Question:
CB Mule is better yet if you replace their valve with the "Hydra Flow" from Blackburn. It gushes out cool refreshing water so you don’t have to suck. The valve itself is only $6.00 and fits the Mule’s water tube snugly. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Last season I rode with the original Camelbak and the Pakster (this was > before the MULE came out). Now, I am riding with the MULE. The original > holds 70 oz and the MULE holds 90 oz. That is alot of water and I doubt > you’ll get through it all in one ride. >That really depends on where and when you ride. Living in Phoenix, AZ and >doing a lot of HOT desert rides in the summer has made the extra fluid >capacity of the MULE almost a necessity. I believe that most >parts of South Africa are dry and hot as well. Otherwise I agree totally >with your opinion of it. Great product. >DP
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I got a brochure in the mail from Camelback. Camelbacks seem like pretty > nifty devices, and I’m all for cyclists drinking more water. (Some new > bike designs, like the Trek "Y" series, seem to exist in a symbionic > relationship with Camelbacks.) In addition to lots of advertising claims > that make sense, the brochure says, "A Camelback Hydration system takes > a load off your bike, making it more responsive…" and "Here’s a great > way to…(attention cyclists) take weight off the bike." I know that the > water will no longer be static frame weight in water bottles but will > become dynamic rider weight, however I’m having trouble understanding > how tripling the amount of water I carry and moving that weight four > feet up will result in a net decrease in bike load and a net increase in > responsiveness. Also, in decades of riding, this is news to me that > taking weight off the bike AND putting it on the rider is a carte > blanche good thing. (I’m willing to accept that sometimes it’s a > reasonable trade off.) This is just a minor point, but I think the > Camelback’s nose got under the rhetoric tent. Could a long time cyclist > now using a Camelback help me out here? > Tom > "Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
If I may offer an analogy relative to your question…. If you were in you kitchen and needed to move the refrigerator a few feet, which is easier- standing in front of it and pulling on it or getting between it and the wall, putting you hands and knees against the wall and pushing the fridge away from the wall. Same thing with carrying water. Your body weight is 100+ pounds, which you carry around all the time. Adding a couple pounds to push around is a very small percentage of your usual carried weight. OTOH, when you add a couple pounds to a bike weighing generally between 22-25 pounds, you can add as much as 10% or more to the weight of the bike and have to PULL the weight around, just like in the fridge example. This comparison, of course, is assuming that your bike handling includes more than just rubber on pavement. I’ve ridden with a Camelbak for this entire season and can tell you I don’t even notice it any more. As far as weight/handling goes, I don’t see it as a major coup in that department, but what I found the greatest benefit to me, is that I find myself drinking much more volume/frequency as I can keep my hands on the bars and not have to fiddle with the whole excersise of getting water. Hope this cleared things up a bit. SK
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I got a brochure in the mail from Camelback. Camelbacks seem like pretty > nifty devices, and I’m all for cyclists drinking more water. (Some new > bike designs, like the Trek "Y" series, seem to exist in a symbionic > relationship with Camelbacks.) In addition to lots of advertising claims > that make sense, the brochure says, "A Camelback Hydration system takes > a load off your bike, making it more responsive…" and "Here’s a great > way to…(attention cyclists) take weight off the bike." I know that the > water will no longer be static frame weight in water bottles but will > become dynamic rider weight, however I’m having trouble understanding > how tripling the amount of water I carry and moving that weight four > feet up will result in a net decrease in bike load and a net increase in > responsiveness. Also, in decades of riding, this is news to me that > taking weight off the bike AND putting it on the rider is a carte > blanche good thing. (I’m willing to accept that sometimes it’s a > reasonable trade off.) This is just a minor point, but I think the > Camelback’s nose got under the rhetoric tent. Could a long time cyclist > now using a Camelback help me out here? > Tom > "Open the pod bay doors, HAL." >If I may offer an analogy relative to your question…. >If you were in you kitchen and needed to move the refrigerator a few >feet, which is easier- standing in front of it and pulling on it or >getting between it and the wall, putting you hands and knees against >the wall and pushing the fridge away from the wall. Same thing with >carrying water. >Your body weight is 100+ pounds, which you carry around all the time. >Adding a couple pounds to push around is a very small percentage of your >usual carried weight. OTOH, when you add a couple pounds to a bike >weighing generally between 22-25 pounds, you can add as much as 10% or >more to the weight of the bike and have to PULL the weight around, just >like in the fridge example. This comparison, of course, is assuming that >your bike handling includes more than just rubber on pavement. >I’ve ridden with a Camelbak for this entire season and can tell you I >don’t even notice it any more. As far as weight/handling goes, I don’t >see it as a major coup in that department, but what I found the greatest >benefit to me, is that I find myself drinking much more volume/frequency >as I can keep my hands on the bars and not have to fiddle with the whole >excersise of getting water. >Hope this cleared things up a bit. >SK
