Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    216

    Moonlander vs. Neck Romancer

    *updated title to be more specific to the discussion of these two bikes.*

    I've pretty much decided on one of these two. The cost difference not being considered, is there really any reason I would regret getting the Moonlander over the Necromancer Pugsley? Snow riding has the obvious benefits of more float for the ML, so in the immediate future that is cool, but I'm thinking year round.

    Riding under normal trail conditions in the summer is where I think there could be differences, will the ML be generally slower or limited in some way that the Pugs won't? Looking at weights they are about the same, with the ML being a bit lighter due to wheelset. Lacking fat bike experience I'm reaching out to locals and folks on here for advice to help with a decision.

    I hope some folks that have had both "traditional" fat bikes and now have a ML to compare can shed any light here.

    Thanks in advance!
    Last edited by jn35646; 01-23-2012 at 06:11 AM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    89
    I have yet to ride a Monnlander or any other fat bike until last week when I picked up a Necromancer. I did ride with a buddy who owns a ML. He plowed the way for my tires. So I say that the ML does have the edge snow wise.In the end I am still glad I picked the Necromancer .

  3. #3
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,827
    Something to consider: are you going to need that large chainring? Are you really in strong riding shape most of the time?

    With those big old shoes on the Moonlander, well, there you go. No large chainring.

    Only since you're saying cost difference not considered, I'd lean toward the lander.
    Latitude: 44.93 N

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Something to consider: are you going to need that large chainring? Are you really in strong riding shape most of the time?

    With those big old shoes on the Moonlander, well, there you go. No large chainring.

    Only since you're saying cost difference not considered, I'd lean toward the lander.
    Both bikes come with the MWOD rings, so neither one has a big ring.

    The Moonlander will have a little bit wider Q factor than the Neck Romancer. Geometry between the two frames is slightly different, but probably not enough to make a decision over.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    216
    Got some great advice/thoughts from a local fat bike fanatic and I think I will go with the ML I appreciate the advice and hope anyone else with advice will contribute in case this thread could help someone else.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    52
    Good choice!

  7. #7
    Geordie biker
    Reputation: saltyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,376
    Go with the latest, you won't go wrong ML
    2014 milage so far - 2,110
    www.ukfatbikes.co.uk

  8. #8
    Chad
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    58
    Had a necro for 6 weeks, loved it, ~Now have a Moonlander and it is better enough to justify the cost. Just get the ML, you'll never second guess yourself.

  9. #9
    movement
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Luthar View Post
    Had a necro for 6 weeks, loved it, ~Now have a Moonlander and it is better enough to justify the cost. Just get the ML, you'll never second guess yourself.
    I have had my BlackPug for almost a month now and I love it. I know that I can upgrade to fatter rim/rubber combos in the future if I should decide that it is needed. I definitely saw the value over the white Pug with the Darryls, MWOD and such. And for only a couple hundred more it made plenty of sense.

    But what are people seeing as the benefits of the additional $500 for the Moonlander over the BlackOps $1850. Is it all about float? Fatter has to be better?

    I got mine and I love it but I would love to hear something more empirical about the ML. Even in the longer-term reviews(relative I know) I haven't really picked up on the ML beating the Pug because of X, Y or Z. Any detailed analysis that I missed?

    I just kind of figured that extra $500 for the ML could be used for a whole other rim/rubber setup or for racks and fenders and such.
    "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." -Thomas Pynchon

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    216
    I think those are good points Couldhands.

    Talking with a local rider who likely put thousands of miles on his Mukluk before selling it and buying the ML...I'm gathering it is all about the wheelset. The bikes aren't that much different in weight but he said it felt like with the Mukluk the weight was all in the wheels, where now it is all in the frame. Is it worth $500? I'm sure that is very much relative. I'm hearing that there is very little, to any, penalty for the increase in volume and only positives for year round snow, single track and random exploring. My thought process is that If I go with the Pug and want to upgrade, just a rim and rubber are gonna cost me about $300-$350 up front to clownshoe/BFL, not to mention re lacing the stock hub if you stay with that.

    The LBS is listing the Necromancer and ML at the same weight, so you gain that volume and wider rim, with little to no penalty, that weighs a good bit on my decision. Both look sick and I doubt anyone would regret either.

    Welcome more discussion, I could change the thread title if that would encourage more discourse.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •