Finally caving into going fat

[cackalak]

Ok, so it's been a long time since I first laid eyes on a fat bike back in 2007.  Always thought they would be fun to ride, but never could justify the cost vs. the actual usage it would get.  I wasn't really into bikepacking/touring at the time, but things have changed and my preference of how to spend time on the bike also evolved.  I think for the biking I do now, a fat bike would get more usage and would open up more doors for me, living in the high desert.

The bike I've always wanted was a Pugsley.  For two reasons:  1) Front to rear wheel interchangeability  2) Singlespeedability (goes back to reason #1).

So any reason NOT to go with a Pugsley?  I admit I am a bit fat-illiterate.  Seems everyone has fat bikes out now, including the big S and Mongoose.  What would really fit the bill for me would be something like this with extra cargo room:



But custom is out of the question.  In fact, a custom build-up from frame is also not feasible, despite all of my bikes in the garage being built up by me personally.  Too much time commitment elsewhere.

So, I am looking for a complete build.  Thanks for any inputs.

[Michael_S]

I'm kinda in the same boat as you... deciding it's time to go fat. I live an hour or so from Anza Borrego and just did my 1st bikepack there  thru Coyote Canyon and had a blast.

Besides the Pugsley the Salsa Mukluk looks like a great bike as well.  I'm waiting for the new Ritchey Commando which only comes as a frameset but ticks all the boxes for me... heat treated steel, vertical dropouts, the right braze-ons and great trail geometry.

mike

[Eastman]

I've been riding a Pugsley for 3 years now (the Necromancer version - i.e. it came with Rolling Darryls and a Moonlander fork plus a couple of other differences from a stock Pugs).  I use it for winter riding, bikepacking and more and more as my trail bike.  It is a truly versatile machine, which, given your intended use, should meet all your needs.  The ability to swap out the front wheel is a nice feature and if/when I ever go on a trip so remote or so long that I want that feature I will buy the offset fork for my bike and have the appropriate wheel built up.

Do I crave a carbon fibre sub-25 lb fatbike?  Sure do.  And I will own one soon enough.  But the Pugs will remain in the stable, perhaps reconfigured as a 29+.  Again, the beauty of a Pugsley.

[cackalak]

I like the Mukluk's as well.  They're a little lighter and Salsa is a solid brand.  However, I think the features on the Pug suits my needs a bit better.

I hadn't thought of the 29+ capability, but upon research, looks like 29x3" tires fit on the Pug (not Mukluk's, I believe).  Looks like that is the bike for me.  The new ones have fork cage mounts and couple of other things that seem useful.  Time to head down to my local shop.

[mountainjah]

Hey gang- I'm a Mukluk rider with the same wants/criteria as the OP. If I was getting a new fatty and considering Salsa or Surly, I'd focus on the Ice Cream Truck and the Blackburrow. Both solid rides, affordable and capable of tackling anything you might encounter. If you look beyond the big boys, it can be somewhat overwhelming. Lots of great resources out there to peruse. Rent/Demo one of these monsters is you can. No matter what rig you mount up on, you will smile.

http://surlybikes.com/bikes/ice_cream_truck_2015

http://salsacycles.com/bikes/blackborow

[bouldernick]

I bought myself a Surly Ice Cream Truck this fall and have loved every ride on it. Despite what Surly told me when I called, mine arrived with Anything Cage mounts on the fork (a big plus in my book). The geometry is great and it's a forward-thinking bike with its 44mm headtube, suspension-corrected geometry and thru-axles front and rear (I can buy a Rock Shox Bluto and don't need to buy a new front wheel). It rides like a mountain bike, with its modern geometry and the price was right for me.

I did replace the Guide brakes with Avid BB7 mechanicals. Otherwise I put on a pair of flat pedals, my preferred saddle and some Bar Mitts. Happy as a clam!

[Josh LaRue]

Just in case it does help, Salsa's site does say the mukluk will fit 29 x 3 tires.

[cackalak]

Thanks for all the inputs.  For those that are in the desert, what are your thoughts on 29+ tires?  In doing some more research and window shopping, I am curious about the ECR/Krampus.  Couple of advantages I see are (nothing major):

- Standard 100/135 spacing
- Standard 73mm BB (no wide q factor)

They seem like they'd be pretty fun as well.  Not sure how they'd do on sandy roads.

[dtb_social_club]

Can a pugsley be set up 27.5"? Haven't found anyone who has.

