Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    582

    Is there still some reason to choose a Pugsley over a Moonlander?

    I've spent some time reading this section and viewing some really nice vids on youtube (there still are not enough) with regards these fatbikes (Surly's in particular). I'm almost wishing I had a reason...any to justify owning one, but living in a rather concreted suburb on the outskirts of a major city and no epic snow/ice you can depend on means for now I just look on in awe and jealousy at you folks that truly can utilize and enjoy what these bikes can do.

    What I was curious and couldnt figure clearly in my mind is; now with Surly having the Moonlander, (assuming there is little to no interest in speed and the additonal extra $500 purchase price and maintenance cost can be managed or else isnt a deciding factor also no bike ever plans to be deliberately slogged thru muddy trails), what reason would one now still prefer to choose a pugsley over the moonlander? What is it a pug does that still makes it a better choice than the moonlander?

    Am I correct in my thoughts that the neckromancer fits between the pug and the moonlander..moonlander frame but not wheels/tires..but bigger rubber than ther pug? (I mean basically, I know about the larger fork and MWOD crank and 2x9) I dont see much excited chatter about the neckromancer so is it just that the moonlander's extras are so good that it explains why it seems all the talk and excitement seems focussed on it? If so, why would one choose the Neckromancer and not the Moonlander?

    Gosh, it looks like such fun (and comfort) and superb for winter snow, summer sand and all year rocks,gravel and dirt.

    Sorry, I've spent all morning when I should be giving my employer all my energies and attention all spent reading thread after thread here. Plainly it's all new to me so I'm sure the questions running about my head are noobish so please forgive.

    Even tho I've posted this, I'm still reading trying to better understand these rigs.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveRice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    112
    It is my understanding that the Necromancer Pug is a Pugsley frame and not a Moonlander frame. The complete Necromancer does come with the non-offset Moonlander fork. As far as why one would pick the Pug over the Moonlander, I'm sure that the $500 may be a factor for some. Others may be concerned with the even greater wheel offset to clear the BFL on a CS. If I had to do it over and was forced to pick between the two, I would take the Moonlander.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BoogieMang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    277
    I guess the only reason to get a Pug at this point is if you want to run a triple crankset.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brassnipples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    372
    I own a pugsley and recently had a chance to ride a moonlander. IMO, the moonlander is the way to go if you will be riding on soft stuff exclusively but the pugsly is a more versatile bike. I've toured and ridden several dirt centuries on a pugsley, I don't think I'd choose to do that on a moonlander. Surely the moonlander is a capable bike in the dry but it really feels more trucklike than the pugs.

  5. #5
    Geordie biker
    Reputation: saltyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,376
    Yeah, im looking forward to comparing my ML to the pug, but it's true the pugsley is tried and tested and will do 99% what a moony will do anyways.
    2014 milage so far - 2,167
    www.ukfatbikes.co.uk

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Surlynot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    67
    the pugsly is a more versatile bike
    ^ +1
    Leave nothing but footprints & take nothing but photographs.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BoogieMang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by brassnipples View Post
    the pugsly is a more versatile bike.
    Shouldn't that be the other way around? The Moonlander could run clown shoes and BFL's or large marges and larry's/endomorphs, while the Pugs can only run the latter. It seems intuitive to me that the ML is more versatile, other than the fact that you can't run a triple up front.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    216
    Is the Pugs more versatile? How so? Honestly curious as I'm picking up a ML tonight. I started a thread already asking about the differences between these two bikes and haven't really heard anything about how the ML's extra tire width/volume can be a negative. Is the steering significantly slower or hindered by the extra volume when on hardpack/singletrack conditions?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bprsnt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by brassnipples View Post
    Surely the moonlander is a capable bike in the dry but it really feels more trucklike than the pugs.
    I disagree on the comparison.
    If you are running too low of air pressure on either or any Fatbike it can feel trucklike.
    If the air pressure is setup correctly for the conditions the bikes handle great.
    Moonlander's
    Sandman Hogger Ti

