# surly pugsley



## messofzero (Jul 8, 2005)

so i think surly, i think singlespeed forum, but im not really sure if the pugsley is a single speed frame. anywho...

i was checking this bike out on the surly site and its cooler than hell. 4" tires on a skinny steel frame like that makes me weak in the knees. any word on this bike? said something about coming out in july, i dont know which july but if it was last july, surely one of you anti-gear-o's would have picked this up by now.

shed some light on a boy in the dark.


----------



## messofzero (Jul 8, 2005)

goo! i love this noise.


----------



## dansjustchillin (Apr 8, 2004)

according to surly, the pugsley fork is spaced at 135mm. what hub are you running on that?


----------



## SpinWheelz (May 3, 2004)

Their blog says that the framesets have come in. Probably a few days 'til they start showing up on QBP online catalogs.

Good Lord, does that bike mess with your eyes.


----------



## xrmattaz (Jan 12, 2004)

*Upright.*

That there's the one you shoulda bought, Desi.

Like a Weeble (tm).



SpinWheelz said:


> Their blog says that the framesets have come in. Probably a few days 'til they start showing up on QBP online catalogs.
> 
> Good Lord, does that bike mess with your eyes.


----------



## Hollywood (Dec 30, 2003)

*135mm f & r*

the front end takes a "rear" wheel as well. And you can mount a different sized freewheel or cog up front and change gearing by swapping wheels  As long as the range isn't too drastic.

Google Image search:
http://images.google.com/images?q=surly+pugsley&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images


----------



## Meat Foot (Jan 14, 2004)

messofzero said:


> goo! i love this noise.


Why does it need a thudbuster?


----------



## messofzero (Jul 8, 2005)

Meat Foot said:


> Why does it need a thudbuster?


whoever owns that bike must have a prostate like a rotten peach.

god, i want one so bad. not the sensitive prostate, the bike.


----------



## messofzero (Jul 8, 2005)

i bet its a beast, but who cares. run mad low pressure and plow through anything. besides, it looks cool. and if ive learned anything over the past 5 years about biking, looks should ALWAYS come before performance


----------



## Meat Foot (Jan 14, 2004)

messofzero said:


> whoever owns that bike must have a prostate like a rotten peach.
> 
> god, i want one so bad. not the sensitive prostate, the bike.


LOL!! Ha, hopefully not as big as a peach or there may be other issues. Here til Thursday, try the veal, don't forget to tip your waitresses......

Understand, thing is cool looking. Wonder if all the rides would feel like they were in slow motion. Something about those tires that screams sloth.


----------



## xrmattaz (Jan 12, 2004)

*Dh*

What a monster on the downhills though!

I'll have to get me one, just 'cuz.....



Meat Foot said:


> LOL!! Ha, hopefully not as big as a peach or there may be other issues. Here til Thursday, try the veal, don't forget to tip your waitresses......
> 
> Understand, thing is cool looking. Wonder if all the rides would feel like they were in slow motion. Something about those tires that screams sloth.


----------



## Techfreak (Feb 17, 2005)

Wild!
a rigid bike with 130mm of travel! (including the thudbuster)


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Meat Foot said:


> Why does it need a thudbuster?


Better question, "why does it need more than one gear?"


----------



## Padre (Jan 6, 2004)

Why does it need car tires?
I think Mikesee showed quite well in the last Alaska race that a 29" w/ those Exi's fairs excellently in snow...
The thudbuster is an offense to the beauty of the bicycle!


----------



## Meat Foot (Jan 14, 2004)

True, true, true, why does it need gears if it is perfect for coming down, and it does not need a kickstand, the tires alone anchor it to the ground! It just stands up!


----------



## SpinWheelz (May 3, 2004)

Now, I need to wrap my head around the Pugsley here. And other so-called 'adventure' bikes (another bloody category I got to sort out in my head!).

Clearly there's a utilitarian mission at play here. You're supposed to use the monster truck tires to get over monster terrain, right? So if you saw someone riding this thing on one of your none-too-scary, no-frills singletrack, would you be obligated to slap him? Kinda like your average suburban muppet who drives his Hummer H2 down the street to buy a gallon or what not?


