Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Front Range Colorado
Joined
·
155 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Tested Mutz set up 26 fat few weeks ago, very much liked it. Today had a brief try of Specialized FSR 6fattie ( I.e. 275+). Liked it enough that I am planning a 2day test ride in a few weeks. Unfortunately I likely won't have an opportunity to try the Mutz set up 275+. Wondering how Mutz with this wheel set will compare to the dedicated 275+ rigs that are coming out, including for that matter Foes Alpine Plus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
817 Posts
What did you think of the Mutz vs the 6fattie? Traction differences, rollover, nimbleness, speed, fun?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Front Range Colorado
Joined
·
155 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
They felt different, but different setups, hence the basis of the question this thread raises. I rode both on dry single track that included sandy sections, gravel and small rocks. Mutz was set up 26x3.8 (vanHelgas, nates). The Mutz had endless traction that exceeded my ability to break the tires loose, and in loose sections had me riding beyond my ability. It climbed better than I expected, but there was that constant sense of more tire than I needed, with me working a bit harder than seemed necessary - even on flat sections. Descending and doing small jumps and drops offs (1-2 feet), however, the mutz gave this feeling of suddenly coming alive, and felt very extremely stable, leaving me confident (love the 67 degree head angle) and riding beyond my pay grade. After a day on the Mutz, The 6 fatty surprised me. I still felt I had a lot of tire and traction, but the bike was noticeably quicker, more nimble (17.2" vs 18" chainstay) and climbed and rolled with significantly less effort. Descending it felt nearly as stable -again a 67 HA. The suspension also felt more lively and playful. As for FF (funfactor) they are close, with the Mutz have bit more of that monster truck, bushwack through anything feel. (The goat thorns out here though will take down all!)Given my brief impressions, and that I am only interested in dry riding conditions, I went with the 6 fatty, just got it (check out Mojo Wheels in CO!!)! And loving it. But I am left thinking that I never did the apples and apples thing, as I never tried the Mutz setup 275+ and with Fox 34 up front. Curious how that would have gone!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,967 Posts
The Mutz could be that one bike that does everything. All you need is 3 or 4 wheel sets. You could have a 26" wheel set with DH tires for DH, 27+ wheel set, snow bike wheel set, and 29" for XC. The only thing is they need to come out with a better fork than the Bluto. It is a noodle.

The Mutz is 4 bikes in one.
 

·
Front Range Colorado
Joined
·
155 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The Mutz could be that one bike that does everything. All you need is 3 or 4 wheel sets. You could have a 26" wheel set with DH tires for DH, 27+ wheel set, snow bike wheel set, and 29" for XC. The only thing is they need to come out with a better fork than the Bluto. It is a noodle.

The Mutz is 4 bikes in one.
Would have loved to have demoed it 275+!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
817 Posts
Sweet...thanks for the info! Am getting a custom frame built with the Mutz in mind and trying to decide whether to go 27.5+ or 26 fat to start. Gonna have it done with spacing to fit both for more options....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
They felt different, but different setups, hence the basis of the question this thread raises. I rode both on dry single track that included sandy sections, gravel and small rocks. Mutz was set up 26x3.8 (vanHelgas, nates). The Mutz had endless traction that exceeded my ability to break the tires loose, and in loose sections had me riding beyond my ability. It climbed better than I expected, but there was that constant sense of more tire than I needed, with me working a bit harder than seemed necessary - even on flat sections. Descending and doing small jumps and drops offs (1-2 feet), however, the mutz gave this feeling of suddenly coming alive, and felt very extremely stable, leaving me confident (love the 67 degree head angle) and riding beyond my pay grade. After a day on the Mutz, The 6 fatty surprised me. I still felt I had a lot of tire and traction, but the bike was noticeably quicker, more nimble (17.2" vs 18" chainstay) and climbed and rolled with significantly less effort. Descending it felt nearly as stable -again a 67 HA. The suspension also felt more lively and playful. As for FF (funfactor) they are close, with the Mutz have bit more of that monster truck, bushwack through anything feel. (The goat thorns out here though will take down all!)Given my brief impressions, and that I am only interested in dry riding conditions, I went with the 6 fatty, just got it (check out Mojo Wheels in CO!!)! And loving it. But I am left thinking that I never did the apples and apples thing, as I never tried the Mutz setup 275+ and with Fox 34 up front. Curious how that would have gone!
Apples and oranges, you can't compare fat tires to midfats, that's like comparing a camaro to a miata.

The Mutz is one the few bikes that do everything well, just need a second wheelset.
 

·
Front Range Colorado
Joined
·
155 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Apples and oranges, you can't compare fat tires to midfats, that's like comparing a camaro to a miata.

The Mutz is one the few bikes that do everything well, just need a second wheelset.
Read last sentences of forum posts much? Agreed though that Mutz is an awesome all around machine!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
Has anyone tried the 27.5+ or 29+ on the Mutz? Any pics?
All I rode on my Mutz until December was 27+, then for winter I built a 26 x 4 wheelset and have ridden that since. I'm riding Trail Boss 3.0, great tires, highly receommended.

Fat tires ride like fat tires, the bike handling changes because the tire weight and friction makes the bike harder to maneuver. Since the Mutz is also an excellent handling fat bike, it can be assumed that a lighter and narrower wheelset would make the Mutz more nimble.

I love the Mutz as a 27+, so being about to ride it as a 26 x 4 is like icing on the cake.

If I didn't live where there is snow, I'd go with a dedicated 27+ like the Alpine.