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brassnipples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    372
    Hmm, I guess I hadn't thought of it beyond the stock configuration, but I wouldn't want to drag the stock moonlander tires around during the summer. I've not made any significant changes to my pugs and it's been pretty good at the wide variety of places and conditions I've taken it. It would be interesting to see how the ML felt with the 'narrow' Larry's, but on my first impression it felt like a longer and less nimble bike, but that could have been the tires, i've not bothered to look at the geometry.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brassnipples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by bprsnt View Post
    If you are running too low of air pressure on either or any Fatbike it can feel trucklike.
    If the air pressure is setup correctly for the conditions the bikes handle great.
    I am very familiar with the importance of air pressure on these bikes and that's not what I meant by 'truck like'. I was pleasantly surprised with how nimble the ML felt but compared to the Pug it really felt like you sit on top of it rather than in it. It's far from terrible but the Pugsley just feels like a more well rounded ride.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    216
    I thought they were essentially the same geometry with tweaks made to allow for more chain clearance in the rear?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brassnipples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by jn35646 View Post
    I thought they were essentially the same geometry with tweaks made to allow for more chain clearance in the rear?
    A quick glance at the specs confirms that, the ML is only about 10mm longer, and the rest of the measurements are really close with only the chainstay and seat tube angle potentially contributing to the lengthy feel. So maybe it is just the rimes/tires that change the feel, it would be really interesting to do a side-by-side with a Pug using the same wheels.

    Still, I'd say that off the shelf the Pugsley is the better all rounder.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    65
    Getting hot...

    I am wondering the SAME thing. I fear the Moonlander is the new benchmark--therefore a pugs or smaller footprint is already obsolete.

    But of course, all bikes fit their niche and they really cannot be obsolete.

    I am leaning pugsley because I mainly want it to ride places where my 29ers won't...namely sand and rocky beaches...low tide excursions. Snow would be fun, but it is rare for me.

    Reading all the posts around here, it also sounds like I will get the "all the time" bug and ride the pugsley on single track and maybe even race it. Therefore, a pugs with drilled rolling daryls seems to fit my need more than the moonlander. I read a great deal about the "sand and snow only" ratings for the clown shoe and other 100mm rims--don't know if that's legit or just CYA lines from the manufacturers.

    I kinda want a moonlander frame and run nates on it.

    Pulling the trigger on two frames soon.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by jn35646 View Post
    Is the Pugs more versatile? How so? Honestly curious as I'm picking up a ML tonight. I started a thread already asking about the differences between these two bikes and haven't really heard anything about how the ML's extra tire width/volume can be a negative. Is the steering significantly slower or hindered by the extra volume when on hardpack/singletrack conditions?
    Many people (but certianly not all) ride narrower rims on their bikes in the summer for hardpack and singletrack. They are lighter and some of us think the rounder tire section handles singletrack better. My current choice in the summer is 47mm trials rims with Larry's front and rear. I would like to try the Marge lights as they might be a better compromise between weight, tire shape and float. I am riding a 165 symmetric bike so don't have issues with offset on the narrower rims. You could certainly find 44 to 47 mm rims that would work with a Pugs offset, might be harder on the moonlander. I bet Marge lites would work on the Moonlander with no problem.
    Latitude 61

  16. #16
    AJT
    AJT is offline
    I like bicycles
    Reputation: AJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130
    Have you read this? it talks about kinda funny steering.Moonlander compared to pugs, our review.
    Adventures off the beaten path
    www.backcountrybiking.co.uk

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bprsnt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by brassnipples View Post
    I am very familiar with the importance of air pressure on these bikes and that's not what I meant by 'truck like'. I was pleasantly surprised with how nimble the ML felt but compared to the Pug it really felt like you sit on top of it rather than in it. It's far from terrible but the Pugsley just feels like a more well rounded ride.
    Well aaallllrightyyy then
    Moonlander's
    Sandman Hogger Ti

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveRice View Post
    It is my understanding that the Necromancer Pug is a Pugsley frame and not a Moonlander frame. The complete Necromancer does come with the non-offset Moonlander fork. As far as why one would pick the Pug over the Moonlander, I'm sure that the $500 may be a factor for some. Others may be concerned with the even greater wheel offset to clear the BFL on a CS. If I had to do it over and was forced to pick between the two, I would take the Moonlander.
    Oh yes..I see that now..."neck romancer 'pug'", sorry initial information overload had me muddled.

