Stock Pugs- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Stock Pugs

  1. #1
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,332

    Stock Pugs

    Now I see why they are called "Fat"

    37lbs stock out of the box.



    It is interesting to ride and I will see if I think it can compete with 29" wheels on more rocky and trail type terrain.

    Pretty nice package out of the box. I generally like the spec and the full length housing. The lowest gear on the cassette is 32t which is sorta dumb for this bike IMO.

    No other comment except dang it's heavy and the cranks are stupidly designed with razors on the side for your ankles.






    The price is right and the bike appears to be strong, cheap, and uh, cheap

    Is there any easy way to get this thing down to the 30 lb range, or is it just the nature of these bikes to be..um, portly?

    To add another perspective: This thing is soo heavy, as I was commuting home, climbing a decent road grade near our house, my 10yo came down the hill on his bike to greet me. We both "tested" each other a little, on the 1/2 mile climb back up the hill, soon enough, we were both going at maximum pace climbing pace, just blowing up. He beat me.....barely. He is getting stronger and all, but usually there would be no contest in a climb.

    E
    Last edited by Enel; 07-24-2011 at 03:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,516
    Easiest/cheapest way to get a big chunk of weight off is to change tubes. I use Qtubes 26x2.4 without issue. Made a nice difference for under $15!
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountfargo.com

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    47
    Technically it is a 29er. Measure the wheels

  4. #4
    Just Ride!
    Reputation: Pigtire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    806
    I run an 8spd 11-30. Not bad for some beach riding. I use a 11-28 8spd XT on my 29er, I just got used to it.
    Last edited by Pigtire; 07-14-2011 at 01:33 PM.

  5. #5
    A Surly Maverick
    Reputation: Dr Feelygood !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,623
    Hi Enel

    Thought you might make it over to the FATSIDE from the 29er board.

    The Pug IS a great bike and is Portly by nature.

    Lightness is not it`s middle name and the frame itself is steel.

    Weight loss can be achieved with the liberal application of $$$, but if you really want lighter you should look at other Aluminium frames and not the Pug .........

    BUT for smiles per $ the Pug can`t be beat !

    Cheers,
    Dr FG
    Life IS a Beach and then you Corrode :)

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7daysaweek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post
    Is there any easy way to get this thing down to the 30 lb range, or is it just the nature of these bikes to be..um, portly?

    E
    You could SS it. My SS one is about 33. That's with heavy brakes, a brooks, and heavy-ish crankset so there's room for more weight savings. You might be able to get to 30.

    You could also drill the rims. I hear that saves significant weight.

  7. #7
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,332
    Quote Originally Posted by 7daysaweek View Post
    You could SS it. My SS one is about 33. That's with heavy brakes, a brooks, and heavy-ish crankset so there's room for more weight savings. You might be able to get to 30.

    You could also drill the rims. I hear that saves significant weight.
    SS is definitely in its future if I decide to stay Fat and asymmetric. For the near future, there are a lot of folks who want to demo/borrow it so I will leave the gears on.

    This bike is to test the following:

    Do I like fat tires for technical trail riding?

    Can I tolerate a 100mm BB spacing?

    I can tell you from one short ride that these wheels are shockingly effective in loose sand. Wow.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sonoran pug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    22
    Hi Enel ,I thought I noticed Pugs tracks around Prescott that weren't Mine !
    Glad to see another fat bike in Arizona. I am running 20t-36t granny on My Pugs and it
    helps get the 38 lbs. up the hills. Just takes a bit longer !

  9. #9
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,694
    Congrats man!
    Very curious to see your thoughts on your rock riding. I had a blast testing out that fat front!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    494
    Imo gearing is so important with a fatbike. I ran Middleburn 20/30/40 and loved the combination, but decided I hadn't thrown enough money at my Pugs yet so bought a Rohloff ( heavy and expensive but worth it imo ) I'm now running 17-90 g.i. Very little effort climbing with 17g.i. It's slow, but you get there.

    btw, with one spare tube and no tools my Pugs comes in at a svelte 46.6 lbs. With basic tools I'm estimating 49, and with my Revelate bag coming in soon I figure it will be 53+ lbs without h2o or anything in the bag. About technical climbing. imo a stock Pugs/fatbike may not be the best for that, but you can tune them with a lot of thought and money to perform very well.

