Sorry to hear that, too. I had the 29+ ECR. I used on a stretch of sandy county forest road that was little more than a sand trap in places. If you want to get through this 7 mile stretch of primitive road, you go fat or full plus or you do some walking. When conditions are dry, the new 2.6s won't cut it. The ECR was the perfect bike for this kind of riding.

 

Looks like Stooge might be the ones carrying the plus torch from here.

 

Kills me that the Ogre survived but the ECR didn't. Very few reasons to ever ride an Ogre over an ECR, and with the Bridge Club covering the low end and pavement biased end, the overlap with the Ogre is significant.

I'm also hopeful for the Ghost Grappler.

 

I have a 2019 ECR M 27.5+, and while I agree with that sentiment, I do think that the problem may have been that the ECR is too niche-market touring oriented with regards to the frame geometry (and price). I've never ridden an Ogre, but my understanding is that the ECR is noticeably more laid back in nature. The ECR is very much a bike you ride in, with much more of your weight on the front wheel than virtually any other mountain bike - even with the highly setback Thudbuster LT I use. I ride mine on trails every week, and it requires a lot more effort to bring the front end up than any other bike. On jumps without a lip, if I don't lift the front end, it wants to rotate forward - which can be rather disconcerting at high speed.

OTOH, the Ogre suffers as a bikepacking/expedition bike compared to the ECR for having only 11-42T gearing, the Tektro hydraulics vs BB7s on the ECR, and the standard-ish handlebar compared to the Moloko on the ECR - not to mention the differences in stock wheels/tires and tire clearance. Even the Bridge Club has the 11-50T cassette - why couldn't the Ogre?

I agree completely that Surly had too many bikes too close together in design - those differences I mention above are really minor in comparison to most other bikes on the market. I spent too much time figuring out which one I wanted to get - and ended up with the ECR because of the above kit differences (and the discount I got from my LBS). At retail I will admit the substantial savings for the Ogre would be enticing, but the gearing was a problem - and changing that would have eaten up most of the difference in price. The Bridge Club fixes that, and at a substantially better price point, but then it doesn't have the built-in Rohloff Hub compatibility and not nearly as many bosses.

I don't live in a hot spot for Surlys, but my impression is that the Bridge Club has been a huge sales success for Surly, and the Ogre too has sold many more than the ECR due to its lower price and better suitability for commuting/local trail riding out of the box. The ECR also has the added complication of having two wheel sizes, including one frame size (M) with both wheel sizes - which I'm glad for, but adds that much more to production costs. Lack of support for 29+ certainly doesn't help - though I know that has been discussed plenty.

What we have seen of the 'Ghost Grappler' so far looks interesting - but it too looks like it overlaps more with the Ogre than the ECR.

I have no idea what Surly is planning, but what would make sense to me is to have a bike with most of the kit and barnacles of the ECR, but with slightly more aggressive geometry (like the Ogre, but not quite in the vein of the Krampus/Karate Monkey). Perhaps cost cutting is needed, but IMHO the kit of the ECR in large part made it what it is. It wouldn't be nearly as attractive of an upgrade over the Bridge Club without the Moloko bars and the rest of the touring-oriented kit.

Here's my ECR on its first ride, prior to adding saddlebag and bottle cages to the rear dropout:

 

It will definitely be interesting to see if “the industry” has decided 29+ is dead or if tire options come back after the Covid supply issues. I guess I’ll just be thankful I got my Wednesday during Covid and have 3 sets of 29+ tires in my garage for now.

 

I will never understand why, in a discussion about surly bicycles, stock component specs between completes is used to make a point.
They put whatever is available and inexpensive on.None of the lineup was ever intended to stay as built from the sales floor.

 

I will never understand why, in a discussion about surly bicycles, stock component specs between completes is used to make a point.
They put whatever is available and inexpensive on.None of the lineup was ever intended to stay as built from the sales floor.

I understand the sentiment that it's always easier to change the components than the frame (I've built or rebuilt virtually every bike I've owned), but why should components not be a consideration, when changing them undeniably costs money - particularly for an upgrade? And especially for major components like the wheels and drivetrain.

Sure, you can build a frame from scratch - but why would you if you can get exactly what you would spec out anyway? The ECR was the first bike out of the box that I felt no desire (within reason) to change anything except seatpost (ThudBuster), saddle, and cranks (165 mm to accommodate my short, stubby legs.

I find the Bridge Club equipped similar - it's cheap and has exactly the components that 95% of its potential buyers would want in the first place at that price point. That is a major selling point IMO, and is a part of the reason for success of that bike in the entry-level bikepacking/multipurpose off-road utility category. At $1200 you get a bike that is 100% expedition ready out of the box - there's not much else (if anything) out there like that in that price range.