In addition to the benefits listed above, CamelBak MULE also serves as a really nice soft thing to land on in cases of those nasty spills. Mine has saved me a coiuple of times: it’s strange, because I’ve never consciously tried or even realized I’m trying to land on the MULE until after the spills. It’s seems instinctual. No waterbag breakage either, and I’m #200 lb.. (the following section of this post is in bad taste) Got an old waterbag? fill it up with Dinty Moore beef stew, tape it to your side, and go as a colostomy patient for Halloween. hee hee hee…. ..if you ain’t laughing, you ain’t living…
Response:
I got a brochure in the mail from Camelback. Camelbacks seem like pretty nifty devices, and I’m all for cyclists drinking more water. (Some new bike designs, like the Trek "Y" series, seem to exist in a symbionic relationship with Camelbacks.) In addition to lots of advertising claims that make sense, the brochure says, "A Camelback Hydration system takes a load off your bike, making it more responsive…" and "Here’s a great way to…(attention cyclists) take weight off the bike." I know that the water will no longer be static frame weight in water bottles but will become dynamic rider weight, however I’m having trouble understanding how tripling the amount of water I carry and moving that weight four feet up will result in a net decrease in bike load and a net increase in responsiveness. Also, in decades of riding, this is news to me that taking weight off the bike AND putting it on the rider is a carte blanche good thing. (I’m willing to accept that sometimes it’s a reasonable trade off.) This is just a minor point, but I think the Camelback’s nose got under the rhetoric tent. Could a long time cyclist now using a Camelback help me out here? Tom "Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
Response:
If you order the mule online (such as www.bikeworld.com) it can be had for cheaper than your LBS. My LBS had it for around 80 bucks and I think mine was 50 online. –Eric — +Eric T. Slinkman — Instructor, ExecuTrain of Tulsa+ +WWW– http://www.ionet.net/~slinkman/index.shtml+ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Can anyone here tell me whether it is better to buy the Camelback Mule, or >>to get the Camelback and a product like the Pakster (which converts the >>Camelback in to a Mule). >Are you planning on carrying gear? If so, then you are better off >purchasing the MULE. In the US, the MULE retails for $50-55 and Pakster >for $30. If you want the ultimate in storage, then get Narrow guage pack >(holds two 70 oz bladders) or the Gregory packs. >For myself, I bought a bsic 96 model Camelbak and modified it by attaching >straps. When I need to, I can strap on a small EMS backpack sidepouch for >hauling gear. >– > I don’t know where you shopped, but the last time I check the price on a
70 oz CB it was about $40 at sport chalet and the local bike shop. Where did you get your Mule. I also remember the mule being somethere upwards of – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
>Hi, >Can anyone here tell me whether it is better to buy the Camelback Mule, or >to get the Camelback and a product like the Pakster (which converts the >Camelback in to a Mule). >Here in South Africa no-one seems to stock the Mule, so I will probably >have to order it especially. >Thanks in advance, >Shane >–
I have a mule and love it….It holds my toolkit[park], pump, spare tubes, wallet, keys,3 litres water, and I have only taken up half the available space…..I’ve fallen on it numerous times and it still looks new…..If you take long 6hrs+ rides to nowhere get the mule.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Can anyone here tell me whether it is better to buy the Camelback Mule, or >to get the Camelback and a product like the Pakster (which converts the >Camelback in to a Mule). >Are you planning on carrying gear? If so, then you are better off >purchasing the MULE. In the US, the MULE retails for $50-55 and Pakster >for $30. If you want the ultimate in storage, then get Narrow guage pack >(holds two 70 oz bladders) or the Gregory packs. >For myself, I bought a bsic 96 model Camelbak and modified it by attaching >straps. When I need to, I can strap on a small EMS backpack sidepouch for >hauling gear. >–
Response:
>Can anyone here tell me whether it is better to buy the Camelback Mule, or >to get the Camelback and a product like the Pakster (which converts the >Camelback in to a Mule).
Are you planning on carrying gear? If so, then you are better off purchasing the MULE. In the US, the MULE retails for $50-55 and Pakster for $30. If you want the ultimate in storage, then get Narrow guage pack (holds two 70 oz bladders) or the Gregory packs. For myself, I bought a bsic 96 model Camelbak and modified it by attaching straps. When I need to, I can strap on a small EMS backpack sidepouch for hauling gear. —
Response:
>The only problem I had with the MULE was with the bladder. During a 24 >hour race, the seal around the opening let go, letting water slowly >trickle out of the bladder down my back into my shoes. Normally on a hot day >this would have been great but not a night when it was cold enough already. >The LBS I bought the MULE at immediately replaced the bladder no questions >asked.