----------



## FoShizzle (Jan 18, 2004)

xrmattaz said:


> just 'cuz.....


good enough reason in my book


----------



## Fast Freddy (Dec 25, 2003)

I want one - one thing I was thinking is that when the trails are wet here locally and you can't ride them because you'll rut them up... I bet you can ride this and barely leave any trace... 


That's my hope and main mission to get one... more riding... even on not so narly trails...

FF


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

I want one just to putz around town on. The thing should be immune to potholes and storm drain grates.  Might ride it over Colnagos and Burley trailers, too! Go on tour with the Monster Trucks!

If I can run Gazzi 3.0s at 10 psi I should be able to use 5-6 in the Endomorph 3.7!


----------



## Brandon (Dec 30, 2003)

shiggy said:


> I want one just to putz around town on. The thing should be immune to potholes and storm drain grates.  Might ride it over Colnagos and Burley trailers, too! Go on tour with the Monster Trucks!
> 
> If I can run Gazzi 3.0s at 10 psi I should be able to use 5-6 in the Endomorph 3.7!


Maybe it'll work like a run-flat system, 0 psi, wouldn't have to worry about finding 4" tubes that way


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

I think MikeC actually ran Bontrager XR tires in Alaska. We had like 5-6" of snow here this winter for a few days, I liked them tehre as well.

The Pugleys seduces me by just existing. Worse than the worst Femme Fatale, well almost. Coolest bike to be built around 559 rims for sure. Snow is really rare here, but it would be lots of fun on the beach, riding the loosest dunes. we have some really nice dune trails, which in summer are unridable, well...without the Pugs.
I think I would put a few gears on it, to make full use of the traction on steep sandy stuff. Maybe a 2:1 as largest gear, and 1:1 or a bit lower as tchnical climbing gear. 32t chainring and 17-21-26-34 cogs on a King singlespeed hub, for instance. Oooh momma...

We really should praise Surly for having the balls to make a true dedicated snowbike in mass production, while only a couple dozen similar bikes exist today. It's even more daring than WTB making a 29" tire with only custom frames to fit them, as the also had to design the tread specifically for the tire, as well as the rims, AND the frames, all with a steep minumum order quantity.

Here's to Surly

PS. It seems the Pugs would fit a 29x3.0 tires as well, more or less that same diameter. I'd be all over that as well.


----------



## wolfy (Dec 21, 2004)

*29/26*

What I'm thinking is 29er Exiwolfs in the summer and the fatties in the winter. The only thing that sucks about that is the freaky offset.

But having two gears to use is a good idea, like Padre said. Climbing in the snow is a byznatch. And changing wheels with disc brakes is so easy.

-M


----------



## SKullman (Oct 4, 2004)

I'm picturing it with a Roloff internal hub with a 30t on the front...massive clearance for log crossings.

Shane


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Oh man, they actually did a 22/XL size as well, right on!!

The 55mm BB drop is actually pretty decent already, a 30t will rock for ground clearance obviously, but with the Pugs, a 32t might do the trick for you anyway. Either can be had in steel from Surly, apparantly.


----------



## Burkeman (Jan 23, 2004)

If you ran a good size cog on your front hub as well the bike would really take on sort of a "Road Warrior" vehicle vibe. It would look like it was designed for you to sneak up behind people and slash their back wheels with it. That would be awesome.


----------



## Fungazi (Mar 31, 2005)

messofzero said:


> so i think surly, i think singlespeed forum, but im not really sure if the pugsley is a single speed frame. anywho...
> 
> i was checking this bike out on the surly site and its cooler than hell. 4" tires on a skinny steel frame like that makes me weak in the knees. any word on this bike? said something about coming out in july, i dont know which july but if it was last july, surely one of you anti-gear-o's would have picked this up by now.
> 
> shed some light on a boy in the dark.


I've seen a couple of them at the LBS.

The LBS in question being One one One, in mineapolis, and the bikes in question being protypes that Gene and crew were / are testing out.

