Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Area45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    50

    New Salsa Mukluk Hubs

    Not much in terms of specs, but there is a set of Mukluk 2 hubs on the Salsa site.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    The rears look like the same Formula hub they used last year, just in new colors. Fronts look nice, though.
    It sure would be nice if someone would make 170 rear hubs that were a reasonable weight. Fatbikes don't really need 500 gram rear hubs.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    361
    Yep, The Mukluk 2 hubs are the same hub as last year's Mukluk and this year's Mukluk 2. They are quad sealed bearing, 2 in the shell, 2 in the freehub with a 3-pawl, dual contact point drive mechanism. I too would like to see hub weights drop over time with perhaps an AL cassette body and some mods to the hub shell to drop some weight. As it sits the hub manufacturers are looking at these as DH hubs and not uber wide XC hubs...I suspect we'll see it over time.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    929
    what do the Fatback Hadley-made hubs weigh?

  5. #5
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    The rears look like the same Formula hub they used last year, just in new colors. Fronts look nice, though.
    It sure would be nice if someone would make 170 rear hubs that were a reasonable weight. Fatbikes don't really need 500 gram rear hubs.
    I will gladly take a bit of "extra" weight for durability. That includes being able to use any cassette/cogs I may fancy.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    I will gladly take a bit of "extra" weight for durability. That includes being able to use any cassette/cogs I may fancy.
    I agree with that, but the current options could all be lightened somewhat without sacrificing durability. As JMKM says, everything that is available right now is based around a downhill hub platform. Widening an existing XC hub would provide a lighter-weight option, which would be particularly nice for dedicated sand/snow bikes that do not usually see a lot of sudden, high torque pedaling or big drops.

    The latest WTB Laserdisc hubs that have been coming in have three (as I recall) small steel inserts that index into selected splines on the alloy freehub body. Saves weight, but protects the splines from being cut through by single cogs that are not connected to a carrier. I think it's a good idea, though I haven't removed a cassette from a used one yet to confirm that it works.

    As I recall, the Hadley hubs are right around 500 grams as well. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

  7. #7
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,169




    The front hub weighs a lot on it's own.

    These are my hubs by the way, I wish they could be lighter, and I wish I had a 72-ep freehub.

  8. #8
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,169
    Oh, QBP, if you're listening...

    Make a spacer for that front Mukluk hub, so it can be used with a front brake spaced fork.

    Just a simple spacer that goes between the rotor and the hub, with some longer bolts.

    If those hubs are cheap enough I may still buy 29'er wheels, would be nice to use less energy going long distances.

  9. #9
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post

    The latest WTB Laserdisc hubs that have been coming in have three (as I recall) small steel inserts that index into selected splines on the alloy freehub body. Saves weight, but protects the splines from being cut through by single cogs that are not connected to a carrier. I think it's a good idea, though I haven't removed a cassette from a used one yet to confirm that it works.
    .
    American Classic actually were the innovators on that. WTB may also have started using that, I can not say there.

    The system of steel inserts helps, but it doesn't eliminate the issues with cassette cogs digging in. I have had an American Classic hub with the steel inserts for a couple years now.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  10. #10
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    American Classic actually were the innovators on that. WTB may also have started using that, I can not say there.

    The system of steel inserts helps, but it doesn't eliminate the issues with cassette cogs digging in. I have had an American Classic hub with the steel inserts for a couple years now.
    Adds to the cost, too.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    American Classic actually were the innovators on that. WTB may also have started using that, I can not say there.

    The system of steel inserts helps, but it doesn't eliminate the issues with cassette cogs digging in. I have had an American Classic hub with the steel inserts for a couple years now.
    That makes sense, as the LaserDisc hub design is very close to older American Classics. I assume WTB licenses the design. The change seems to have happened recently on WTB hubs, as we ordered two back in the spring, within a few weeks of each other, and the second one we ordered came in with the steel inserts.

    For a dedicated snow/sand riding wheelset, I think that a having a super-light hubset option would be pretty popular. The current Formula offerings could be made lighter, but of course that would effect the price point... everything is a trade off.


    There are some disc rotor spacers already available, but putting the Mukluk hub in a front-brake fork would require around 5mm... I haven't seen one available that thick. I think the thickest one I can recall seeing is a 3mm one that Magura makes.
    Last edited by Andy FitzGibbon; 09-03-2011 at 10:07 AM.

  12. #12
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    That makes sense, as the LaserDisc hub design is very close to older American Classics. I assume WTB licenses the design. The change seems to have happened recently on WTB hubs, as we ordered two back in the spring, within a few weeks of each other, and the second one we ordered came in with the steel inserts.

    For a dedicated snow/sand riding wheelset, I think that a having a super-light hubset option would be pretty popular. The current Formula offerings could be made lighter, but of course that would effect the price point... everything is a trade off.


    There are some disc rotor spacers already available, but putting the Mukluk hub in a front-brake fork would require around 5mm... I haven't seen one available that thick. I think the thickest one I can recall seeing is a 3mm one that Magura makes.
    If the Salsa fork follows the lateral rear IS spec (disc tab face flush with the dropout face) the net difference to the hub disc mount is only 1mm (more with the rear hub).

    EDIT: rethinking this, a hub with a front spec rotor mount would be too CLOSE to the dropout on the Salsa fork. So yes, you need a 4-5mm spacer to use the Salsa hub in a front spec fork, and you can not use a front spec hub in a Salsa fork. -sorry if I added to the confusion.

    Basically:
    IS front spec, 4mm from disc tab to dropout. 10mm from dropout to hub rotor mount = 14mm from disc tab to rotor mount.