The Mutz is my first Foes, but after riding the Mutz for the past six months, I would definitely go with an Alpine or a Mixer if we move to a warmer clime.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
Read last sentences of forum posts much? Agreed though that Mutz is an awesome all around machine!
No, I read everything you wrote, you just didn't do a fair comparison, so it's really meaningless to compare the two, hence my apples and oranges comment :)

I ride the Mutz in both configurations, right now I'm riding 26 x 4" because our trails are snow covered. When I was in Seattle last weekend and didn't have time to swap wheels, I was "stuck" riding the fat tires on dirt and rock. It was fine, I had fun, but I didn't forget I was riding fat tires, and I wished I had time to swap wheels.

The only reason to get a Mutz set up as a 27.5 is of you also want to run 4" tires, otherwise you should get a 27+.

No one has mentioned this, but there are now 27.5 x 4" tires, so one wheelset might work, it just depends on bridge clearance. I'll investigate and report back :)
 

·
Front Range Colorado
Joined
·
155 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
No, I read everything you wrote, you just didn't do a fair comparison, so it's really meaningless to compare the two, hence my apples and oranges comment :)

I ride the Mutz in both configurations, right now I'm riding 26 x 4" because our trails are snow covered. When I was in Seattle last weekend and didn't have time to swap wheels, I was "stuck" riding the fat tires on dirt and rock. It was fine, I had fun, but I didn't forget I was riding fat tires, and I wished I had time to swap wheels.

The only reason to get a Mutz set up as a 27.5 is of you also want to run 4" tires, otherwise you should get a 27+.

No one has mentioned this, but there are now 27.5 x 4" tires, so one wheelset might work, it just depends on bridge clearance. I'll investigate and report back :)
"Meaningless"?And all this time I thought you had a nose for hyperbole :???: Comparisons that can be elaborated in terms of speed, agility, climbing,descending, traction, tire stability, cornering etc.- or any other other relevant parameters - are more than a few shades away from meaningless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,967 Posts
No, I read everything you wrote, you just didn't do a fair comparison, so it's really meaningless to compare the two, hence my apples and oranges comment :)

I ride the Mutz in both configurations, right now I'm riding 26 x 4" because our trails are snow covered. When I was in Seattle last weekend and didn't have time to swap wheels, I was "stuck" riding the fat tires on dirt and rock. It was fine, I had fun, but I didn't forget I was riding fat tires, and I wished I had time to swap wheels.

The only reason to get a Mutz set up as a 27.5 is of you also want to run 4" tires, otherwise you should get a 27+.

No one has mentioned this, but there are now 27.5 x 4" tires, so one wheelset might work, it just depends on bridge clearance. I'll investigate and report back :)
How is the bottom bracket height with the 27.5? I find Im hitting my pedals a lot with 26x4 Van Helgas. Maybe I need to run more air in the CCDB. I might be running too much sag.

Im 190 and run about 185 psi. In the garage Im running about 25-30% sag, which feels awesome on the DH.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
How is the bottom bracket height with the 27.5? I find Im hitting my pedals a lot with 26x4 Van Helgas. Maybe I need to run more air in the CCDB. I might be running too much sag.

I'm 190 and run about 185 psi. In the garage I'm running about 25-30% sag, which feels awesome on the DH.
Yeah, the BB is a tad low on the Mutz, kinda reminds me of my Honzo, but I think that has more to do with having a low front end; ie 120mm Bluto. I didn't notice a huge difference in BB height between the 27+ and 26 x 4; I think they're close in height.

I can't be sure, but I think when the Mutz was developed it was optimized for a longer travel fork that didn't yet exist, hence the rear travel being so much greater than the front travel. Since swapping from the Bluto 120mm to a Wren 150mm, my BB is much higher; ie clearance is what it should be.

I'm dropping the Wren down to 140mm this weekend, not because 150mm is too much, but because I want a little less slack/stack, and I think 140mm will make for a more balanced ride overall.

Honestly as much as I liked riding the Mutz as it came; 120mm Bluto, that was nothing compared to how it rides with a proper fork that matches the rear travel. No one should be riding the Mutz with a Bluto, it is does a disservice to the bike and the ride. Either get a Wren, Fox Float, or a twin crown DH fork.

Another to thing to think about is you could run one set of 27+ wheels and swap tires from 3' to 4" and back as season and use dictates. There are a growing number of 27.5 x 4" tires, so in theory you could run a wider 27+ rim (50mm), swap tires to match the conditions, lower BB for better handling on dirt, higher BB for better clearance on snow.

Check out the 27.5 x 4" thread on the Fat bike forum.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
Anyone have pics of Mutz with 27.5?
Red Mutz 27+

Green Mutz 26 x 4.5 (barely cleared)

KIMG1050~2.jpg

My Mutz 27+ in the wild :)

KIMG1051-1.jpg

My Mutz in winter form, JJ 4.0 and Wren 150mm

20160207_145948_resized.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
This is my mutz with 50mm light bicycle rims and 3.0 tires. I don't think the bb is any lower than with my 26x4.0 setup. The bike destroys everything in its path. It goes through rocks way better than with fat tires because the b+ tires don't bounce off of stuff. It's lighter. The suspension works way better, due to the reduction of mass. The cornering is out of this world. I really don't see any downside other than a small loss of snow traction.


uploadfromtaptalk1455064084923.jpg uploadfromtaptalk1455064100224.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,785 Posts
This is my mutz with 50mm light bicycle rims and 3.0 tires. I don't think the bb is any lower than with my 26x4.0 setup. The bike destroys everything in its path. It goes through rocks way better than with fat tires because the b+ tires don't bounce off of stuff. It's lighter. The suspension works way better, due to the reduction of mass. The cornering is out of this world. I really don't see any downside other than a small loss of snow traction.


View attachment 1049008 View attachment 1049009

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk
You need a new fork ;)
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top