Moots newbie road frame question

[enr1co]

Ive seen pictures of Moots "Compact" road bikes with top tube decal reading "Compact".

Would this be the same bike/ frame as the "Vamoots CR" currently shown on their website ?

[pdmtong]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1425033&postcount=16

[enr1co]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1425033&postcount=16

Thank you- im search impaired this evening. Doh- found that I even posted a reply on the thread:o

[happycampyer]

Too funny, Paul—I clicked on the link thinking, "I wonder what thread you pointed him to?"

For sake of completeness, if you are looking at a Compact, you're looking at a frame that was built prior to 2010. As noted, the Vamoots and Compact shared the same geometry—the Compact had a sloping toptube (generally around 7º), and the Vamoots had a level top tube (or depending on the size, up to 2º slope, but still visually close to level). The SL versions (Vamoots SL and Compact SL) had the same geometry as well, but the main triangle was made out of grade 5 (6Al/4V) titanium supplied by Reynolds in England. Despite its popularity, the SL model was discontinued around 2007 or so due iirc to the difficulty of obtaining the 6Al/4V tubing in small batches. Around 2005-6 or so, Moots made a change to the geometry to all of the models—the headtube was increased approximately 5mm depending on size.

[enr1co]

Too funny, Paul—I clicked on the link thinking, "I wonder what thread you pointed him to?"

For sake of completeness, if you are looking at a Compact, you're looking at a frame that was built prior to 2010. As noted, the Vamoots and Compact shared the same geometry—the Compact had a sloping toptube (generally around 7º), and the Vamoots had a level top tube (or depending on the size, up to 2º slope, but still visually close to level). The SL versions (Vamoots SL and Compact SL) had the same geometry as well, but the main triangle was made out of grade 5 (6Al/4V) titanium supplied by Reynolds in England. Despite its popularity, the SL model was discontinued around 2007 or so due iirc to the difficulty of obtaining the 6Al/4V tubing in small batches. Around 2005-6 or so, Moots made a change to the geometry to all of the models—the headtube was increased approximately 5mm depending on size.

Thank you for this - great info!

So to confirm understanding, the "Compact" model name evolved to the "Vamoots CR" after ~2010?

Have read varied fork preferences for use with a Vamoots. Aside from the current Moots branded one, is there any one overwhelming favorite, branded fork amongst Moots owners?

[tuscanyswe]

Thank you for this - great info!

So to confirm understanding, the "Compact" model name evolved to the "Vamoots CR" after ~2010?

Have read varied fork preferences for use with a Vamoots. Aside from the current Moots branded one, is there any one overwhelming favorite, branded fork amongst Moots owners?

I believe that is more about what fork is generally the most popular at the time of the build. The recommended rake is however a tad less than on many other frames (for compacts). At least for the larger sizes as they had a 74 degree hta. I have a 43mm easton ec90 on mine. Believe 41mm was the recommended rake for the larger sizes.

[enr1co]

I believe that is more about what fork is generally the most popular at the time of the build. The recommended rake is however a tad less than on many other frames (for compacts). At least for the larger sizes as they had a 74 degree hta. I have a 43mm easton ec90 on mine. Believe 41mm was the recommended rake for the larger sizes.

Thanks for the input tuscany!

Would be looking for a fork to fit a 52 compact (stock, non custom)

Per the Moots site, the Vamoots CR the fork callout is for one with 45 rake?

http://moots.com/wp-content/uploads/VAMOOTS-CR-GEO-Tables-2013_600x400.jpg

[tuscanyswe]

I think the geo chart (If you search for it) will show that the smaller 52 had a 73 degree hta and a recommended fork rake close to 45mm. That would be my guess anyways. So that would match the current vamoots cr 52 as per the moots site as you say.

[Cat3roadracer]

A lot of good information here. I have a similar question - I just built up a 56 Compact and am using an Enve with a 40 rake. How can I expect this to handle compared to using a 43 rake?

It currently looks nice, rides nice, I'm not sure where I would see a difference.

[enr1co]

Thank you for this - great info!

So to confirm understanding, the "Compact" model name evolved to the "Vamoots CR" after ~2010?