    Back to the weight issue. You will get used the weight over time. Just get the the right gearing and you should have no worries.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    If it wasn't I had to lift mine over fences, I wouldn't care about the weight. You simply don't notice it on the bike.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  12. #12
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,332
    Quote Originally Posted by sonoran pug View Post
    Hi Enel ,I thought I noticed Pugs tracks around Prescott that weren't Mine !
    Those weren't mine. There is a Mukluk around here somewhere
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  13. #13
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    You simply don't notice it on the bike.
    I have to say that just fooling around on the thing, I haven't noticed it much. Wheelies and track stands very nicely.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  14. #14
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post
    Now I see why they are called "Fat"...37lbs stock out of the box...it's heavy...is it just the nature of these bikes to be..um, portly?...
    That's no way to talk about a lady, show us yer abs mr. 4% body fat

  15. #15
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,332
    First Dirt:

    Let me be honest and say why I bought a Pugsley: I am fat-curious.

    I have no doubt in my mind (especially after riding one) that these sorts of bikes simply dominate in situations requiring lots of flotation. I personally don't get in many situations where the flotation is really needed. The question for me, then, is: How to fat bikes perform as all around trail bikes?

    I have been spinning along just fine on my 29 inch wheels for some time now and am very happy with them for overall trail riding purposes. I am also reasonably dedicated to the rigid mountain bike as one of the more fun trail contraptions ever made.

    My admittedly biased hypothesis going into this is that Fat bikes are superb niche bikes excelling in situations requiring flotation, but not necessarily the best tool for the job in other situations.

    So what is the ultimate unsuspended trail bike? 29", full fat? Fat front? I am going to try to find out that answer for me.

    I shortened the stem and installed a bash ring on the Pugs, set the psi to 8 front and rear, then hit the trails.

    <iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/26513361?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" frameborder="0" height="600" width="800"></iframe>

    Climbing, the weight was pretty noticeable but not particularly annoying. I did stall out unexpectedly on some steeper obstacles. The only thing that annoyed me was the lack of traction for the rear endomorph on loose over hardpack. I dropped the pressure to around 4-5 and saw no significant improvement. Most of my knobbly 29" tires have much better traction. In this situation, flotation is a negative. It broke loose in an interesting way in that it didn't lose traction as suddenly as a skinnier wheel, it broke a bit and gave plenty of warning so it was easy to control.

    Time to hit some obstacles:
    <iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/26513150?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" frameborder="0" height="600" width="800"></iframe>

    I found the weight of the wheels pulling me sometimes into lines I didn't necessarily choose, but it didn't seem to matter because whatever they pulled me into, they also usually got me out of.

    The Pugsley "rides small" and I thought handled quite nicely, neither too nervous, nor overyly blah.

    Climbing moves were harder for sure. There is no denying the weight. Downhill slow loose tech was about the same to a little easier than 29" hoops.

    <iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/26513177?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" frameborder="0" height="600" width="800"></iframe>

    Bashing through rough rocky downhills was a hoot. It is absolutely still a rigid bike, but pretty idiot proof.

    <iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/26513120?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" frameborder="0" height="600" width="800"></iframe>

    I didn't pinch flat although I am sure I hit the rim a couple times since I did not raise the rear pressure from about 4psi until the end of the ride. I wasn't going real fast though so I got away with it. I have one small bit of Endomorph sidewall showing some fibers after this ride.

    Never once did I run out of braking traction on the front. Considering how loose it is, I was favorably impressed.

    The bike acquitted itself well in rolling sections. It was confidence inspiring, but still felt pretty slow, even downhill.

    <iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/26513222?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" frameborder="0" height="600" width="800"></iframe>

    While we were riding, my son commented on a couple sandy sections. I didn't even notice them. Now he wants fatter tires for his bike

    Conclusions? None really, but a couple early thoughts forming:

    1. Most of the benefit for trail riding seems to be coming from the front. I have a fat front on the way for the Jones, so more on that later I guess.

    2. These are very heavy, yet very capable bikes.

    3. I wonder how the tires and wheels will hold up to technical terrain/riding? This is not putzing along through snow/sand. A reliable source has told me that offset wheels simply will not hold up to this treatment, and if I want stay in fat land, I will eventually need a symmetric set up for durability.

    Last edited by Enel; 07-16-2011 at 02:33 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    Enel; thanks for the effort you put into this thread, well written and I enjoyed
    the videos, helping me form my own ideas.

    Glad to see that another tread design and an increased size is on the way;
    more decisions.

  17. #17
    Really I am that slow
    Reputation: SlowerThenSnot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,777

    Good job!

    Thanks a ton for the post E
    Read my BLOG!

    just a guy who loves bikes and exploring

  18. #18
    Black Sheep rising
    Reputation: utabintarbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    917
    Re: Endo traction... This may be a case where a little MORE air would improve traction. I generally run a bit more pressure for similar conditions (loose over hardpack). And there's always the option of a Larry....
    Let the market decide!