 

Oops - Double post.

 

Why? Because every stock surly is spec'd for a price point. And that largely means cheap and heavy parts.
so if you want a “nice” bike, with either top shelf, or even middle shelf parts, you either buy a frame set or start swapping stuff out at your discretion.
If you’re happy with your own stock build, by all means, disregard my opinions. I’m not trying to empty anyone’s wallet.

 

Why? Because every stock surly is spec'd for a price point. And that largely means cheap and heavy parts.
so if you want a "nice" bike, with either top shelf, or even middle shelf parts, you either buy a frame set or start swapping stuff out at your discretion.
If you're happy with your own stock build, by all means, disregard my opinions. I'm not trying to empty anyone's wallet.

Well, literally every bike is specced for a price point - even the $15k+ TDF bikes. So what's your point? Go buy a billion dollar R&D and manufacturing company if you want a bike made not to a price point...

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. I see BB7s, SRAM NX, Moloko bars, etc. all as middle shelf parts. They aren't fancy or lightweight, but they're reliable and get the job done. Upgrading gets you lighter weight and a bit more smoothness, but not really any improvements in durability or reliability.

Yeah, there's some cost cutting in the wheels - but the situation is the same there. The no-name cartridge bearing hubs are going to be reliable (I have about 1.6k miles on mine so far), but aren't flashy or lightweight. When actually riding the bike, I'm not going to be able to tell the difference other than it being a 36 point engagement hub (or whatever it is) instead of a 128+ or whatever point high end hub.

FWIW I found the weak spots in the factory build to be the front quick release (its cam wasn't quite right and loosened up too much when closing all the way) and the rims (not strong enough for a clydesdale rider riding hard with a load at low pressures). The OEM NX branded crankset that really was an SX crankset is a bit of a fib from Surly, but since I swapped it to fit my short legs, I can't say if it's good or bad.

Maybe just waiting for more funds to make the adjustments. $1000+ is a lot of money for some people. Myself included.

Exactly! It's nice to get a bike that's decently equipped from the factory for what you want, and upgrade or adjust as funds permit and you find what you like most.

For me, that's what the ECR was. There wasn't any major component from the factory that screamed "I suck and need to be upgraded immediately". Sure, I want a Rohloff - but how many bikes come with that equipped, and can I afford any of them? And would it cost less to build a frame from scratch? No, not unless you have a giant parts bin with everything you want in it already.

Surly has added an "RIP" image on all of the bikes they've discontinued. It's showing on the ECR page, LHT, Troll, ECR, Big Fat Dummy, and Pack Rat. Nothing on the Bridge Club.

The LHT, Troll, and Pack Rat all make sense to me for Surly to discontinue, as does the Pugsley (it's due for an update), but I don't get the BFD being discontinued. Yeah, I know that it probably wasn't a big seller, but did the Big Dummy really sell more? There's absolutely nothing else like the Big Fat Dummy out there. The Salsa Blackborow is similar, and pretty much the same price, but it isn't really a serious hauling bike of the same type. It's more of a round the world off road expedition bike, and less of a "build a bridge on the trail on Saturday, bring home 100 lb of mulch on Sunday, and take your kid to school on Monday" type of bike like the BFD.

 

Why would anyone ride a stock surly?

 

Maybe just waiting for more funds to make the adjustments. $1000+ is a lot of money for some people. Myself included.

 

To me it seems weird to get rid of the ECR instead of the Orge but I am assuming Surly chose to keep the one that sold better.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

 

Sad about this. ECR is a brilliant bike. There's always a lot of negative talk about low bottom bracket and pedal strike but I've never had any trouble with mine which was my only off roader for some time. Also ran as a SS road commuter with 2.2" - 2.5 tyres and I felt it was a more worthy and better riding tourer/ commuter than the LHT I rode for many years.

 

My biggest concern with Surly right now is that I have seen very little activity on their website this year. It'd been strangely quiet. Makes me wonder if they are struggling.

 

I can't see how they aren't struggling. I mean there just isn't much product to sell. I am guessing they are streamlining and once they have bikes to sell, we'll see more activity in new models and such.

 

I agree that it is strange to discontinue the ECR and keep the Ogre when they already have the Bridge Club. I have an Ogre (well it is currently a frame sitting on the shelf) and my friend had an ECR. On a trip in SD, I got to ride both. Very similar feel other than the tire size. Maybe the new drop bar will be a "replacement" for the ECR?

I thought the Ogre would have been discontinued when the Bridge Club came out.

As far as stock Surlys, I've never been impressed with the builds. All 5 of the Surlys I've owned were frame up builds.

