[Jayem]

My thoughts are:

Looks like it would handle like **** and massive draggy tires add up over the miles even on snow. You have to be hedging on the narrow range of conditions where this would work, but smaller would not, which in my experience is extremely rare. Otherwise you are stuck with it all the time. This is going to be a niche within niches. No suspension is also a dealbreaker.

 

[jonshonda]

Hey good for Surly for taking a chance on the fat-fat-fatty-fat market again. I am very happy to see that while it is still a bit low for me, the stack is starting to creep up to acceptable levels on the XL frame.

While 4.8" Bud and Lou are king of difficult snow conditions, I have often wanted more when the going gets really tough. It will be cool to see the tracks left behind in the wild this winter....IF WE GET ANY SNOW MOTHER NATURE YOU B#TCH.

 

[prj71]

Big picture (to me at least)…anything new fat bike wise is good…as it has the possibility of drawing more consumer interest and encouraging additional investment in that segment.

It's a good thought, but I feel we have peaked with fat bikes. It's kinda like the latest thing with 27.5 fat. It really didn't = more sales or offer anything better than 26" fat could do.

 

[prj71]

@prj71 you might be surprised to hear this considering (I think?) I've previously textually ripped your head off on this website many years ago when I had a much hotter head than today

Not me. Must have been someone else.

 

[prj71]

My thoughts are:

Looks like it would handle like **** and massive draggy tires add up over the miles even on snow. You have to be hedging on the narrow range of conditions where this would work, but smaller would not, which in my experience is extremely rare. Otherwise you are stuck with it all the time. This is going to be a niche within niches. No suspension is also a dealbreaker.

Quit with the negative talk or be prepared to face the wrath of Mikesee!!!

 

[Drew Diller]

Hey good for Surly for taking a chance on _ again

I removed the fatty fat because it could be any subject, THANK YOU for saying this, if no companies ever take risks then all you get is what you've got. I sure as heck do not want to be riding on triple front chainrings anymore, someone took the risk.

I've been feeling largely depressed this year about SEEMINGLY EVERYONE telling me to not take risks. You can @#$&ing thank me in the future. Glad to get a reminder that it's not everyone carrying the "just be normal" admonishment.

Good job Surly. Good job.

 

[Seggybop]

Surly Moonlander Review - SRSLY, 6.2" Tires and a Pinion!?

The Surly Moonlander is back, and it's a sight to behold with a Pinion gearbox and 6.2-inch tires. Find our Surly Moonlander review here...

bikepacking.com

Awesome to finally see the bike in action, super pumped that Surly has reclaimed its ancient power, but this video was totally unhelpful in actually understanding the experience of riding it vs. existing fat bikes.

The presenter rolled through some moderately chunky rocky stuff and a somewhat densely vegetated field (secretly a bog?) and talked about how the bike was opening up new possibilities he never would have considered on older bikes. Except, this terrain doesn't actually look that crazy to me and that monologue sounded like every "new fat bike!" piece ever.

I didn't get a real impression of where 26x5 gives out and 24x6 keeps going on, so it's still left to my imagination what the true capabilities of this are. Also, not much exposition on the rationale for/consequences of the extra long chainstays (they're trendy now! extra stable! ok..?) I expected extra short chainstays for riding through soft surfaces, so am I missing something important there, or did Surly prioritize cargo? If it's for cargo, is that actualy helpful with only a normal rack?

 

[ShortPath]

I see Tommysea without the spiders

 

[rockychrysler]

113 pounds of freight-only shipping!? 20 years as a four-season bike commuter, but don't think I've yet accumulated enough carbon credits to offset delivery of this (droolingly cool) monster.

 

[Will_Narayan]

Personally I am super stoked to see this in person and by the options it may open. I am glad to finally see a company pushing the boundaries of fat bikes. But I do have so some questions that I am hoping someone may be able to chime in on.

They are selling a bare frame without the pinion gearbox. I am wondering how you get a compatible pinion gearbox for this? It looks like the driveside crank arm is spaced well outside of the normal pinion setup (and am guessing the same goes for ND side) so I am wondering how you would purchase all of this?

It also gets me wondering about compatibility with different pinion systems and the pros/cons of each for this application. Did Surly pick the 9 speed version because it was the best option or because it it hit price/weight metrics? It appears that the C and P lines are largely cross compatible.

Pinion sell fat specific cranks and a fat specific spider with a wide offset for fatbikes' wider chainline and q-factor.
AFAIK they're compatible. My gues son the 9 speed would be that the bike is not supposed to see very steep slopes, so no need for more gears.

Edit : Looking at bikepacking.com video, I'm not sure this is Pinion's fat spider, so maybe they had to do a custom spider.
Edit again : The spec list says "Pinion for Surly crankset 34T, with Pinion high-offset spider ", so this is the Pinion spider

 

[Will_Narayan]

I would consider spending $4000 on a fat bike but the conversation starts at light weight carbon frame

Although I like this new Moonlander (or anything blowing a bit of life into fatbikes), I agree. My opinion is that during the fatbike craze (circa 2015) fatbikes were not so good, old geos, heavy and could mostly appeal as a third bike (after a fully and a hardtail).
A lightweight carbon fat frame, with "progressive" geo (like the Tonton fat) and dynamic fat wheels could be an awesome bike able to cover XC to all mountain (though falling short for enduro-bros).
Such a fat (with a suspended fork) could replace the hardtail, and even the fully for any rider rolling more than "sending".
I'm still thinking about getting a Honzo-ESD like custom fatbike.

