Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    856

    On One Fatty vs. Surly Pugsley

    hey all
    so the other day I was thinking of picking up a cheap on-one inbred to raid my parts bin and build up into a single speed....well, that turned into looking at fat bikes once again, and now I find myself in a bit of a quandary.

    I sourced a local Pugsley with low miles in the right size for a little under a grand. I also have my eye on the On One Fatty, as it's aluminum/lighter and a little bit slacker/more modern, which suits me a bit better. The on-one has no provision for a singlespeed, should i go that route, but the pugs has sliding drops.

    So, if you were able to get either bike for a little less than a grand, would you get the complete lightly used pugs, or build up a new fatty with some used parts (like cranks and bars and such)? I plan on using it for winter riding, duh, as well as a bit of quick, short evening rides where the trailbike might be overkill.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,691
    How old is the Pugsley? Is it custom or stock? Assuming it already has parts on it that you like, then the Pugsley is a solid deal. They are hard to find under a grand!

    I think the Pugsley is still an outstanding bike, even with everything else on the market. It's proven, extremely flexible when it comes to build options, and can be built with cheaper parts.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    274
    I think a lightly used Pugs under a grand is a great price.
    That would be my choice. Especially if you are considering single speed.

    phat fingered from my phone

  4. #4
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,041
    For a point of reference I advertised a used Pug at about a grand and it moved in a big damn hurry. Jump on that if I were you. If you don't like it just resell at the same price, it'll move.
    Latitude: 44.93 N

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    856
    It's a 2011. Thanks for the advice guys!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,856
    I think because of all the new bikes coming out, folk are tending to underestimate the Pugsley.

    Bear in mind most of the new bikes are coming from manufacturers with no background in fatbikes, but with good PR departments. Put a couple of ace riders on the new bikes and bang, they're wonderful! Great trail bikes for sure if that's what you want, but the Pug is great on the trails too.

    Then think of which bike you'd take if you were planning a long trip in the Arctic or across the desert...


    Edit: that's not intended to be a criticism of the new bikes. For example, the new Puffin would have been on my buy list if it was possible to fit a hubgear to it, and I have a number of other fatbikes.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    856
    Well that's part of the dilemma, actually. The pugs is awesomely capable, but I'll never push it to the extent of its epic ability. I'll probably end up doing short snow rides from either my house or at local parks...not epic 3 day long adventures. I'll probably never mount four bottles to it, panniers, six lights, a dog, and a teepee...but will take it out for a plunk in the snow, or whenever my fs bike feels boring.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,856
    But that's the point, not only can it do the epics, it's also a good bike for all the other stuff too.

    Sort of like getting Hummer capabilities in your sports car.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,828

    Good job!

    Agree with above comments - Pug!
    I don`t do epic adventures, but ride 2 old Pugsleys (One has 29+ wheels) and love them,
    With the 29+ wheel set available and the ability to fit them to the Pugs the old soldier has become even more versatile.
    Plenty films on Youtube of Pugsleys nailing it on all types of trails and terrain. they are more than capable enough. The frames are not heavy for being steel, and they are very comfortable. Folk that say big tyres neutral any frame comfort don`t know what their talking about!,

    Waiting on a new Pugsley frame to arrive build a new bling `Super Pug` with all my favourite componants and a Jones Truss fork i have.
    Best bike i have ever owned, re invented cycling off road for me and opens new doors of where it is possible to ride a bicycle.

    I own a Moonlander too, but that`s for Apocalyptic conditions - real soft sand and slimey rock crawling on the coast.
    Last edited by coastkid71; 10-13-2013 at 09:37 AM.
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    86
    Another +1 for the Pugs. I bought a pretty used one for less than a grand, but it's held up extremely well. I've done everything from bikepacked the Vapor Trail to rode a good chunk of the Dirty Kanza route in January (LOT slower with 4" of snow!) to used it as a bar-hopper and grocery getter to gravel-grinding. As far as a multi-use bike, I think you'd be really hard-pressed to beat it.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,290
    Pugsley for the win!
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    765
    Folk that say big tyres neutral any frame comfort don`t know what their talking about!,

    So... You could tell the diff between a steel and alum frame riding on 4.7 tires at 6 lbs?
    Seeking MB-2 Fork (19.3), Ritchey FD post silver 26.8

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by trodaq View Post
    "Folk that say big tyres neutral any frame comfort don`t know what their talking about!,"

    So... You could tell the diff between a steel and alum frame riding on 4.7 tires at 6 lbs?
    I can't, but seeing as that quote comes from Coastkid, it's worth pointing out he's a very skilful rider.

