What other brands have a Surly Pugsly type bike

[martini.ss]

Singular will have a nice US made steel frame this fall. I'm having a prototype made this month by Eric Noren of Peacock Groove fame. It'll be a symmetrical build like the Fat Back's and Mukluks. 170 rear, 135 front. My proto won't have them since I'm not a tourer, but the production version will have rack mounts.

Other makes: 907, Fat Back, Surly, Salsa, Teesdale customs[Ive seen a few of them], Everson, Wildfire is out of the game last I heard. There's a guy in Belgium I think that's making some pretty cool ones too. Some guy raced one last year in the BC epic and did fairly well.

In the past, I've been a total 29" nut. They just work super well for me. Then I got my hands on a FAT bike. Boy did my world view change. The capability of these bikes is outstanding. They'll go fast if you really need them to. Especailly on dry trails. They'll go slow of course, and they'll crawl over anything you put in their path. These things have become my go to bike. I simply love them. Its totally put the fun back into mountain biking for me.

 

[Cackalak Han]

I dream of owning a Pug one day. Fatback, 907, Muluk, etc are nice, but for some reason, the Ugsly Pugsly has my heart.

For the time being, I put a fat front on my SS 29er (47mm rim, Surly Larry tire, Pug 100mm fork). Loving it thus far. People say that I'd love it even more once my transition to full fat is complete.

 

[wesel123]

I dream of owning a Pug one day. Fatback, 907, Muluk, etc are nice, but for some reason, the Ugsly Pugsly has my heart.

For the time being, I put a fat front on my SS 29er (47mm rim, Surly Larry tire, Pug 100mm fork). Loving it thus far. People say that I'd love it even more once my transition to full fat is complete.

Let's see some pics!!!!!

 

[Christophe Noel]

I'm not trying to "diss" Flounder or anyone else on the board for not embracing the Pug as an expedition bike.

I certainly don't take anything you say as a counterpoint to what I was getting at. My point is simply to say these bikes are probably more widely accepted as snow bikes, or just fun and unique rides than they are expedition platforms. I'm certainly not saying they're not capable of an expedition level ride. I'm also not saying to do a big multi-day trip you have to have a Pug.

What you do with a bike makes it what it is. If that happens to be an expedition, you have an expeditionary Pug. Again, you'll frequently hear of these bikes referred to as snow or sand bikes and less so tagged as expedition bikes. Same for any bike. My singlespeed is doubtfully going to be referred to as an expedition bike, but to me that's how it sometimes is used.

 

[Co-opski]

What it comes down to is the right tool for the job. Arctic Trucks for example have many expeditions under their hardy builds on 44s but I would not want to drive an Arctic Truck from Cali to Terra del Fuego. The same goes for snow bikes. A true bike expedition across Antarctica a snow bike would excel but on a long bike tour across middle North America it would be miserable unless you took the over the top route Alaska, NWT, Nunavut and ending in Newfoundland witch would be burly and think of all the street credentials you would get at your polo games and ally cat rides.

BTW: I have been on Pugs, 907 and Fatback bikes all for fun adventures on local trails.

 

[Lookinforlunkers]

What can one expect to pay for a Pugsly? Are there other makers of the fat tires other than Surly?

 

[wesel123]

What can one expect to pay for a Pugsly? Are there other makers of the fat tires other than Surly?

I just got one that I'm have posted up for sale (need funds for my LC). It was $1685 to my door.

 

[Patman]

I just got one that I'm have posted up for sale (need funds for my LC). It was $1685 to my door.

So did you find that it was too "Fat" for your needs, or just an impulse buy that didn't meet your expectations, etc?

Besides the money, why sell it?

 

[jrose609]

I just got one that I'm have posted up for sale (need funds for my LC). It was $1685 to my door.

Just saw your for sale post.......you didn't have it that long. Don't like the "fat?" just curious. I'm guessing most people either really love the Pug or they hate it.

That's a great price though with all the extras you have on there. If I didn't have mine, I would jump on your Pug in a heartbeat. GLWS.

 

[wesel123]

So did you find that it was too "Fat" for your needs, or just an impulse buy that didn't meet your expectations, etc?

Besides the money, why sell it?

The main reason I choose this one to sell is I love my Endruo SL more. I bought the Pugs before a recent trip where we are in the boonies for a few days and I kept thinking to my self, the only real issue I would have with the LC is a Front Diff issue, so to stick with my favorite quote " Assume Nothing. Plan For Everything. And Then Plan Some more". I want my LC a reliable as possible. So the Pugs is the unfortunate victim of downsizing, so to speak.

The Pugs is an absolute blast to ride. It wasn't an impulse buy, I test road a Mukluk (competition to the Pugs) through some local single track and felt like I was back on my Mach One!!!!! Nobody stocks or currently has stock of the Pugs so it was the next best thing.

So yeah, basically its a money thing.

 

[GHR]

A response to some old threads, but I have just come across the Surly Pugsley (and the two other models with even wider tires that Surly markets) while looking at potential off road bicycles (mostly day use, but keen to move to bikepacking). Still to find one to try at a local LBS, but in many ways it seems like the perfect choice. Large tires provide great traction in almost all conditions and offset need for a full suspension (unless you are more into the extreme side where it would be needed). Not the fastest, not the lightest, but if your goal is to get there and have fun doing so it seems to be a good fit. I found the earlier post comparing the joy of owning a fat tire bike to that of an old LR or LC resonated well for me.