Apparently they are fun for urban assault too- for a while he had them skinned with Hookworms. I heard third handed that they did some demos for the police bike patrol crew, showing how well they could ride down (and up) flights of stairs with those mega-fat slicks.

Considering that Surly is based in Minneasotta, it just makese SENSE for them to do a dedicated snow bike. I think winter-time durability is half the reason the singlespeed thing is so big here.


----------



## lanpope (Jan 6, 2004)

I am thinking two chainrings on the crank and running a chain to the front tire and a chain to the rear tire for *two wheel drive*...

Would that work?

Hmmmm...my head hurts just thinking of the possibilities...

Must have one...

LP


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

lanpope said:


> ...running a chain to the front tire...


Just don't turn!


----------



## lanpope (Jan 6, 2004)

Drevil said:


> Just don't turn!


Oh yea...just realized that turning would be tough

LP


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

You could make a dual-drivetrain, also to the front. Will keep the front from turning.
There's riders that like to give up their freewheel action, and insist they like it better, so be different still and say you prefer to use powerwheelies and hops to point your bike in different directions.
It will be fun to ride up a steep sandy dune, no-handed, belly-on-stem, and not losing traction.


----------



## Fungazi (Mar 31, 2005)

Cloxxki said:


> You could make a dual-drivetrain, also to the front. Will keep the front from turning.
> There's riders that like to give up their freewheel action, and insist they like it better, so be different still and say you prefer to use powerwheelies and hops to point your bike in different directions.
> It will be fun to ride up a steep sandy dune, no-handed, belly-on-stem, and not losing traction.


Maybe he could figure out some sort of hand-crank system, like wheelchair bikes have. Mount it on a specially built stem, and you'd have a trick ride.

Hmm, thinking that through semi-seriously, it might have potential if you used a MOTOR instead of hand crank. Sort of against the point of buying an "adventure bike", but it would climb like a mofo, using dual wheel drive and 2 motors (one human, one mechanical)!

Alternately, a similar setup could be a funky way to run a generator for lighting... which given the problems batteries have in winter, and the short hours of daylight, might not be a bad idea on a snow bike.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Ahah! How a bout a hub-hidden motor? Like a Rohloff hub, but the other way around?

A system exists (or was at least patented) where cranking/rocking the handlebars actuates a drivetrain to the front wheel. Effective, as it would only work when you need it, on steep grinding climbs.

Semi-OT : I rode alongside a 52 y/o Vespa motorized bike last week. Motor drives a tire directly, I think. It topped 22mph on flats, and it rocked. Not too noisy, but could be better obviously. Before I never liked mopeds. Would be interesting to see how silent and fuel-efficient a help-motor could be.


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

I think you have to commute by bike for a winter or two in Minnesota understand the Pug.


----------



## Fungazi (Mar 31, 2005)

G-reg said:


> I think you have to commute by bike for a winter or two in Minnesota understand the Pug.


Have done for 5 winters. Fact is, our roads get cleaned really fast, and ice is a bigger danger to a comuter than snow, which is rarely more than a couple inches on roads before the plows hit them. Studded tires are the solution for ice, not high volume, and winter commuting can be pretty fun with a good set of studs. I ride a SS with a Nokian wcx 300 in front and a 296 in back, as studs are a must if you hit any plowed dirt roads (very slick), but many folks get buy with normal mtb tires, or even on 700c bikes with road tires or Nokian Haka's or some other studded 700c chubby.

Ultra-wide tires DO win most of the off-road winter trail races, which I'd bet is one of the target markets for the Pugsley. There aren't any 3+ inch studded tires I know of, but the big rims (like the old Sno-Cat) do enough, and you don't really need studs if conditions are snowy, not icey.


----------



## GlowBoy (Jan 3, 2004)

Fungazi said:


> Have done for 5 winters. Fact is, our roads get cleaned really fast, and ice is a bigger danger to a comuter than snow, which is rarely more than a couple inches on roads before the plows hit them. Studded tires are the solution for ice, not high volume, and winter commuting can be pretty fun with a good set of studs.


Having grown up in Minneapol-ice I can confirm this. I never tried to commute by bike, although my old 10 speed did see a few ice miles. The Pugsley would not be an efficient commuter. A 'crosser or 29"er with studs would be much better.