    (I can tell the difference on bikes with skinnier tyres, but I still suspect that the saddle rails, long seatpost, and cockpit components have a major effect)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,828
    Quote Originally Posted by trodaq View Post
    Folk that say big tyres neutral any frame comfort don`t know what their talking about!,

    So... You could tell the diff between a steel and alum frame riding on 4.7 tires at 6 lbs?
    Yep. and so can my mate who has went from a Pugs to a 9zero7, no flex at all and more trail clatter from alu frames, more give with steel
    Understandably the alloy frames will handle better loaded with kit for snow riding...
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  15. #15
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    783
    I have both the 907 and the Pug. Both small, offset frames. Both ride very differently.But....ride very much the same. They both take me to wild, beautiful places. They both have changed my riding from "training to race" to "enjoying the ride".
    I think our average speed is now between 5 and 8 mph. With lots of stops and picnics along the way.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,290
    Quote Originally Posted by coastkid71 View Post
    Understandably the alloy frames will handle better loaded with kit for snow riding...


    Most touring bikes are steel. Steel's ride qualities don't equate to poor handling with bigger touring loads.

    The Pugs will haul cargo without hesitation.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  17. #17
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,156
    The on-one is a great bike. I was doing doubles and jumps on it this summer, it was great. The symmetrical rear end is one reason I got it, as opposed to the pugsley. I think that surly makes nice bikes, but they don't really make bikes based on new ideas and technology that are improvements, rather they come up with one way, and stick to that forever. It might be a very good way of making bikes, like with my karate monkey, but they don't often change anything. Symmetrical rear ends are the future, even if the exact standard of 170mm isn't. There is extra clearance with the 4.0 tire in the rear, I will probably do a 29er wheelset next year for summer riding, the frame is stout and handles well for a fatty, there's not much I'm disjointed with. A bit heavy, but then again so are the surlys. How "steel rides" at these weights and tire sizes is completely irrelevant IMO. We are not talking about some aggressively butted steel frame made for compliance and we are not out on roads with small tires where we'd be able to feel it.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    The on-one is a great bike. I was doing doubles and jumps on it this summer, it was great. The symmetrical rear end is one reason I got it, as opposed to the pugsley. I think that surly makes nice bikes, but they don't really make bikes based on new ideas and technology that are improvements, rather they come up with one way, and stick to that forever. It might be a very good way of making bikes, like with my karate monkey, but they don't often change anything. Symmetrical rear ends are the future, even if the exact standard of 170mm isn't. There is extra clearance with the 4.0 tire in the rear, I will probably do a 29er wheelset next year for summer riding, the frame is stout and handles well for a fatty, there's not much I'm disjointed with. A bit heavy, but then again so are the surlys. How "steel rides" at these weights and tire sizes is completely irrelevant IMO. We are not talking about some aggressively butted steel frame made for compliance and we are not out on roads with small tires where we'd be able to feel it.
    Offset frames still have advantages and do provide a more flexible frame, which is I guessing why Surly sticks with them. Using offset 135mm you can choose any standard MTB hub or any IGH. Plus you have the option of swapping wheels. And for the Pugsley it doesn't really limit you as you can still build a 29er wheelset if you like.
    The main disadvantage is cosmetic.
    Moonlander offset does limit your rim choices. Which for some may make a 190mm bike a better choice.

    Craig

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    ...Symmetrical rear ends are the future, even if the exact standard of 170mm isn't....
    I'd dispute that.

