Surly Ice Cream Truck versus Surly Moonlander- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 38 of 38
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    20

    Surly Ice Cream Truck versus Surly Moonlander

    If you didn't own a fat bike, which of these two bikes would you buy?

    Ice Cream Truck or Moonlander?

    Why?

  2. #2
    I'm how far behind?
    Reputation: Soloracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinnie Barbarino View Post
    If you didn't own a fat bike, which of these two bikes would you buy?

    Ice Cream Truck or Moonlander?

    Why?
    Depends on your needs. Pure snow adventure bike - Moonlander. Year around toy - ICT

    You will appreciate the geometry of the moony when you are several hours into a snow ride and you will appreciate the geometry of ICT when you are railing dirt trails. Or at least that is my understanding, I have never ridden the ICT but have riddent thousands of miles on my moony on snow. You can do everything on both but if you but the one for your priorities, you wont find your self wishing for something different. I don't ride my moony on dirt, I have other bikes better suited and much more fun for that.
    Fatter than most.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kris7047th's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    286
    Good for Surly for understanding there is a need for multi purposes fat-bikes and to hone in on improving the performances for all. Everyone's situations, conditions, physical size & strengths vary. And .. not everyone who wants a fat bike is a guy.
    IMO .. the more choices we have the better off we will be.

    ...............................

    And I just saw this on Facebook ..

    Surly Ice Cream Truck versus Surly Moonlander-1524722_668455166550453_2103969428_n.jpg


    "Full suspension fat-bike at NAHBS. Using a proven rear suspension design from Dave Levy at Ti Cycles, a version of this bike will be available in limited production down the trail a bit."

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,759
    Moonlander, because I am a hub-snob, and you can get great 135 hubs much cheaper than 190 hubs.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    337
    It's hard to compare a moonlander to a bike that hasn't been released. The moonlander lets you switch front and back wheels and has a proven track record of solid performance. I just wish it was a little longer in the top tube.

    If the question is whether you should get a moonlander now or wait for an ice cream truck then I would say to look at other 190mm frame options. The ice cream truck is coming with a press fit bb and will be between $2,400 and $2,700 depending on the version you want. There is a lot of competition in that price range and you may be able to find a better value in another brand. Also, while I like the idea of a longer top tube on the ice cream truck, I can't overlook the press fit bottom bracket so it will be a no go for me.

    OP, is there a reason you are limiting your search to these two bikes?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kris7047th's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    286
    Just wondering why Surly went with the press fit BB ??

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by ntm1973 View Post
    OP, is there a reason you are limiting your search to these two bikes?
    I am not limiting my search to these two bikes.

    I just want a better understanding of the differences between these two bikes.

    In other words, I want to understand the advantages of the Ice Cream Truck compared to the Moonlander. Likewise, I want to understand the advantages of the Moonlander compared to the Ice Cream Truck.

    The advantages and disadvantages of each bike is not clear to me because I am a novice.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by kris7047th View Post
    Just wondering why Surly went with the press fit BB ??
    Unlike the maybe 900 other manufactures that went to PF for no real apparent reason, in this case it is to use a proprietary BB for very wide crank arm spread. It could be a real problem if the proprietary parts aren't long lasting, but not really just because of the PF part.

    Who knows without riding the thing, but I'd guess the slacker GEO might be easier to keep on line at speed (ICT). This winter the ability to stay in the skinny path has been the factor between riding and walking many times for me. Many times it has meant much more than traction to propel.

  9. #9
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinnie Barbarino View Post
    If you didn't own a fat bike, which of these two bikes would you buy?

    Ice Cream Truck or Moonlander?

    Why?
    I'd get the Ice Cream Truck. The main reason that i sold my Pugsley was the geometry. The ICT's slackened head and st angles address that and make it more like a proper mountain bike than a tarted up and fattened touring bike. Now, if they could just do something about weight and frame flex...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    122
    I really like the geo of the ice cream truck - for any kind of riding, including snow, where the slacker head angle should calm the front's tendency to wander down a bit. It's following the general trend in mountain bikes over the last few years, and should be a bit more stable and calmer to ride.