Padre said:


> Why does it need car tires?
> I think Mikesee showed quite well in the last Alaska race that a 29" w/ those Exi's fairs excellently in snow...


Horses for courses. There are many different types of snow conditions. Mikesee was racing on packed snowmobile trails. If he'd strayed out from the 'biler tracks onto the snowpack he probably wouldn't have gone anywhere fast.

At least in Minnesota, there are a LOT of times and places where you could ride out into the woods and explore without any help from snowmobiles, if you had a bike like the Pugsley.

Contrast that with the Cascades of Oregon (close to where I now live) where the snow is deeper and more frequent, not getting well-consolidated until late spring ... meaning NO bike (regardless of tire size) would be very rideable through most of the winter. Central Oregon might be a better place to ride a Pugsley, though.


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

I can see the studs being better down in "balmy" MSP where it gets warm enough to melt and refreeze. I commuted to class all of my years at UND in Grand Forks, 70mi from teh border eh, on a studded fixie MTB. And while there was plenty of ice, the packed snow that never melted from Nov-Mar that covered many side walks and areas that didn't get plowed constantly slowed me more than the ice. The worst was where people or the city didn't plow a side walk, which people walked on, and which then hardened into a big strip of lumpy ice/snow with 5in deep boot sized holes in it. A Gazzy on a Large Marge would have not even notice that stuff. And that is the same reason riding on snow mobile trails sucks, the frozen rumble strips left from the track are begging for a 4.0 MTB tire. Throw in drifts and the walls of snow left by the plows and the cross bike with studs wasn't cutting it(well it was cutting it, and you'd slice into that stuff and stop dead in your tracks). A good friend at the shop in good old GF has a pug on order and I'm anxiously awaiting the report. He plans to use it as a bar bike(of course) and to follow the XC ski/snowmobile trails in the winter, thats a lot of trails in the winter.


----------



## SortedCycles (Mar 8, 2004)

*Would a Rolhoff work?*

I'm just wondering what the rear dropout spacing on the Pugsly is. If it's like other snow bikes then it'll be 145mm, the tandem standard. Now, if that's the case then a Rohloff is out of the question. Having spoken to Rohloff in the past they'll only produce hubs with an axle long enough to fit 135mm spaced dropouts.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

messofzero said:


> so i think surly, i think singlespeed forum, but im not really sure if the pugsley is a single speed frame. anywho...
> 
> i was checking this bike out on the surly site and its cooler than hell. 4" tires on a skinny steel frame like that makes me weak in the knees. any word on this bike? said something about coming out in july, i dont know which july but if it was last july, surely one of you anti-gear-o's would have picked this up by now.
> 
> shed some light on a boy in the dark.


I can't wait for someone on this board to get one, to report if it's really rideable (more than to style around downtown that is). I still can't believe that keeping 10 pounds of tire moving offroad would be anything other than a chore. A two mile-per-hour chore.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

SortedCycles said:


> I'm just wondering what the rear dropout spacing on the Pugsly is. If it's like other snow bikes then it'll be 145mm, the tandem standard. Now, if that's the case then a Rohloff is out of the question. Having spoken to Rohloff in the past they'll only produce hubs with an axle long enough to fit 135mm spaced dropouts.


It's 135mm front and rear. Read the Surly Blog, it goes into detail on what you'll need for this bike. The idea of using 135mm front rather than build something even more exotic, is to always have a spare rear wheel with you, as those tend to be more prone to fail anyway. A rear wheel with busted freewheels will still make a great front. You need two rear brakes also. Most LBS's must be well-stocked with rear brakes, as front tend to be more popular.

I can't get over how brave Surly is to commit to such a bike. Their first bach may already outnumber all other snowbikes ever built, bring a unique niche of the sport within reach for everyone. And then all the offset designing, just impressive.

Anyone into riding, with a stable of road, cross and mtbikes, will need to add one of these. Especially if you live anywhere near a beach, desert or white winter. For all others it's a great trianing tool. The only thing Pugs misses for me, is a 700c x 3.0 tire 
Did anyone notice the claimed frame and fork weights are actually a bit lower than the Karate Monkey's?