    One thing that somewhat stuck out to me was thinking if a felllow is not totally a hardcore snow, sand, open-field kind of rider but just by geographic circumstances more constrained to tended/maintained trails and engineered pathways (gravel, mups, streets, etc) then perhaps the moonlander might be too much and the standard pug with an option such as the 'black floyd' tires does more suitably broaden the pugs appeal and versatility to make it more ideal not quite at the edges of the spectrum where the moonlander shines more brightly...or am I simply trying to sweet-talk myself into a sound and reasonably justification to make this a reality?

    Could one imagine bombing about the city "floatin' caddilac" style, riding at a modest and enjoyable pace for a time then taking a foray into some hardpack, gravel or fire- road? I'm thinking somewhat like we from time to time have in the NorthEast or mid-atlantic, the occasional heavy snowfall that in reality is perhaps around for a few days at best where it either starts melting or liquified by rain that commonly follows a snow storm a few days after, turning the trails into a muddy, boggy swamp at which point I'd never ride it anyhow, else the temperature drops and its more a slick sheet of ice rather than crusty snow and then spiked tires are the better option.

    This is one of the number of vid's I came across today and I thought perhaps repesented the range of tasks I think seems would be the reality to a fellow like myself. You see a few instances where a moonlanders bigger shoes would be ideal but for the most part the regular pug seemed to fit the bill and not look out of place at all. Would the moonlander been the better choice? Hmm..maybe no besides riding the beach and the moors of which I have neither..


    Again...just thinking out loud..

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,190
    Quote Originally Posted by brassnipples View Post
    A quick glance at the specs confirms that, the ML is only about 10mm longer, and the rest of the measurements are really close with only the chainstay and seat tube angle potentially contributing to the lengthy feel. So maybe it is just the rimes/tires that change the feel, it would be really interesting to do a side-by-side with a Pug using the same wheels.

    Still, I'd say that off the shelf the Pugsley is the better all rounder.
    Assuming the front end geo is the same between the Pugs and the ML a larger tire [Larry vs. BFL] will have more pneumatic trail and also more gyroscopic stability which will affect the feeling of how it handles - as will extra wheelbase length.

    I like the ability to swap wheels back to front in the Pugs. The Pugs 17.5mm offset also plays nicer with narrower double walled rims like the Large Marge for summer use.

    Having said that if you gave me a Moonlander I'd ride it...

    If there really is no reason to choose a Pugs over a ML Surly could save a bunch of $$$ by simply offer the ML in two different trim levels and dropping the Pugsley entirely. It would simplify their product line and inventory. If every Surly fatbike sold was a ML the cost would come down through greater sales volume.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  20. #20
    I'm how far behind?
    Reputation: Soloracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    563

    I see no reason to

    I briefly looked at the pugs to save some coin. To me the benefits of the bigger footprint far out weigh the any perceived disadvantages of the offset. I bought it to be a snow bike, nothing less, nothing more. It is my second snow bike, (the first being a Moots that I'm hoping to sell off) so I know what to expect. Zero interest in making it a summer ride, I already have a nice fs and ss. Bought it for the 6-8 months that I look outside my window and see snow. It is hard to beat for a purpose built dedicated snow bike. Looked at the 9 zero 7s and the mukluk, they just didn't do anything for me.

    For me float is king and the ml offers the most. The pugs is a good ride, great value but the xtra mms were worth the $ to me. I doubt the pugs is going anywhere judging by the number I see going out the door of my lbs.
    Fatter than most.