    N42.58 W83.06

  19. #19
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,332
    Quote Originally Posted by utabintarbo View Post
    Re: Endo traction... This may be a case where a little MORE air would improve traction. I generally run a bit more pressure for similar conditions (loose over hardpack). And there's always the option of a Larry....
    Thanks for the tip I will try it today.

    A Larry would certainly be better, but I am running what was brung with the bike
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  20. #20
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    There are other tire options, I have Hookworms and Dissents which make a better hardpack tires than L or E.

    I have not noticed any problems with my stock wheels and I have rode them pretty hard at times. With the SC32 up front now its like butttah.

    BTW most of us are riding bikes that are north of 40lbs sans gear. You should get a couple of 5lb weights and ride with those for as long as it takes.
    Last edited by scottybinwv; 07-18-2011 at 03:12 PM.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    39
    Good on ya for testing tire pressures. These bikes change their characteristics significantly with just a change in a few PSI. I roll 12-15 PSI on Midwest trails and, from my experience, the traction is phenomenal compared to the 29'er I ride. Larrys on both ends really help. I like the Endo in the rear in softer conditions. Beach yesterday and I was at 8 in the rear and 7 in the front.
    I am a co-owner of Schlick Cycles.

  22. #22
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,332
    Second Dirt:

    I had a superb three hour trail ride in all conditions today. Here are a few thoughts few conclusions. Caveat: Forget about flotation, this is a review of the Pugsley as a trail bike. Excellence in the areas requiring flotation is a given, but that is not what I use this bike for.

    Adding air to the Endo did little to improve its marginal climbing traction. No big deal for seated low gear climbing if I kept my weight on it. It would suck as a single speed tire for my conditions.

    I was pleasantly surprised to hear a sound reminiscent of the original Enterprise's warp drive while rolling fast on a short paved section.

    Climbing this thing is glacial. The rotational weight is immense. I had not measured the weight, so I did tonight post ride compared to my usual rigid set up:

    Front Pugsley (Surly hub, Large Marge DH, Surly Toob Larry, 160 rotor) = 8.3lbs(3790gm)

    Front Jones (Fatback 135 hub, Flow, Bonti FR3 tubeless) = 4.7lbs(2130gm)

    For comparison, I just got a Fat Front Jones (Fatback 135, LM DH, Larry, Bonti 2.5 tube) = 7.4 lbs (3370 gms)

    In steep climbs, I found myself stalling on water bars that usually would be easily dealt with. Yes I'm weak, harden up, etc...

    Downhill, the wheels take forever to spin up. They are forgiving, but require a lot of work to throw around. The bike felt like a very heavy rigid bike with a little more cush as I took it down my favorite fast steep downhill.

    I found the wheels were at their best at high speeds in small loose choppy stuff where you usually bounce off line pretty badly on a rigid, or even on suspension sometimes as the 2-4" rocks slide and move around under you The fat wheels were unflappable in that situation. I guess they just float through

    The tires also drifted nicely in loose over hard. Super controllable.

    My conclusion is that I find the wheels ponderous and not particularly advantageous for most of my trail riding situations. In almost every trail situation I have thrown them into, they are no better than a decent 29 inch set up. They do not seem to offer any advantage over what I currently ride except in a few, isolated trail situations.

    If I all I wanted was some cush, I feel a 3 inch suspension 29er outperforms fat tires easily in almost every trail situation. A bike like this weighs in around 25-30 lbs btw.

    A 37 lb suspension bike would crush the fat bike's performance in every way except simplicity for trail use.

    I don't need the cush, I don't need the flotation, I don't want to deal with weight that does no enhance performance on the trail. This bike is for sale locally because I don't want to ship it, but if you are interested let me know.



    The good news is that the 100mm BB seems to be no big deal, I never noticed any difference from my usual ride. If I ever do another custom frame, it will surely have a 100mm BB and clearance for fatties. With a spare fat wheelset, I am certain I would find a use for it occasionally.

    In the mean time, I just installed this:




    We'll see if it is a good use of an extra 2.7 lbs of rotating weight. Will put thoughts in another thread.

    Night all.
    Last edited by Enel; 07-19-2011 at 07:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  23. #23
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,596
    Interesting thoughts. I don't have a whole lot of saddle time with my Pugs on proper trails, but I have really enjoyed it offroad. I have ridden the same trails on a Karate Monkey (both rigid, ss and front suspension with gears) and a Kona Bear. The Pugs is definitely slower on the way up, but as long as I am not trying to push my speed I find the climb enjoyable. It may just be placebo effect, but it feels more efficient than the Bear did on the way up.