----------



## Fungazi (Mar 31, 2005)

Nat said:


> I still can't believe that keeping 10 pounds of tire moving offroad would be anything other than a chore. A two mile-per-hour chore.


The thing about rotating mass is that its not only hard to GET rolling, its hard to STOP it from rolling. If you stay at a stable speed (not using the brakes) then the momentum actually HELPS you over obstacles, and is no worse going up hill than the same weight on the frame would be. You don't acclerate as quickly (even going down hill) but maintaining a steady pace is no more work.


----------



## Fungazi (Mar 31, 2005)

SortedCycles said:


> I'm just wondering what the rear dropout spacing on the Pugsly is. If it's like other snow bikes then it'll be 145mm, the tandem standard. Now, if that's the case then a Rohloff is out of the question. Having spoken to Rohloff in the past they'll only produce hubs with an axle long enough to fit 135mm spaced dropouts.


135mm.

http://www.surlybikes.com/pugsley.html

SPECS | Pugsley Frameset
Tubing:

100% cro-moly steel. Main triangle is double-butted. TIG-welded
Rear Dropouts:

Surly horizontal dropouts with derailleur hanger. 135mm-spaced. Offset 17.5mm
Braze compatibility:

Most rear international standard disc brakes or cantilever-type rim brakes (when using Large Marge)
Braze-ons:

Cantilever bosses with removable pivots, dual water bottle mounts, top tube cable housing guides for use with continuous housing, fender and rack eyelets
Seatpost diameter:

27.2mm
Seatpost clamp diameter:

30.0mm, Surly Constrictor™ included
Headset:

1-1/8" threadless
Front derailleur:

E-type
Bottom bracket shell:

100mm wide, 1.37 x 24t
Chainring clearance:

Compact triple: 22-32-44t
Fork:

Suspension-corrected... 447mm axle to crown, tapered straight blade, 4130 cro-moly. International standard rear disc mount and removable cantilever pivots spaced 120mm apart. 135mm-spaced dropouts, 17.5mm offset

Sizes available:

16", 18", 20" and 22" (measured from the center of the bb to the top of the top tube)
Color:

Barney Blue/Purple Pearl Sizzurple
Weight:

18" medium- 5.66 lb (2.56 kg)
Fork - uncut = 2.52 lb (1.14 kg) uncut


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Fungazi said:


> The thing about rotating mass is that its not only hard to GET rolling, its hard to STOP it from rolling. If you stay at a stable speed (not using the brakes) then the momentum actually HELPS you over obstacles, and is no worse going up hill than the same weight on the frame would be. You don't acclerate as quickly (even going down hill) but maintaining a steady pace is no more work.


Indeed. And the good thing for singlespeeders about having more energy stored in the wheels : longer coasts between spins to recover, and you make it further up steep climbs you can build up some speed for.


----------



## wolfy (Dec 21, 2004)

What about the increase in friction. HA! I bet you never thought of THAT!

All that momentum is going to get eaten up in tire flex and rolling resistance. Forget it. It's a pig. There's no way around it. 

Back to my idea which no one seemed to recognise as the genius it was: Large marge and 4 inchers in the winter. 29ers and exis in the summer. 

-M


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Fungazi said:


> The thing about rotating mass is that its not only hard to GET rolling, its hard to STOP it from rolling. If you stay at a stable speed (not using the brakes) then the momentum actually HELPS you over obstacles, and is no worse going up hill than the same weight on the frame would be. You don't acclerate as quickly (even going down hill) but maintaining a steady pace is no more work.


Good in frictionless incline plane theory but I'm not convinced it translates, otherwise everyone would already be lusting after the heaviest wheels you could buy. On a climb with say, a step-up I'm seeing a complete bog-down. I tried running fatass DH tires before and the increased mass didn't help me over any obstacles. It just made it harder to get up over obstacles.