You can also patch the bladders with silicone sealant. Just make sure that you get the kind that is intended for plumbing use. Some silicone sealants are labeled "not safe for food preparation" or something like that. don’t get them! Also, does anyone know what the difference in cost is for the Mule and the CB/Pakster combo? It’s been so long since I bought my CB and Pakster that I can’t even remember how much I paid. Lyle Beidler Pennsylvanian by birth, Nittany Lion by the grace of God "People say I’m strange does it make me a stranger That my best friend was born in a manger What will people think when they hear that I’m a Jesus Freak What will people do when they find out it’s true? I don’t really care if they label me a Jesus Freak Cause there ain’t no disguising the Truth." -DC Talk, "Jesus Freak"
Response:
> Last season I rode with the original Camelbak and the Pakster (this was > before the MULE came out). Now, I am riding with the MULE. The original > holds 70 oz and the MULE holds 90 oz. That is alot of water and I doubt > you’ll get through it all in one ride.
That really depends on where and when you ride. Living in Phoenix, AZ and doing a lot of HOT desert rides in the summer has made the extra fluid capacity of the MULE almost a necessity. I believe that most parts of South Africa are dry and hot as well. Otherwise I agree totally with your opinion of it. Great product. DP
Response:
I have a CB Mule, and I love it too. I usually dump in 3 scoops of CytoMax into the bladder and fill it to the brim with water. I also carry on my bike frame a 1.5 liter bottle of clear water. The clear water is for a change of taste and for emergency road rash wash water. Ouch! I am amazed at what you can cram into a CB Mule. I took it with me on the BOS2NYC AIDS Ride, and I was able to fit my wallet, keys, light sticks, 3 D-cell MagLite, Clif bars, and 1 banana into it. The 90 oz. capacity alone is worth getting the Mule over the regular 70 oz. CB. I have emptied the Mule on 4+ hour rides, so don’t think you can’t drink 90 oz. on one trip. I think you can get almost 100 oz. if you carefully siphon water into the bladder through the drink tube. Admittedly, it’s probably bad for the seams to overfill it. Great investment! Just gotta clean it each and every ride. Tom
Response:
Hi, Can anyone here tell me whether it is better to buy the Camelback Mule, or to get the Camelback and a product like the Pakster (which converts the Camelback in to a Mule). Here in South Africa no-one seems to stock the Mule, so I will probably have to order it especially. Thanks in advance, Shane — | "And if you must go to work tomorrow | | Shane Morton Well if I was you I wouldn’t bother | | Wits University And I should know because I’ve seen them | | Coms Honours But not very often" | | The Smiths |
Response:
> Can anyone here tell me whether it is better to buy the Camelback Mule, or > to get the Camelback and a product like the Pakster (which converts the > Camelback in to a Mule). > Here in South Africa no-one seems to stock the Mule, so I will probably > have to order it especially. > Thanks in advance, > Shane
Shane, Last season I rode with the original Camelbak and the Pakster (this was before the MULE came out). Now, I am riding with the MULE. The original holds 70 oz and the MULE holds 90 oz. That is alot of water and I doubt you’ll get through it all in one ride. The big advantage of the MULE over the original/pakster is the amount of storage space, the increased hose diameter, the shoulder padding and the hip belt. I found the with my original CB, the shoulder straps would twist and dig into my chest. Not so with the thick shoulder straps of the MULE. Just to give you an idea of how much you can carry inside the MULE, I’ll give you the list of items I have in my MULE. With a full bladder, I can carry: 2 lubes, 1 spare tube, a set of allen keys, an adjustable wrench, a multi-screw screw driver, a jack knife, flashlight, patch kit and mini first aid kit. Now that just fits into the pocket part, you still have the mesh pocket to stuff things into, like maps, PowerBars, etc. Yes, it is heavy, but once you are riding, you wont even notice it. The MULE also comes in very handy at night. I can stick one of my Vistalite 540 Ni-Cad battery packs in amongst the other stuff so that the battery lead with wire in with my helmet light. This leaves me completely independent of my bike. Great for trail side repairs, wipeouts, etc. The only problem I had with the MULE was with the bladder. During a 24 hour race, the seal around the opening let go, letting water slowly trickle out of the bladder down my back into my shoes. Normally on a hot day this would have been great but not a night when it was cold enough already. The LBS I bought the MULE at immediately replaced the bladder no questions asked. Here in Ottawa, it is cheaper to buy the MULE than the original CB plus the Pakster. Im not sure what it is like in your area. Get the MULE, you wont be dissappointed. Ride Hard, Mike "Life, Love, and the pursuit of things that scare the hell out of you." No Fear Michael Bennett, B. Eng __ It’s Your World – Ride It! Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering __ -__ _ _ Masters of Engineering, 2nd Year (X)/ _, Carleton University (X) Ottawa, Ontario CANADA
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.