    On the other hand, I have a rear wheel in my moonie built around a rohloff, which I'd hate to give up. Other parts I can't swap over include a custom phil's BB to get the cranks where they need to be, and my fat lefty's clamps fit a 1 1/8" head tube, which wouldn't fit the ICT. And I'm plenty happy with the moonlander - I don't see a reason to upgrade for me.

    If I was buying new and didn't want an IGH I'd get an ICT.

  11. #11
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,711

    Re: Surly Ice Cream Truck versus Surly Moonlander

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    Now, if they could just do something about weight and frame flex...
    I dunno... 34 lbs isn't THAT heavy for a stock steel fat bike. My Moonlander is 36 and I really don't even notice it.

    Lots of good pics of the ICT here: http://prollyisnotprobably.com/2014/...uck-fatbike/#1
    ...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

  12. #12
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    I dunno... 34 lbs isn't THAT heavy for a stock steel fat bike. My Moonlander is 36 and I really don't even notice it.

    Lots of good pics of the ICT here: Frostbike 2014: Surly?s New Ice Cream Truck Fatbike - PROLLY IS NOT PROBABLY
    My 22" pugsley weighed 37 pounds, my 21" 9:Zero:7 weighed 33, using most of the same components, it's now down to 31, with a goal of <29.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Big thing is, the ICT doesn't exist yet. So it is simultaneously the greatest bike ever (STEEL! 190! AGGRESSIVE!) and the worst bike ever (OMG, PRESS FIT IS TEH SUCK! SURLY IS SELLING OUT! IT'S A BOAT ANCHOR!). And it will stay that way until it's released and someone gets a couple hundred miles on it and can say what those numbers actually add up to.

    It is pointless to guess what it's really like. You can look at the numbers, you can look at the components and get an idea, but none of that means anything until you can swing a leg over it and try it for yourself.

    I've talked to folks who knew that they wanted a moonlander because OMG GIANT TIRES, took one out for a ride and got something else. Because the numbers and the online experts mean nothing until you see if it works for you.

    so, don't even worry about it.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133

    Re: Surly Ice Cream Truck versus Surly Moonlander

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    I'd get the Ice Cream Truck. The main reason that i sold my Pugsley was the geometry. The ICT's slackened head and st angles address that and make it more like a proper mountain bike than a tarted up and fattened touring bike. Now, if they could just do something about weight and frame flex...
    Interesting. One of the things that has compelled me to stay with my Pugsley is the geometry. Feels just about perfect to me. Another reason I've stayed is because I really appreciate the compliant ride quality (flex).

    I've ridden what you're calling proper MTB geo, and they've never felt as capable on very technical trails and the chunk as the old Pugsley does:




    Yep, even with a stem longer than 50mm and bars that are narrower than 5 feet. Guess it just depends on where and how you ride.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    67
    I have a Moonlander, and have been told I ride it like a BMX bike. I was interested in seeing the ICT when it was announced. My LBS told me that everyone that rode it at the trade show loved it, and it was much more playful that the Moonlander. But he also said, because of the way I ride my Moonlander, the ICT might be too twitchy and jumpy for my tastes/style. Yes, I do ride my Moonlander all year.

  16. #16
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,812
    oh crap texting and interweb don't mix.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    407
    I can rail dirt pretty well on my Moonlander...and Chris King makes 135 hubs....not 190's....so yeah there's that.
    Climbing Builds Character

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,095

    Re: Surly Ice Cream Truck versus Surly Moonlander

    Quote Originally Posted by sgtstretch View Post
    it was much more playful that the Moonlander. But he also said, because of the way I ride my Moonlander, the ICT might be too twitchy and jumpy for my tastes/style.
    Doesn't the ICT have a slacker head angle and longer wheelbase? How is that more playful? Why would it be more twitchy or jumpy?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    67

    Surly Ice Cream Truck versus Surly Moonlander

    Quote Originally Posted by matto6 View Post
    Doesn't the ICT have a slacker head angle and longer wheelbase? How is that more playful? Why would it be more twitchy or jumpy?
    The ICT is supposed to have a trail geometry, versus the Moonlander's stable adventure/cargo bike geometry. I haven't looked at the numbers to see the actually differences.

  20. #20
    Rocking on a Rocky
    Reputation: RockyJo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,579
    ICT cuz it is blue.