On bigger obstacles you don't just plow into them (because you'd just bounce backwards). You have to get the front wheel up by pulling a wheelie. In other words, you use your strength to lift the weight completely off the ground, which means rotating mass doesn't help you out at all to roll up onto something. The increased mass itself makes it harder to pop a wheelie up onto rocks and logs, etc. A fat tread like that also has so much more friction you have to fight against. With our puny motors I don't think you could get that bike up to acceptable speed.

Anyway, I hope someone buys one and can let us know what their experience is. I think this bike is more for image than anything else. A fun bar-bike maybe, but I don't see it doing any serious trailwork. Sheeit, throw a Surly flask on there while you're at it to say, "Look at me; I party."

I like SpinWheelz' analogy that the Pugsley is the Hummer H2 of the mtb world. A vehicle so far beyond the norm that mostly will be for cruising around town and being seen. A few may actually see light trailwork, and fewer yet will see any real serious trailwork, but most will be for style points. A pure machismo item, down to the bulldog-like name.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

GlowBoy said:


> Central Oregon might be a better place to ride a Pugsley, though.


It would be overkill and unnecessary here too. We rode all winter long on plain old mtb tires.


----------



## finnlander (May 3, 2005)

*Pugsley on order*

I've got one on order and can't wait. I was thinking of building a Karate Monkey as a second bike (my 1st is a Fisher 293) but when I saw the Pugsley I knew I had to have one. I've also got a set of regular 29er wheels to use on it as well. I plan on using a few gears on it to start with just to experiment.

I had a snowmobile, which I sold last year, and I've been on a lot of snowmobile trails that would be fun to bike on. I'm also hoping it will be good for those low snow winters when there isn't enough for xc skiing but too much for a regular bike. I guess I've been obsessed with snow riding for a while, to the point where I've also been thinking about building a tracked bike for deep snow someday. Until then the Pugsley should do nicely.

Btw, If you read the Surly site the 135mm spacing in the front is simply to fit the 3.7" tires, otherwise you'd have to squeeze the tire through the fork blades. Its just convenient that you automatically get a spare wheel with it.

The Surly blog is what pushed me over the edge wrt to bike on the snow. Read it here:
http://www.surlybikes.com/2005_03_01_surlyblogarchive.html


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

finnlander said:


> I've got one on order and can't wait. [/url]


Cool. Please post a ride report after you get it.


----------



## GlowBoy (Jan 3, 2004)

Nat said:


> It would be overkill and unnecessary here too. We rode all winter long on plain old mtb tires.


You're right, it probably would be overkill ... I imagine going off-trail is impossible in Central OR's soft snow most of the time, and like you I've done just fine on trails (including sled tracks) with narrower tires. I don't expect to hear about a lot of Oregonians ordering Pugsleys.

But I still think the Pugsley would open up fantastic possibilities in places like the upper Midwest where you have a snowpack for several months of the year that is frequently firm. Unlike in Oregon the quantity of snow isn't that great, so you can often go quite a few days between snowstorms, giving the snowpack lots of opportunity to consolidate, and there's plenty of sunshine to help that process out. If I still lived there, I would be first in line for a Pug, because it would open up vast areas that are otherwise inaccessible by bike.


----------



## brant (Jan 6, 2004)

Cloxxki said:


> I can't get over how brave Surly is to commit to such a bike.


The investment in the frame is the least of it. There's a bit of tooling cost in there, and a bunch of head scratching, but what will have hurt is the tyre tooling ($$$$$!) and the rim profile (though they can still make Marges in 26in to do some volume on that.

Hats off to the chaps. Sometimes it's nice to have glamour projects to work with, and I'm sure they'll do really well with it. It makes such sense for them to do it. Nice one.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

It's a misconception that big tire HAVE to be slow. All else being equal, wider tires have been proven to actually roll FASTER. All else : casing and rubber thickness, thread depth, etc.
The Endomorph 3.7, in it's lightest form, is a spectacular 1260g. Compare that to a 3.0" DH tire that weighs 1600g or more, and you'd conclude the casing and rubber are more minimalist. When you see the Endomorph pics, you'll appreciate that better.
Ride reports of the many Pugsley proto's say that the bike is not too slow to do normal riding on. Especially when you aren't in monster-traction 5 or 10psi mode. At 25psi, on firm soil, the contact patch is much like that of a normally dimensioned tire.
Obviously it's not an AC race bike, but more a go-anywhere adventure bike. Like an environmentally conscious Jeep and trail-friendly bike that makes you good look in the mirrow after a shower.