    As for the descent, I think it kills the KM. I feel far less beat up on trails with lots of stutter bumps. I would definitely agree with you that the thing floats over loose, choppy surfaces. The Pugs was as enjoyable on the descent as the Bear which had been my best descending bike to date (SC Bullit was slower due to unneeded travel on these particular trails).

    Thanks for the detailed and honest comments

  24. #24
    Jacob 34:19
    Reputation: JAKEtheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    505
    Thanks for taking the time to post this Enel. It's great insight, all of it. I'll be interested to know how the fat front compares.

  25. #25
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post



    We'll see if it is a good use of an extra 2.7 lbs of rotating weight. Will put thoughts in another thread.
    I'll just add my fat front review to this thread since it is pretty short:

    I am entirely underwhelmed by the Fat front for trail use. Yes, there is a little more cush. No, it is not at all as comfy as riding suspension. Yes, it is fun on the DH, but the combination is 1200 grams heavier than my usual set up. The bike just loses a lot of its personality and funness. It is great for bashing through stuff. Traction is no better than a standard tire on our very loose over hard terrain although the fat seems to break free with more warning.

    My quick conclusions (I like to jump to conclusions)

    1. If one is looking for a cushy/controlled ride primarily: it is no match for well a set up suspension fork. It is way heavier (rotational weight too!) to boot.
    2. If one is looking for more performance out of a rigid bicycle: it isn't that much of an improvement over a 29" rigid set up. If one rode without any finesse at all, the fatty is more comfortable. But at what cost? It is absolutely punishing on climbs, and pays minimal dividends on the downhills. It is possible it would be worth it to me if I could keep it with-in say 4-600gms of my usual set up.

    Another way to look at it is if someone offered me the best tire on earth for rigid riding, but said it weighed in at 2200gms as opposed to the ~900 gm tires I usually ride, I would pass every time.

    I loaned the wheel to a buddy here (also on a Jones) who is a rigid rider extraordinaire, and just a super strong rider in every possible way. One ride for him and he was done with it. "I can't hold my line in corners" "I wanted to kill myself in the climbs" "It wasn't much more comfortable than my usual set up."

    Fact is, I just can't get over the performance/weight quotient. The performance is simply not there to justify the massive weight increase IMO. I am near enough to maxed out performance wise as it is, and this engine is not getting any bigger.

    I am going to keep this wheel around, however. It is so simple to swap out, and it is fun in its own way, but I can never see it as my main ride. It may grow on me with time, but I am doubtful of that right now

    As always, your mileage may vary, these are my impressions from my trails, and fatties are not for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,171
    Interesting observations. It really comes down to no compromise. Full fat or nothing.

    I think sticking a fatty on the front of a 29er only gives about 30% of the benefit. You've got to ride more or less 29er style otherwise you'll beat the rear wheel to death. I feel the 29er rear wheel momentarily hangs up on obstacles that wouldn't bother a fat rear wheel, so the bike feels clumsy.

    That's a subjective opinion, but based on me having tried it on 2 different makes of 29er, including in a 12 hour race, and having owned 2 different makes of full fat bike.

    There's no getting away from the rotational weight penalty (yet), but sometimes it's useful for steamroller riding.

    My opinion is that what it may take away on the climbs, it returns in spades on the downs. I am descending far faster than I am usually comfortable with on a rigid bike.

    Just thought: did you try different tyre pressures? When I raced my half-fat, I found I had to drop the pressure from what I had thought was ok to get good handling. A couple of psi in a fat makes a lot of difference. I also set my bikes up with short forks to steepen the steering head angle which helps minimise the flat tyre steering feel you get on a bike with slack angles. (Makes a huge difference to feel - anyone who has ridden mine is amazed at how light they steer)

    BTW I'm convinced enough by fat wheels that my lovely Ti 29er is in the process of becoming my road bike
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

Similar Threads

  1. crap shifting in stock pugs
    By bmike in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-01-2011, 11:18 AM
  2. KM plus Pugs
    By green mt. boy in forum Surly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-16-2008, 04:59 AM
  3. Post your budget (<$800) Stock/Near Stock Hardtail!
    By cmktech in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 01-27-2007, 08:39 PM
  4. Pugs, pugs everywhere
    By tedsti in forum Surly
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-13-2006, 08:42 AM
  5. Stock/Non-Stock Ano colors for 06 Flux?
    By bigiron in forum Turner
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-19-2006, 07:18 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.