What makes the 2016 Beargrease X5 racier than my 2012 Mukluk 3? Seriously.- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213

    What makes the 2016 Beargrease X5 racier than my 2012 Mukluk 3? Seriously.

    I don't know enough about bike geometry to really know the difference. I know shorter chain stays usually mean snappier handling, but other than that, is the Beargrease going to be an improvement on the trails over my old Mukluk? Getting ready to pull the trigger, so any info will be helpful to me.
    PS From everything that I have read, once I ride the Beargrease, I will feel the difference.
    Thanks for your time!
    Kevin

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Welnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    883
    The chainstays are shorter and the head tube slacker. Those are standard updates toward modern mountain bike geometry. I have a 2014 Mukluk that has 447mm chainstays. As a test I moved the rear axle all of the way back and rode it for a while. It was definitely harder to pick up the front wheel, that was the main thing that I noticed. I find it hard to pedal up a steep enough slope where rear traction is a problem on a fat bike, so I didn't notice the loss of traction with the longer chainstay.

    The 2016 Mukluk has the same basic geometry as the 2016 Beargrease. You should think about getting that if you want extra braze-ons and adjustable rear drop-outs.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Welnic View Post
    The chainstays are shorter and the head tube slacker. Those are standard updates toward modern mountain bike geometry. I have a 2014 Mukluk that has 447mm chainstays. As a test I moved the rear axle all of the way back and rode it for a while. It was definitely harder to pick up the front wheel, that was the main thing that I noticed. I find it hard to pedal up a steep enough slope where rear traction is a problem on a fat bike, so I didn't notice the loss of traction with the longer chainstay.
    .
    Longer chainstays improve traction; longer lever (WB), also having less wheel lift makes it easier to climb.

    I agree that adjustable drops are worthwhile, esp. if you plan to ride different wheel sizes.

    Also look at the Ventana El Gordo.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Longer chainstays improve traction; longer lever (WB), also having less wheel lift makes it easier to climb.

    I agree that adjustable drops are worthwhile, esp. if you plan to ride different wheel sizes.

    Also look at the Ventana El Gordo.
    I think most people will disagree about longer chainstays making for better traction. Traction is mostly about weight on the wheel. Long chainstays mean less weight on the rear wheel so more of a tendency to spin out. They do help keep tne front wheel on the ground but the trade off is not worth it for me.

    I have an old Stumpjumper with uberlong chainstays and an old Klein with much shorter ones. The Stumpjumper spins out on steep hills. You can't get weight back far enough to get traction. The Klein just motors up the hills. Well it used to when I was younger.

    I think the original thought for snowbikes was long chainstays for less weight on the rear wheel so it would float better on soft surfaces.
    Latitude 61

  5. #5
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Long chainstays mean less weight on the rear wheel so more of a tendency to spin out.
    So you'd also say long TT mean less weight on the front wheel so more of a tendency to wash out? True--if you can't shift your weight.

    Sorry, two good posts, and off topic already...

  6. #6
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Longer chainstays improve traction; longer lever (WB), also having less wheel lift makes it easier to climb.
    Try standing on the pedals on a climb with a bike with long chain stays. You will lose traction a lot sooner than if your rear wheel was closer to your center of mass.

  7. #7
    Tribe Member
    Reputation: yetirich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    868
    Long chainstay means more stable at higher speeds. Dont know if that is needed where you live.
    Proud Tribe member since 1992 - looking for better singletrack to be ridden year round

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    Try standing on the pedals on a climb with a bike with long chain stays. You will lose traction a lot sooner than if your rear wheel was closer to your center of mass.
    I ride mountain unicycles, I've been doing it for a while, I don't suck, so I know what it's like to have exceptional traction because I am sitting on the wheel; can't get any more direct pressure than that! I can ride all over ice without slipping, just as long as I keep my body weight centered and I stay on the uni.

    Bikes are different from unicycles for two reasons:
    When you ride uphill your weight shifts back (gravity)
    When you pull back on the bars, you can leverage more weight onto the back tire.

    Long chain stays will increase traction if you use your bike to leverage traction, but if you just sit and spin(out), then a shorter chain stay "might" provide some marginal benefit. Keep in mind that we are talking about a couple cm at most, so don't get all cray-cray on me here.

    I had a Lurch for last winter, played with chainstay length using the sliding drops (2cm range), and the only real difference I notices was in how the bike handled on dirt; on snow I noticed nothing. The biggest traction gains on snow came from tire tread pattern, choosing the correct gears, and air pressure.

    I have longish chainstays on my Mutz, it is a quick handle, stable ride, worth of tech riding and park riding, since getting the Mutz my attitude toward shorter chainstays has tempered.

    I'd ride the bikes, pick the one you want, worry less about geometry and spend more time riding.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Chad_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    501
    I'm not really sure you are gaining much going to the x5.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    I'm am starting to think the same thing. Maybe I should look at a new Muk, which will have different geo than my Muk.

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Salsa Beargrease
    By rooze in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 10-29-2017, 03:34 PM
  2. Looking for a Mukluk or Beargrease
    By jeepergirl17 in forum Salsa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-09-2015, 02:57 PM
  3. Beargrease vs. Mukluk
    By 2whl-hoop in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-26-2014, 03:02 PM
  4. mukluk vs beargrease
    By mooch01 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-20-2014, 10:09 PM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-24-2013, 06:32 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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.