I can't wait to see build pics and ride reports from all over the world, on all the different trails.


----------



## riderx (Jan 6, 2004)

Nat said:


> I can't wait for someone on this board to get one, to report if it's really rideable (more than to style around downtown that is). I still can't believe that keeping 10 pounds of tire moving offroad would be anything other than a chore. A two mile-per-hour chore.


Pat Irwin posted two reports here and here. Looks rideable to me, even sporting some extra weight!


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

The weight may not be so bad after all. Most will agree that the 3.7" tires take away need for a suspension fork. The Pugsley fork saves some 2lb over the typical affordable suspension fork. The front tire ads a bit over 1lb, the rim also around 1 lb. With on top of that a marginally heavier front tube, and a rear hub up front, it ads up, but really not too that much. The rear will be relatively heavy of course, but the Pugs doesn't necessarily have to be a 45lb tank. Sub-30lb looks doable with a nice 1x4 or 1x5 setup. The front wheel could carry a single DX cog for easy on-trail SS conversion in case of big wreck.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

riderx said:


> Pat Irwin posted two reports here and here. Looks rideable to me, even sporting some extra weight!


Hey cool, thanks for those links. Those Alaska pics are terrific! Yeah, the bike definitely looks rideable, but I did note that Pat said it was really slow, often walking speed. Maybe if I find myself biking in the middle of a cold Alaskan night, I'll wish I had one. I don't plan on doing that anytime soon though.

The bike reminds me of the Hanebrink. Anyone here ridden one of those? It doesn't have the urban hipster image of the Surly, but if it's flotation you're looking for, I bet it'd be king. Probably even porkier/pokier than the Pugsley I bet.

http://www.hanebrink.net/etb/index.html


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Cloxxki said:


> Ride reports of the many Pugsley proto's say that the bike is not too slow to do normal riding on.


Do you have links to any of these ride reports Cloxx? I'd like to read them. The only ride reports I've seen so far are linked below, and the rider said they were really slow.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Maybe slow on super-tacky or super-loose soil where all others would walk anyway?

I think I read it in the Surly Blog for the better part. Maybe a forum search brings up more.


----------



## GlowBoy (Jan 3, 2004)

*Hmmm ...*

I wonder how well the Pugsley would do on soft sand dunes, like the ones at Honeyman/Florence (Oregon coast) or Christmas Valley (SE Oregon desert).

I rode my 26"er at CV once (for about 1/2 mile), and with 2.3" tires it took all the leg strength I had to keep moving across the sand. So I'm thinking it would be doable on the Pugsley. Hard to justify another bike for such a specialized use, but if it's feasible it sure would be fun to ride the dunes.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Over here they've invented the beach criterium. Eight 5km laps, half beach, half boulevard. i never took part, but it seems like a lot of loose sand to cross (walk). The Pugs might be the ideal tool to steal such a race. Blast over the loose bits tracking straight, up and off the beach, making up more time than a heavy setup loses on the beach and boulevard. It would be interesting to see how light a raceable Pugs could be built.

Edit : 28lb with some, non-excessive bling. Using a few parts I already have. Not a bad weight if you ask me. 30lb could be done fairly cheaply with reliable parts.


----------



## smporter (Jul 25, 2012)

I already posted a classified ad. I am looking for a set each of large marge in 24" and 26", both in the DH 36h variety. I'm also looking for a 100mm spaced Pugsley fork with canti bosses. And Finally, I'm looking for a first generation Surly 1x1 frame medium (18inch).


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

smporter said:


> I already posted a classified ad. I am looking for a set each of large marge in 24" and 26", both in the DH 36h variety. I'm also looking for a 100mm spaced Pugsley fork with canti bosses. And Finally, I'm looking for a first generation Surly 1x1 frame medium (18inch).


is there some specific reason your are resurrecting old threads and making duplicate posts about things that have little to nothing to do with the thread?


----------