    Symmetrical 170/190mm rear ends are an evolutionary dead end.

    You can only fit derailleurs to them, and many of the new bikes have no adjustment so you can't even singlespeed them without faff. That's a retrograde step IMO.

    Derailleurs are fine if you're not taking advantage of all the places that a fatbike can take you, but they're an expensive, fragile and consumable item sticking out low on your bike if you are.

    Also I don't understand why Surly should change something that works well just because there are "new" ideas. The Surly is actually more versatile than the new bikes because you can fit any gear system or single speed.

    On the other hand we are probably going to see more specialisation in fatbikes, so there will be something for all tastes.

    (I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm getting rid of my non-adjustable symmetrical fatbikes because I don't think they're fit for anything but trails)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  20. #20
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I'd dispute that.

    Symmetrical 170/190mm rear ends are an evolutionary dead end.

    You can only fit derailleurs to them, and many of the new bikes have no adjustment so you can't even singlespeed them without faff. That's a retrograde step IMO.
    What else would fit to them? Basket balls, sea shells, miley cyrus?

    What do you mean "no adjustment"? My FS 29er has "no adjustment" except for putting the wheel and and out, it gets by just fine. Not sure what you are even talking about. Are you complaining that they don't make internally geared hubs with adapters? Or sliding dropouts? Well almost no bikes have those, except bikes intended to be single-sped, which I don't really recommend on a fat-bike. You don't have to take my word for it, just see what hub standard 99% of all the new fat bikes use.

    The "adjustable" part is really confusing...
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    856


    Well, I went and got it. 900$. Nearly new. Larger rotors, longer stem, 545 pedals. Still has nubs on the tires. Thanks for the advice everybody.

    Personally I think the 135mm swappability fr to rr is pretty neat, and if I get along with it, I may do the 29+ thing.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    What else would fit to them? Basket balls, sea shells, miley cyrus?

    What do you mean "no adjustment"? My FS 29er has "no adjustment" except for putting the wheel and and out, it gets by just fine. Not sure what you are even talking about. Are you complaining that they don't make internally geared hubs with adapters? Or sliding dropouts? Well almost no bikes have those, except bikes intended to be single-sped, which I don't really recommend on a fat-bike. You don't have to take my word for it, just see what hub standard 99% of all the new fat bikes use.

    The "adjustable" part is really confusing...
    Sorry you're confused.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coastkid71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,828
    Enjoy your Pugs sandwich

    And enjoy the options of 29+ wheels and any gear option you want, I have had 3x9, Alfine 8 speed and single speed on my Pug over the years, all are good in their own way.
    My Pugsley`s are still going strong with over 10,000 miles of a lot of abuse on the coast, between this repainted grey and another purple frame (it evolved into 2 bikes when the 29+ wheels came from Surly)

    These bikes go the distance, if it cracks, just weld it up and keep on trucking


    12 th Oct Saturday Run and Cycle 013 by coastkid71, on Flickr
    plan it...build it....ride it...love it....
    http://coastkid.blogspot.com/

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OFFcourse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    751
    Another Pugsley circle j***, it's not even Wednesday!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,290
    Quote Originally Posted by OFFcourse View Post
    Another Pugsley circle j***, it's not even Wednesday!
    I know! I'm pretty sure it's against some rule on MTBR to be stoked about a bike that has remained largely unchanged for 7-8yrs. I mean come on if an unrideable prototype hasn't just been shown at Interbike what is the point? It has to suck and not be worth any love, HAHAHA

    See you guys on Wednesday right?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Just about my Surly Pugsley
    By rockychrysler in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-21-2013, 05:43 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-09-2013, 08:09 AM
  3. The first year with the Surly Pugsley
    By Outsider in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-19-2013, 06:36 AM
  4. X-Post. Surly Pugsley
    By ernesto_from_Wisconsin in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 07:56 PM
  5. Hmmm...Surly Full Squish Fatty???
    By Old Bag in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 08:16 AM

Posting Permissions

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