  21. #21
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,812
    Quote Originally Posted by matto6 View Post
    Doesn't the ICT have a slacker head angle and longer wheelbase? How is that more playful? Why would it be more twitchy or jumpy?
    I agree, especially if it is modeled after the Krampus which they are labeling it. To me the ML is twitchy and the slacker HT angle and longer wheelbase should make the ICT a little more stable. Of course this is mostly all vaporware right now but still fun to talk about.

  22. #22
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    Interesting. One of the things that has compelled me to stay with my Pugsley is the geometry. Feels just about perfect to me. Another reason I've stayed is because I really appreciate the compliant ride quality (flex).

    I've ridden what you're calling proper MTB geo, and they've never felt as capable on very technical trails and the chunk as the old Pugsley does:




    Yep, even with a stem longer than 50mm and bars that are narrower than 5 feet. Guess it just depends on where and how you ride.
    a good part of my issues with the Pugsley's geometry stem from the fact that i'm 6'8" tall, built like a linebacker and weigh +260 pounds. with a proper fit, my seat is 46-1/2" high and my CoG is higher yet. I feel like I had a lot of mass centered over the front axle and found it difficult to move around on the bike to finesse my body weight. I went OTB more times than I care to mention on technical descents and that, combined with the flex made the bike feel less than confidence inspiring. With my 9:Zero:7, I have no such issues and a KS Lev mitigates them further. I feel considerably more comfortable on dh sections and I appreciate the stiffness and "snap" that the alu frame delivers.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    72
    I bought a Moonlander in desperation to ride this winter, now it is the only bike I want to ride. Such fun, simple, and enjoyable ride.

  24. #24
    Ride good on the internet
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    Big thing is, the ICT doesn't exist yet. So it is simultaneously the greatest bike ever (STEEL! 190! AGGRESSIVE!) and the worst bike ever (OMG, PRESS FIT IS TEH SUCK! SURLY IS SELLING OUT! IT'S A BOAT ANCHOR!). And it will stay that way until it's released and someone gets a couple hundred miles on it and can say what those numbers actually add up to.

    It is pointless to guess what it's really like. You can look at the numbers, you can look at the components and get an idea, but none of that means anything until you can swing a leg over it and try it for yourself.

    I've talked to folks who knew that they wanted a moonlander because OMG GIANT TIRES, took one out for a ride and got something else. Because the numbers and the online experts mean nothing until you see if it works for you.

    so, don't even worry about it.

    I was typing basically this in my head as I was reading the thread.


    You beat me to it. I'll get you one of these days. Mark my words.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Pancake Adventure View Post
    I was typing basically this in my head as I was reading the thread.


    You beat me to it. I'll get you one of these days. Mark my words.
    Could be worse... you should watch roadies argue about the massive difference that 25m tires make over 23mm tires...

  26. #26
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,366
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    Could be worse... you should watch roadies argue about the massive difference that 25m tires make over 23mm tires...
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    a good part of my issues with the Pugsley's geometry stem from the fact that i'm 6'8" tall, built like a linebacker and weigh +260 pounds. with a proper fit, my seat is 46-1/2" high and my CoG is higher yet. I feel like I had a lot of mass centered over the front axle and found it difficult to move around on the bike to finesse my body weight. I went OTB more times than I care to mention on technical descents and that, combined with the flex made the bike feel less than confidence inspiring. With my 9:Zero:7, I have no such issues and a KS Lev mitigates them further. I feel considerably more comfortable on dh sections and I appreciate the stiffness and "snap" that the alu frame delivers.
    You fit comfortably on a 9Zero7? I'm 6'8" and test road both a XL Moonlander and XL 907. After swapping the stem on the Moonlander, it was much more comfortable. The 907 had way to short of a reach and adding a longer stem was just going to unbalance the ride.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    954
    Not a fan of pressfit bb but that's just me. Do dig the look of the ICT which seems a little more "evolved" in the fat bike genre where some is making more trail-ish fatties. Spez and Nikolai comes to mind and seems that's where the ICT is headed as well.

    Having said.. already on a ML and all it just takes a few setup changes where I have been hammering it out with the 6" suspension folks... Trail worthy? Ya bet.