 

Maybe also add the Bridge Club to the discontinued list?! Some cat on Reddit is saying that his dealer thinks the BC may be discontinued, which would leave the DT and Ogre alone in the touring line up, with the possibility of the Ghost Grappler joining them at some stage. You'd think that the BC would be a model too far, wouldn't you? Both the Troll and BC gone would leave a real gap in their offerings.

 

Feels like the BC is a great seller, and occupies a nice entry level tier in the lineup... My guess is they're between availability on colors. Second guess is a legitimate update... hopefully to a better. rear drop out option.

 

I don't see much reason to keep both the Ogre and the BC. It doesn't matter which they keep really...although the Ogre can take up to a 29x2.6 compared to the 700x47 on the BC. I personally like the drops better on the Ogre, but that is just a matter of preference.

 

Surly has added an "RIP" image on all of the bikes they've discontinued. It's showing on the ECR page, LHT, Troll, ECR, Big Fat Dummy, and Pack Rat. Nothing on the Bridge Club.

 

Aw. I went and looked...sad.

 

I wonder if they'll stop aftermarket fork production for discontinued models at the same time? If if they'll taper it off gradually?

And why they didn't just take the discontinued models off the website? Surely adding the RIP symbol is just as much effort as updating the website by removing the models that aren't coming back.

 

Pugsley is also discontinued! 😮 Though I do think the 2.0 was rubbish. I had it. The discontinuation of pack rat supprised me too! Just four years of production!

Btw the Bridge club can have rohloff. Just with a tensioner. It uses oem2 axle plate. Just add a M5 bolt on the inside of the upper rack mount.

 

The discontinuation of pack rat supprised me too! Just four years of production!

The main issues with the Pack Rat (IMO) were the brakes and the forks, two issues not mutually exclusive. Tire clearance also came into play.

The world was very ready for a "budget" (more accurately a readily available) randonneur with disc brakes and a threadless steerer a la the Elephant NFE (the SOMA Grand Randonneur is threaded with a quill stem). But those bikes have true low trail geometry, and the NFE did have issues with its fork and disc brakes in the past, as low trail forks and disc brakes traditionally haven't played well together. The NFE problem is in the past, though, and I'm not casting aspersions on it. Jan Heine never issued a Grant Petersen style Fatwah against disc brakes, but he's never been a fan of them on 650B traditional randonneurs, and he has an influential voice in the community that ride them. He did ride a tandem with Lili Herse that her father had made, so that influence is not exactly unwarranted. Still, traditional randonneurs, with light, springy forks made of really thin tubing, could not handle the stress of disc brakes acting on the crown of the fork, and so rim brakes were the default for randonneurs.

All that said, the PR naver had true low trail geometry, and as such, should have been able to easily accommodate disc brakes, with those Natch mid trail forks, and yet mounts were not provided for them. There was some Surly press release at the time speaking about how they felt it handled better with a front load with its mid trail forks, and yeah, great. But I feel they badly misjudged the segment of bike buyers would would have bought the PR by not giving it low trail forks (the rim brakes would have made a certain amount of sense with low trail) OR by giving it disc brakes (the mid trail forks would have made a certain amount of sense with the forces of disc brakes). With mid trail forks and rim brakes, though, the bike didn't make a lot of sense to the people that would buy it.

The other thing is tire width. The PR had clearance for 650x48B, which is perfect for WTB Horizons and Byways. That said, IMO, it's not enough. In the US, their primary market, traditional randonneurs are probably most popular in the Pacific NW, home of The Jan (he of "Welcome to the Industry Reen Hers" bicycle pubes fame). Up there it's rainy, and rough in parts, so full fenders with chunky MTB tires is where things are at. The ability to run 700x40C and 27.5 x 2.1 with heavy tread for mud, would have made the PR a much more attractive proposition for the market it would have sold to.

The Pack Rat, with the tire clearance of the Midnight Special, true low trail geometry and disc brakes would have been a serious alternative to the Soma Grand Randonneur and the Elephant NFE. As it was, in my opinion, the Pack Rat just didn't make sense as it was, the segment of bike buyers who understand and would buy a traditional randonneur understood that and thus the bike's sales suffered. As someone in the forum said "they must have sold dozens of them."

 

Damn. I want a BFD but at the moment have absolutely no place to put one. That changes in six months. Hope I can still find one then.

 

I hear you on the bike storage. I have a Straggler, LHT, DT, Salsa Vaya and a Timberjack in my garage and an Ogre frame on the shelf.

I am not a fan of buying an off the shelf bike. I think the only complete bike I've had in the last 20 years is my Timberjack. I enjoy building them up from the frameset