  21. #21
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Soloracer View Post
    I briefly looked at the pugs to save some coin. To me the benefits of the bigger footprint far out weigh the any perceived disadvantages of the offset. I bought it to be a snow bike, nothing less, nothing more. It is my second snow bike, (the first being a Moots that I'm hoping to sell off) so I know what to expect. Zero interest in making it a summer ride, I already have a nice fs and ss. Bought it for the 6-8 months that I look outside my window and see snow. It is hard to beat for a purpose built dedicated snow bike. Looked at the 9 zero 7s and the mukluk, they just didn't do anything for me.

    For me float is king and the ml offers the most. The pugs is a good ride, great value but the xtra mms were worth the $ to me. I doubt the pugs is going anywhere judging by the number I see going out the door of my lbs.
    Jim-

    Drop me a line when you get a minute--curious what you're looking to sell (frame only? Whole bike?), how much, etc...

    info@lacemine29.com

    Cheers,

    MC

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    23
    My .002 - I am new to the Fat Bike experience and with that I choose the Moonlander. Why, it is the new kid on the block. Bigger, fatter, slower, but I have a huge smile on my face when I am riding it. At the time of purchase I chose the Moonlander over the Pug because it weights less and has more floatation/suspension. Do I need more floatation? I am not sure on this. Why you ask, I live in San Diego, CA. No snow in sight and the single track out my backdoor has over 1000' of elevation gain in 6 miles. You might say that this is the wrong bike, but the unbelievable traction that these tires give you enables me to just ride right up those loose trails. Heck I am having such a good time on this bike that I am installing racks so that I can run errands on it. Speed is not my thing. Another reason why I chose to by a Fat Bike. I was tired of everyone trying to race me to the top of the hill. Now they see the bike and most yell "Fat Bike!!" and all is fun again! What is really scary is, I am starting to catch people going up those hills. Where their spinning out I just ride on thru. All I can say is buy a Fat Bike you will be glad you did.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    41
    I was a spectator at the Frosty Bottom this year and the pug was very well represented. There were many fatbacks, 9:zero:7's and muks but the pugs outnumbered them all I think.
    Winds at the start were gusting up to 15 out of the nw, putting the windchill well below the 0 mark. We've had nearly 80" of snow but the trail conditions were superb. Tires of choice were the Larry in front and endo in the rear.
    I have a 2012, 907 with the above tire combo and this works for me. Anything bigger is for extreme conditions is my understanding.
    Hope this helps and doesn't confuse the issue.

  24. #24
    Moon Child
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by crh911s View Post
    I was a spectator at the Frosty Bottom this year and the pug was very well represented. There were many fatbacks, 9:zero:7's and muks but the pugs outnumbered them all I think.
    Winds at the start were gusting up to 15 out of the nw, putting the windchill well below the 0 mark. We've had nearly 80" of snow but the trail conditions were superb. Tires of choice were the Larry in front and endo in the rear.
    I have a 2012, 907 with the above tire combo and this works for me. Anything bigger is for extreme conditions is my understanding.
    Hope this helps and doesn't confuse the issue.
    Ride the ML so you see how superior the floation is. BFLs are not for extreme conditions, they for snow where more floation allows more speed, less resistence.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,032
    Only real disadvantage of the increased Moonlander offset is that it would make lacing a set of 29er wheels difficult. Moonlander has a slightly wider Q factor than the Pugsley, but it's not much.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The first year with the Surly Pugsley
    By Outsider in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-19-2013, 05:36 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-10-2011, 02:30 PM
  3. The first year with the Surly Pugsley
    By Outsider in forum Passion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 10-31-2011, 05:57 PM
  4. Non-offset forks on a Pugsley - why?
    By vikb in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-13-2010, 05:43 PM
  5. Need Pugsley / snow bike set up help
    By Bob the Wheelbuilder in forum Alaska
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-25-2005, 06:08 PM

Posting Permissions

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