    Maybe all I want would be to get the ICT fork when it becomes available separately and plug it into the ML...

  29. #29
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by sgtstretch View Post
    You fit comfortably on a 9Zero7? I'm 6'8" and test road both a XL Moonlander and XL 907. After swapping the stem on the Moonlander, it was much more comfortable. The 907 had way to short of a reach and adding a longer stem was just going to unbalance the ride.
    It fits fairly well for me, although I wouldn't mind a longer seat tube. with a standard, 400mm post, we were about 25mm short of getting a perfect fit. I've currently for it set up with a 70mm stem and a 435mm KS Lev seat post and I'm really enjoying the ride. If I could build a custom frame, I'd love a 23" seat tube, with the same ETT length and a 25mm shorter head tube, raked out another degree. That would be ideal for me.
    Last edited by Gigantic; 03-27-2014 at 07:51 AM.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    a good part of my issues with the Pugsley's geometry stem from the fact that i'm 6'8" tall, built like a linebacker and weigh +260 pounds. with a proper fit, my seat is 46-1/2" high and my CoG is higher yet. I feel like I had a lot of mass centered over the front axle and found it difficult to move around on the bike to finesse my body weight. I went OTB more times than I care to mention on technical descents and that, combined with the flex made the bike feel less than confidence inspiring. With my 9:Zero:7, I have no such issues and a KS Lev mitigates them further. I feel considerably more comfortable on dh sections and I appreciate the stiffness and "snap" that the alu frame delivers.
    Seems like the bike is too small for you. I'm 6 inches shorter than you, and I ride an XL 22" Pug comfortably. Perhaps the XXL 24" Moonlander would fit you better.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: marathon marke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    Seems like the bike is too small for you. I'm 6 inches shorter than you, and I ride an XL 22" Pug comfortably. Perhaps the XXL 24" Moonlander would fit you better.
    I agree. I'm 6'1' and I wouldn't want to ride anything smaller than my Xl Moonlander.
    - Mark Ehlers
    The Prodigal Cyclist

  32. #32
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    nah, it fits perfectly, except for the seat tube. The ETT length is actually longer than my former 22" pugsley. With a 435mm KS Lev and a 70mm -7 stem, I've managed to get a perfect fit.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    57
    Is it reasonable to expect that the ICT will accommodate a 29+ setup? Seems like you could get two bikes in one, and with similar geometry to the Krampus, that could be very fun!

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    60
    Why would the ICT be better as a "year round toy" and the Moonlander not be as good on non-snow surfaces. How do the different geometries affect the ride? Thanks.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    19
    So...now that the ICT has been released is anyone willing to weigh in on this topic from experience rather than spreadsheet speculation?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,498
    one bike, one set of giant rims and tires all year long. nun said. whats this the road bike forum lol
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ADKMTNBIKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    728
    August 4th. Have ridden ICT exclusively for 6 months while nearly brand new 29er HT sits. ICT loves ALL trails. Single track, groomed single track, gravel roads, steep hills with roots, rock faces, frozen lakes, etc. It's kinda just like the 29er in a lot of ways. Just with giant tires. Bud/Knard both 4.8. This bike is a dream come true. It goes everywhere with style and is really fun ta boot.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yoreskillz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    302
    3+ years and my Moonlander would still be my choice. Why? For me, Rohloff. It has been trouble-free, year round in all weather types and terrain. For the 3rd year in a row I did our local Bike MS event (Century) on it, though this year I had 54 1-lb steel weights in my framebag for every mile and then some.

    Road, dirt, gravel, sand, snow....it does everything I desire!

Similar Threads

  1. Surly Ice Cream Truck
    By non-conformist in forum Surly
    Replies: 1284
    Last Post: 05-02-2020, 11:09 AM
  2. Need advice: transmission for Surly Moonlander
    By Nitatunarabe in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-06-2014, 01:52 AM
  3. Surly Moonlander
    By raspadoo in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-29-2013, 03:10 PM
  4. Surly Moonlander FS - Massachusetts
    By VTFargo in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2012, 01:02 PM
  5. New Surly - Moonlander
    By Thor29 in forum Surly
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 08-08-2011, 04:31 AM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.