 

[Pipeliner]

Holly crap $4,199 ? Is that USD?

DOA.

Pinion drives ain't cheap. Add in proprietary wheels and tires and you get to that price range quickly.

Did anyone catch what they were saying about the tubes vs tubeless thing? They have some tubes that don't stretch...? I wonder how that works. The sidewall wrinkles in the vid sure looks like they are tubeless.

 

[mikesee]

It's a good thought, but I feel we have peaked with fat bikes. It's kinda like the latest thing with 27.5 fat. It really didn't = more sales or offer anything better than 26" fat could do.

You have nothing more than a single data point of purely anecdotal evidence for the things that you write, yet you've convinced yourself that they are true.

 

[prj71]

You have nothing more than a single data point of purely anecdotal evidence for the things that you write, yet you've convinced yourself that they are true.

-We have 1x12
-We have a hub standard that everyone is using across the board
-We have multiple fat tires to choose from in the 26" range and few in the 27.5 fat range. 27.5 fat was invented to try and get people to upgrade to the next alleged best thing IMO.
-We have geometry that's dialed in for everyone's needs from Old School geometry to fat bikes with slack HTAs for the enduro crowd.

Now throw on top of that bike sales in general are currently slumping and fat bike sales are slumping even more. Then Surly comes along with a 46 lb $4200 bike with proprietary tires. Not sure how that moves the needle.

 

[mikesee]

-We have 1x12
-We have a hub standard that everyone is using across the board
-We have multiple fat tires to choose from in the 26" range and few in the 27.5 fat range. 27.5 fat was invented to try and get people to upgrade to the next alleged best thing IMO.
-We have geometry that's dialed in for everyone's needs from Old School geometry to fat bikes with slack HTAs for the enduro crowd.

Now throw on top of that bike sales in general are currently slumping and fat bike sales are slumping even more. Then Surly comes along with a 46 lb $4200 bike with proprietary tires. Not sure how that moves the needle.

Fatbike sales are slumping and the answer is...

...to leave things as they are?

Copy.

 

[Jayem]

113 pounds of freight-only shipping!? 20 years as a four-season bike commuter, but don't think I've yet accumulated enough carbon credits to offset delivery of this (droolingly cool) monster.

Fill the tires w/helium.

 

[mohrgan]

-We have 1x12
-We have a hub standard that everyone is using across the board
-We have multiple fat tires to choose from in the 26" range and few in the 27.5 fat range. 27.5 fat was invented to try and get people to upgrade to the next alleged best thing IMO.
-We have geometry that's dialed in for everyone's needs from Old School geometry to fat bikes with slack HTAs for the enduro crowd.

Now throw on top of that bike sales in general are currently slumping and fat bike sales are slumping even more. Then Surly comes along with a 46 lb $4200 bike with proprietary tires. Not sure how that moves the needle.

Remember the original Moonlander with proprietary tires? Someone has to do the innovating.

 

[mikesee]

Awesome to finally see the bike in action, super pumped that Surly has reclaimed its ancient power, but this video was totally unhelpful in actually understanding the experience of riding it vs. existing fat bikes.

The presenter rolled through some moderately chunky rocky stuff and a somewhat densely vegetated field (secretly a bog?) and talked about how the bike was opening up new possibilities he never would have considered on older bikes. Except, this terrain doesn't actually look that crazy to me and that monologue sounded like every "new fat bike!" piece ever.

I didn't get a real impression of where 26x5 gives out and 24x6 keeps going on, so it's still left to my imagination what the true capabilities of this are. Also, not much exposition on the rationale for/consequences of the extra long chainstays (they're trendy now! extra stable! ok..?) I expected extra short chainstays for riding through soft surfaces, so am I missing something important there, or did Surly prioritize cargo? If it's for cargo, is that actualy helpful with only a normal rack?

Not everyone has terrain suitable to a machine like this right out the door.

Neil @ bikepacking.com did an admirable job of trying to point up what was different/better about the new bike, but he is somewhat hamstrung by living in a place that has -- for example -- terrain conducive to building some of the best alpine singletrack on the planet. Pity him for not having bogs, arroyos, or sand dunes to slog through.

I haven't seen this bike and -- like 99.9999% of the people that have tuned into this thread -- I don't know what this bike/these tires ride like either.

I do have terrain conducive to it tho, and I look forward to getting one here to find out. Might love it. Might not. Might not even like it. But actually riding it is how I intend to make that determination.

As for the very long chainstays, I'd love to hear Surly expound on what their thought process/evidence behind that process was. I've heard a few theories but thus far nothing has stuck.

 

[BansheeRune]

Wondering the same. Hoping they considered this and acted preemptively with the lubricants used.

Fairly simple. Place catch bin under the Pinion, pull drain plug, leave it to drain a few minutes. Install drain plug, fill with lower viscosity oil.

 

[Paochow]

I think it looks fun and I’m considering buying one. Fun is usually what gets me riding everyday anyway. It’ll be heavy and possibly slow, but those concerns also kept me from buying a Salsa Blackborow until a last minute purchase when they quit making them. 4 years later it is still one of my favorite bikes and has been a bikepacking workhorse on trips with the kids. Despite a significant weight penalty it sees more saddle time than my 24# carbon fatty.

My biggest wishes are that the new Moonie had a split in the chainstay for a belt, and a bit more space in the frame for a larger frame bag and a support to mount a second mid bag, a la my Blackborow. If I was to build from a frameset, I‘d use better brakes, hubs, and possibly a different Pinion, but a quick cost estimate shows that would put that way over the $4.2K MSRP. Decisions, decisions…