My next steps will be to try one and compare to the two other models. On first glance the Puglsey seems to be the best fit for me of the three, but curious as to comments from those who have chosen the Moonlander Or Necromancer. It just seems these two are more specialized and the Pugs offers options of swapping wheels or simply moving to 29 inch wheels if your needs dictated could work well. Just looks like a better fit for me,but welcome others views. The look of the Moonlander fully outfitted is simply great however!

 

[Christophe Noel]

Here's some general information that may be helpful when selecting your fat bike.

As said earlier in this thread, Salsa and Surly are house brands of Quality Bike Parts. Their selection includes the Pugsly, Necromancer, Krampus, and Moonlander under the Surly badge. Under the Salsa brand they have the Mukluk 2 and 3 as well as the Beargrease.

All of the Surly bikes use 4130 Chromo steel frames. The Salsa bikes use hydroformed aluminum. In the most general off terms, the Salsa bikes are a tad more high performance.

SURLY
Pugsly: The Pug is steel and has a 3x9 drivetrain. The rims are 64mm wide Marge Lites. (Marg Lites are often favored for general mtb riding)

Necromancer: This is effectively just a blacked out Pug with 82mm Holy Rolling Daryl drilled out rims for added air volume and better floatation.

Krampus: This is a 29er semi-fat fat bike. The bikes above have what is kind of a standard "fat" tire at 3.7". The Krampus is only 3" so best for conditions when floatation is not critical.

Moonlander: This is the fattest bike in the lineup and uses 100mm rims and 4.7 tires for max floatation. The wheels are heavy like anvils, so this bike is ideally best for conditions were maximum floatation is key. It wouldn't be the ideal bike for someone wanting to do general mountain bike riding, but that's not to say many don't. It's not terribly nimble. It is very heavy. Floatation is the name of the game with the Moonlander.

SALSA
Mukluk 2 & 3: Both have aluminum frames with Alternator dropouts. These bikes use 82mm Holy Rolling Daryl Rims. The 2 comes with a higher performance build spec with SRAM X9 drive, E-13 2x10 cranks, even 120 tpi Surly Nate tires. These bikes also come with Salsa's Enabler fork with additional rack/cage mounts.

Beargrease: This is the latest incarnation of fatness. This is a very high performance bike with tapered fork, lean frame construction and as much performance as can be crammed into a fat set up.

Here's my new Mukluk 2.



Which makes for the best extended touring platform? Well, that depends. If your trips require maximum floatation the Moonlander would be a great pick. However, we're talking a trip that really would mandate maximum float. We're talking beaches, packed snow, deep sand. The idea of trudging along pushing those 4.7 tires and full touring gear makes my legs hurt, and I ride about 800 hours a year. The Beargrease would be the least likely pick for extended and fully loaded touring.

For the most versitile platforms, I'd still reach for the Puglsy and the Mukluks. They have nice spec, ample float, and all the appointments you'd need for extended touring.

My personal thoughts on fat bikes as extended touring bikes: I LOVE my Mukluk. It's so bloody fun. It's also slow as hell. I've done a great deal of comparing the performance of the fat bike against a handful of other options. Using previous GPS, Heart rate, and even wattage data, I've found a fat bike to be at least 20-30% slower than a standard mountain bike. On flat terrain, that number is closer to 20%. The steeper the grade, the closer that number gets to 30%. So, you'd be nuts to reach for a fat bike as your platform unless you NEED the extra floatation. Kinda like choosing an 8 wheel drive Uni-Cat to drive to Alaska. You could do it, but why? Especially when you factor in the 30% more calories and ride time you'd need to cover the ground of a standard bike.

Is a fat bike a good extended touring bike? Generally, no. But, if your route requires floatation above the norm, it's really the only option, and a fun one at that. Would this be my only bike in my quiver? Hell no.

 

[sylgeist]

Flounder,

Thanks a lot for the detailed breakdown. I have recently been looking at these bikes and it isn't clear what the differences are in terms of best use such.

 

[Christophe Noel]

The rims are very important. The Marge Lites (62mm) on the Pugsly are very lightweight and nimble. They're a full 125 grams lighter than most fat rims, per rim. This makes for an ideal rim for someone that wants to ride singletrack and still get many of the floatation benefits of a fat bike. The Moonlander is a bit of a niche bike because of the massive 100mm rims and 4.7 tires. My few rides on a Moonlander were fun, but it's insanely slow. Unless I were faced with very deep snow or sand, I'd have a hard time justifying a Moonlander.

I chose the Mukluk because I felt the 82mm rims made a nice compromise in width, and wanted a bike that would ride with more snap and performance. I still would never want my Mukluk to be my only bike. It's a super fun diversion from regular riding, and I have big plans for some big trips, but it's a sloooooow beast of a thing. And again, I consider myself to be in pretty good bike shape.

 

[p nut]

I've gone back and forth on getting a fat bike this past year, but still yet to pull the trigger. For me, I've got about 4 months of use during the year (winter). I'm afraid it would just sit around, collecting dust the other 8 months. Which makes it a pretty pricey toy, comparatively.

If I were to buy one, it would be the Mukluk. I like the alternator dropouts and the 170mm rear drops. Plus the aluminum frame would be better for my salt-ridden streets in my area.