Also: https://gypsybytrade.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/pugsmorphology/

[Michael_S]

I think the new 650B+ tires on 50mm rims would be a great bikepacking setup.  There are only a few tires out now but more on the way.  The cool thing is that they are about the same diameter as   26x4" or 29x2.2" tires so they can go on either bike.   A lot of  29ers can fit the 2.8" tires in 650B+ and they will fit all fatbikes.   Tires range from 2.8" to 3.25" so far.

mike

[dtb_social_club]

Oh. Hah! It's just coming out. The Pugsley inspires the imagination.

I was discouraged by the Mukluk's faq section that shames you for even thinking about setting up the bike with 27.5".

[bmike-vt]

Really like my Krampus. Currently 2.35" running 45nrth studded tires on the rabbit holes. Really like the Knard for a bikepacking tire (mixed dirt road / trail) setup split tube tubeless. Can't wait to try a maxxis chronicle when they become available.

The ECR is more touring than MTB (although likely just as capable in the right situations). It has a lower BB compared to the Krampus - so if you want to run 2.4s you will be lower to the ground - might make a difference in techniCal terrain.

Sand? Knards on rabbit holes do ok on the packed stuff. Not anywhere neat the float of the Nates or the bigger 5" tires.


Lunch ride. Calm before the snowstorm. by mbeganyi, on Flickr

Love it as a bikepacking machine.


Krampus in its Element by mbeganyi, on Flickr

Just built a Rohloff wheel for it.

[Michael_S]

Oh. Hah! It's just coming out. The Pugsley inspires the imagination.

I was discouraged by the Mukluk's faq section that shames you for even thinking about setting up the bike with 27.5".

 they are referring to a 2.3"  or so 27.5 tire. The 650B+ ( same as 275+) are the same exact diameter as a 26 x4" tire so there will be no change in BB height. 

mike

[cackalak]

So to update, I ended up buying a Pugsley from a local shop.  The Blackborrow/ICT was very enticing!  But at over $1k price difference (thanks to $150 Surly coupon), I couldn't justify the Salsa.  Krampus was cool, too, as well as the ECR.  Took them around for a ride and definitely faster spin up than the Pug, despite the larger diameter wheels.

But for me, I think the Pug offers the best versatility for what I'll be doing.  When I wear out the current tires, I will probably spring for some 4.7" BFL's.  And I'd already been gathering some soft bags from the classifieds here.  Thanks for all the inputs.

[bmike-vt]

But for me, I think the Pug offers the best versatility for what I'll be doing.  When I wear out the current tires, I will probably spring for some 4.7" BFL's.  And I'd already been gathering some soft bags from the classifieds here.  Thanks for all the inputs.

I don't think you can run the BFLs in the Pugsley rear... maybe on the front if you have the model that shipped with the Moonlander fork (mine is old, so it has the old offset fork)


From here:

http://surlybikes.com/info_hole/spew/tire_clearance_and_your_surly_frame

[cackalak]

I've read multiple reports that they will work.  For instance:

http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/bfls-gfs-pugsley-734886.html

There may be some tire clearance issues, but if I do run into that, I'll probably end up spacing out the cassette and run it 7 or 8 sp.  I'm not going to be needing the 11-12 tooth cogs anyway!

But this is all pending that the stock 4" tires end up not working out.

[Hadfield]

IMO, gimmick to sell more bikes. They are heavy, slow and really the only reason to have one is if you are riding off-road in the winter. Cool bikes, but I think a waste of money.

[bmike-vt]

IMO, gimmick to sell more bikes. They are heavy, slow and really the only reason to have one is if you are riding off-road in the winter. Cool bikes, but I think a waste of money.

Definitley smoke and mirrors and marketing BS.

[Hadfield]

Exactly, and I live in northern Canada. Totally an ingenious marketing scheme that people are falling for.

[bmike-vt]

Exactly, and I live in northern Canada. Totally an ingenious marketing scheme that people are falling for.

They are totally after the wannabe snow adventure racers that live in places down south. In the winter they ride the fatbike with bags and insulated thermos bottles strapped on to the cafe instead wearing the Rapha kit and riding the carbon wonder bike to meet up with their shaved leg friends.

Pure marketing genius. Its so brilliant that its spawned a whole other subgroup to fill the coffers of the bike industrial complex. Insidious I tell you. Its working so well that I am likely to trade in my Pugsley and go even fatter for an Ice Cream Truck. I mean, I should be able to float on water with those tires.




FWIW, they can be quite light, a recently built Ice Cream Truck weighed just a few pounds more than my stock Fargo. And the carbon bikes from Salsa and the smaller makers can be crazy light. If you really think they are slow and heavy you haven't spent any time on one. They clearly need to up their marketing game to get inside your head.

Once you go fat... you sell your Fargo and go 29+ and then want to sell your Pugsley for a Blackbarrow or Ice Cream Truck.