Surly Pugsley - Weight Weenie Inquiries

[Sisyphus]

About 9 months ago, I finished my Surly Pugsley build that was built for the intention of a Trans Africa ride that is still in the works for this winter and since then I have been able to put a well enjoyed 2,000 miles on it and I love it but it´s a little heavy.....

I currently run no racks and have managed to trim my bikepacking setup down to near minimalism so gear weight is probably not the culprit and after searching a few threads over at MTBR I have started thinking that rolling resistance and 'rolling weight' are the best places to start trimming weight and wanted to hear your thoughts on that (including the debate of carbon wheels)

I currently run 60tpi Surly Nate 3.8 (heavier model I believe)
Surly tubes
Surly Margelits
Spokes - unknown

Would it be worth it to invest in 120tpi Knards and go tubeless with Carbon wheels? Or a combination of 1 or 2 of those?

Would love to here your suggestions on wheel weight or further explanation for why people say it´s best to loose weight in the wheels first or other weight saving tips regarding gear.

FYI: I already run a 14oz quilt, 8oz tarp, 6oz tarp, and 14oz pad in the summer so other than clothing, I´m not sure how much lighter I could get there without being absurd. Although carbon wheels are quite absurd in and of themselves.

Thanks for sticking with my ramblings!

 

[not another subaru guy...]

No experience with Fat bikes, but I just got a new 29er three weeks ago. My old bike had tubes, XLC rims, SRAM hubs. I didnt think that it was overly heavy. I didnt understand the hype over tubeless. The new bike has Stans tubeless and Hope hubs. The difference is astounding. I cant tell you specifically the difference (non-weight weenie) but from the moment I pedaled away I could feel the difference. I am sure there are others who can report with some more scientific evidence and numbers. But from just getting on the damn thing and riding the weight difference will definitely be noticeable and may be what you are looking for. For reference, the new bike had same fork as the old one. I do have carbon bars as well, not sure if that is a huge savings or not.

 

[Christophe Noel]

This is an area of interest to me and has been since I started road and mountain bike racing in the mid 80s. The subject of wheel weight and performance is rife with misconceptions and myths. At the root of it, yes, lighter wheels perform better, but how much so is where piles of bullshet enter the fray.

The reality is, to eek out modest gains in rotational performance, you have to cull out sizable chunks of weight. It's not enough to extract a gram here or there, you have to make radical decreases to yield modest gains. And with things like fat bikes, the gains are mostly noticed in one obvious aspect - repeated accelerations. Within that, the range of accelerations is a factor. How this relates to accelerating from dead stop to 20mph, or from 5mph to 8mph, or 19mph to 20mph, these are all somewhat different demands and the influence of weight varies. I'll just distill it to this. For a fat bike making frequent accelerations from slow speeds to moderate speeds, wheel weight matters. For a long day of grinding gravel...probably not so much.


With regard to carbon rims, I think that's not necessary. Higher tip count tires will make for a nicer roll, and not just due to reduced weight.

By the way, to the poster above, hub weight will only affect static bike weight. Static bike weight means diddly squat. It's the weight of the bike AND rider that matters. So taking 100 grams off your hubs and having a good dump in the morning yield the same results.

 

[deuxdiesel]

On my last Pugs, I went nuts on high-end drivetrain and control parts, only to save about 1kg. In the end, it made no difference in how the bike rode, only how it felt lifting it on to the rack. The greatest weight savings and performance gains comes from the wheel and tire set-up. Since you already run Marge Lites, going to a carbon rim will really only save you about 200g per wheel, but something like a 45 NRTH Husker Du tire will save even more weight over the Nates and even the Knards, plus give a nice ride. As far as tubeless goes, you really won't save much weight- by the time you seal the rim and build up the center channel to aid in seating the bead, plus add a fluid like Stan's (3 or 4 scoops for a big tire), it weighs the same a running a lightweight tube. In short, lighter tires and lighter tubes will give you the most bang for your buck in weight savings and performance, while still maintaining the solid and durable platform the Pugs already has.

 

[Co-opski]

I remember your build or thread some time back and thought to myself "well he is going with 60tpi Nates, that's interesting for a trans Africa tour". Like others have said; take good morning BM after your espresso and get a faster rolling lighter tire. Nate's do have their place like, crawling through the wet organics off trail in a rainforest (true Darien Gap tire).

 

[Sisyphus]

Thanks for the responses.

Seems like you would all agree that lighter tubes/tubeless with higher tip tires would be the best bet and value?

Anybody have experience with knards on a Pugsley?

 

[Co-opski]

No not the nards. Tires that I've used include:
Nates 120, Slow lots of traction
HuskerDu 120, Fast and light good to ok traction, not as good on snow or ice.
Larry 120, my old summer tire before I went with the HuskerDu. Fast rolling not as light, good to ok traction.
Bud with grip studs front tire 120, heavy, lots of grip and good rolling.
Lou with grip studs rear tire 120, heavy, slow, lots of traction.
Ground control 120 with grip studs rear tire, little faster than the lou less traction than the lou still on the heavy side.

 

[p nut]

Given the context of the advice already posted, I would say if you were to build up the new My Other Brother Darryl rims, and go tubeless with some lighter tires (Maxxis Mammoth, Dillinger, Jumbo Jim, etc) the difference would be noticeable. Maybe it's in my head, but my current 60tpi Nates are a drag even compared to Lou's on my other bike.

 

[jayspies]

Nates are heavy no matter how you spin it. I've got the 120 TPI version on my Muk and spin up is noticeably slower than my buddy's bike with the same rims but Panaracer Fat-B Nimbles. Both running tubeless, BTW.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Ya, I did my Iceland trip on Nates. Ooof. Not a smart idea.

 

[Co-opski]

Flounder,
Have you put some miles on VanHelgas? and/or what are you running on your BS? I kind of want VH for next summer but part of me thinks they will be over the top for everyday AK use. I'm a mix of short rainforest trail rides (5 to 10 mile), town commutes (5 mile) and longer gravel biketour/packing (20+miles). On HuDu's now and they work well for all but the nastiest hemlock/Sitka spruce single track. The Nate's shine on the forest trails but the other 85% of the time I love the HuDu. Other tire I was thinking of was Hodag or Dillengers.

 

[Christophe Noel]

I have Van Helgas on my Beargrease and now on my Bucksaw. I also have some Dillenger 4s I used on my BG and some Vee Rubber that I thought was average at best.

 

[Co-opski]

Thanks Van Helgas it may be after I get my Lauf added. :bike_rider:

 

[Christophe Noel]

Thanks Van Helgas it may be after I get my Lauf added. :bike_rider:

I have a Lauf on route for my BG. To be honest, not sure what I think of that thing. I'll have to wait and see.

 

[Co-opski]

I have a Lauf on route for my BG. To be honest, not sure what I think of that thing. I'll have to wait and see.

That will be hot!
I've been on their 29er fork and felt it was just what I needed vs the Bluto that was more than I needed. I have ridged expectations so a little give will be nice. What fatigues me is the moose tracks on the melt freeze cycles make a horrendous washboard on the trails, worse than windblown sastrugi and suncups. :elkgrin: