    That!!!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    36
    Small would probably be best, but you might be able to make a medium work with a really short stem depending on you torso and arm length. I am 5'9" and have a medium 2012 Mukluk 2 with the 100mm stem. Even though it has an upright geometry, I feel more stretched out to the bars than on my medium RIP 9 or my medium Anthem x 29er. I think both have slightly shorter top tube lengths. I was thinking on a ride yesterday of going down to a 90mm stem, but the 100mm is probably the right length.

  16. #16
    nvphatty
    Guest
    small

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PhatRoller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    67
    I am 5'9" and ride a small. For me it's perfect--highly recommend you get a small Muk rather than a med. My 2 cents. Ride on!

  18. #18
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,241
    thank you everyone for the various comments.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  19. #19
    Wizard of the Trail
    Reputation: Geist262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by chollaball View Post
    thank you everyone for the various comments.
    Good luck and keep us posted.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There is no charge for awesomeness......or attractiveness.

    Good rep does not wash out the bad, nor the bad the good.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    84
    I'm 5'8", borderline 5'9" with a 30 inch inseam and ride a medium Muk2 (the 17" model). Super comfortable on it and have never hurt the boys down below, even after 1300 miles of riding on snow, singletrack, and pavement. Guess it's all preference.

Members who have read this thread: 2

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.