    IS rear spec, 0mm disc tab to dropout. 15mm dropout to rotor mount = 15mm disc tab to rotor mount.

    IS specs are here: Support | Hayes Disc Brake

    Of more concern, the Enabler dropouts are for a 10mm axle rather than the front 9mm.
    Last edited by shiggy; 09-03-2011 at 10:56 AM.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  13. #13
    Fatback
    Reputation: thirstywork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    705
    The latest WTB Laserdisc hubs that have been coming in have three (as I recall) small steel inserts that index into selected splines on the alloy freehub body. Saves weight, but protects the splines from being cut through by single cogs that are not connected to a carrier. I think it's a good idea, though I haven't removed a cassette from a used one yet to confirm that it works.

    As I recall, the Hadley hubs are right around 500 grams as well. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.[/QUOTE]


    The Hadley made Fatback hubs weigh in at 435g last time I checked. Our new imported hubs are 430g. I tried to get the steel inserts on the freehub bodies this year, but they are protected.
    I have not had the best of luck with either of the extra light hubs mentioned, and would not want them on my bike if I were out in the middle of nowhere.
    Speedway Cycles owner http://fatbackbikes.com

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    If the Salsa fork follows the lateral rear IS spec (disc tab face flush with the dropout face) the net difference to the hub disc mount is only 1mm (more with the rear hub).

    Basically:
    IS front spec, 4mm from disc tab to dropout. 10mm from dropout to hub rotor mount = 14mm from disc tab to rotor mount.

    IS rear spec, 0mm disc tab to dropout. 15mm dropout to rotor mount = 15mm disc tab to rotor mount.

    IS specs are here: Support | Hayes Disc Brake

    Of more concern, the Enabler dropouts are for a 10mm axle rather than the front 9mm.
    The 1 mm difference only holds true if you keep rear hubs on the rear, and front hubs on the front. Once you start swapping the hubs front to rear, it increases. Borgschulze is talking about putting the Mukluk front hub (which has rear rotor spacing) into a front-brake-spaced fork. That combination will end up with a dimension of 19mm from the IS tabs to the rotor mount. He would need a 5 mm rotor spacer to bring the rotor over (to front hub specs) and position it the appropriate 14 mm from the IS tabs.

    EDIT: I see you amended your post while I was typing. We are on the same page.


    The 9 mm/10 mm axle issue could potentially present a problem. I have found that most 9 mm fork dropout slots that I have measured are not held to a tight enough specification to prevent a 10 mm axle from sliding in, but some are. The combination may require a quick trip to a lathe to knock the Mukluk axle down to 9 mm.

    I have had excellent luck with the WTB hubs, but just in regular MTB use- I've never used them in a cold/snow application. I brought them up only to mention the steel inserts in the freehub splines.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,667
    You could also space the IS adapter inboard towards the rotor, correct? I currently have a 5mm spacer on the rear of my tandem to get the caliper to line up with the 203mm rotor and it's working just fine. I imagine there should be no issue doing this with the front for those of us that want to use the Snowpack fork (for example).

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmucker View Post
    You could also space the IS adapter inboard towards the rotor, correct? I currently have a 5mm spacer on the rear of my tandem to get the caliper to line up with the 203mm rotor and it's working just fine. I imagine there should be no issue doing this with the front for those of us that want to use the Snowpack fork (for example).
    Yes, that will work as well. The Snowpack forks have post mounts, though, not IS mounts.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    Yes, that will work as well. The Snowpack forks have post mounts, though, not IS mounts.
    Now I'm starting to have a crazy thought... what if we make an adapter the bolts to the PM, moves over and drops down to keep the rotor size at 160mm. I wonder if we could do it in 5mm and still have clearance for most calipers. It would probably work for all Avids with the CPS washers to space it up a bit.

  18. #18
    How much does it weigh?
    Reputation: Borgschulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    EDIT: rethinking this, a hub with a front spec rotor mount would be too CLOSE to the dropout on the Salsa fork. So yes, you need a 4-5mm spacer to use the Salsa hub in a front spec fork, and you can not use a front spec hub in a Salsa fork. -sorry if I added to the confusion.
    I would probably buy some Mukluk hubs... and since I have a Fatback with a Fatback Carbon fork... I'd have to space out the rotor, since the caliper is post mount.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288
    Word has it that Salsa learned their lesson last year and all their hubs will now come pre-winterized...no word on how they intend to do this (ie choice of grease etc...)

    -edit- PS- Pre-production Ti Mukluk on display / demo at "The Bicycle Shop" Diamond store...the rear drop set-up is very interesting as are the top and down tubes which are round and therefore S&S couplings easily added.
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmucker View Post
    Now I'm starting to have a crazy thought... what if we make an adapter the bolts to the PM, moves over and drops down to keep the rotor size at 160mm. I wonder if we could do it in 5mm and still have clearance for most calipers. It would probably work for all Avids with the CPS washers to space it up a bit.
    Sounds like a lot more work than just spacing the rotor out from the hub.

    EDIT: from White Bros. Snowpack fork page:

    "In the future we will offer a disc brake adapter to accommodate 135mm rear hubs."
    Last edited by Andy FitzGibbon; 09-05-2011 at 12:16 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Salsa mukluk with IGH
    By moose2008 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-18-2015, 10:30 AM
  2. Salsa Mukluk 2
    By Misterlime in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 216
    Last Post: 09-22-2011, 10:04 PM
  3. New Salsa (Mukluk) site is up...
    By Otter in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2011, 02:10 PM
  4. Salsa Mukluk IGH
    By seth586 in forum Internal Gear Hubs
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 08:03 PM
  5. Salsa Mukluk Wheelset price????
    By lancelot in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-26-2010, 03:12 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 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.