Have read varied fork preferences for use with a Vamoots. Aside from the current Moots branded one, is there any one overwhelming favorite, branded fork amongst Moots owners?

OK-dangerously surfing the Moots site like a kid in a candy store w/ only a nickel in his pocket :eek:

With happycampers helpful date info, checked out the 2010 archive pdf catalog and found:

"Vamoots CR new"
An updated design to our previous Compact. This stiff, light and fast bike is for the serious rider who expects the most of their time on the bike. Built w/ a sloping top tube and similar geometry to the RS>, this frame covers all aspects of riding and racing while maintaining all the magical Moots qualities.

Intended Use-
Built for no compromise road performance. This frame can handle all demands of rigorous training, up tempo group rides and high level racing.

Features-
Classic road geometry w/ the legendary Moot ride quality and durability. A slightly longer head tube than the previous Compact maintains an agressive riding position without the need for large spacers.

Tech-
U.S. made Moots Pi Tech seamless 3/2.5 oversized, size specific tubing , 7/8" constant diameter chain stays, std english threaded bottom bracket, re placeable derailleur hanger, std 1 1/8" head tube, 27.2 dia seat post, 130 mm rear spacing."

Also opened up the 2009 PDF Catalog to see the Compact model description:

"Road Compact"
Seated or out of the saddle the Moots Compact will surpass your every expectation with its smooth ride yet snappy acceleration. The compact front triangle results in a stiffer frame that climbs like a rocket, sprints like a cheetah and begs to be raced, all while having the same dreamy handling characteristics of our classic Vamoots. It looks fast sitting still but that pales in comparison to how it feels once your aboard. Hang on!" :)

[laupsi]

Too funny, Paul—I clicked on the link thinking, "I wonder what thread you pointed him to?"

For sake of completeness, if you are looking at a Compact, you're looking at a frame that was built prior to 2010. As noted, the Vamoots and Compact shared the same geometry—the Compact had a sloping toptube (generally around 7º), and the Vamoots had a level top tube (or depending on the size, up to 2º slope, but still visually close to level). The SL versions (Vamoots SL and Compact SL) had the same geometry as well, but the main triangle was made out of grade 5 (6Al/4V) titanium supplied by Reynolds in England. Despite its popularity, the SL model was discontinued around 2007 or so due iirc to the difficulty of obtaining the 6Al/4V tubing in small batches. Around 2005-6 or so, Moots made a change to the geometry to all of the models—the headtube was increased approximately 5mm depending on size.

so I've never been on a Moots; how does the Moots RSL? compare to that Pronto of yours? (if you know) Thanks!

[enr1co]

A lot of good information here. I have a similar question - I just built up a 56 Compact and am using an Enve with a 40 rake. How can I expect this to handle compared to using a 43 rake?

It currently looks nice, rides nice, I'm not sure where I would see a difference.

No input on the handling question as Im still the Moots newbie but the Moots online store provides the following fork rake info:

http://moots.myshopify.com/collections/forks

With all size 56 Moots frames, the recommended fork rake is a 45mm

"Which fork is best for my Moots road bike?



Size of bike Rake

48.5cm 50mm

50cm 50mm

52cm 45mm

53.5cm 45mm

55cm 45mm

56cm 45mm

57.5cm 40mm

59cm 40mm

61.5cm 40mm



Please use this table to select the correct fork rake for Vamoots CR from 2009 and up.
Size of bike Rake

48cm 50mm

50cm 50mm

52cm 45mm

54cm 45mm

55cm 45mm

56cm 45mm

58cm 40mm

60cm 40mm

62cm 40mm


Please use this table to select the correct fork rake for Vamoots from 2009 and up.
Size of bike Rake

48cm 50mm

50cm 50mm

52cm 50mm

54cm 50mm

55cm 45mm

56cm 45mm

58cm 45mm

60cm 45mm

62cm 45mm

[happycampyer]

enr1co, it looks like you got your fork questions sorted out. There was a similar discussion across the hall several years ago, right around the time that Moots revamped the road line up. If you read my posts (#s 3, 9 & 18) you'll get some potentially useful info about recommended forks, etc.

Vamoots Fork Selection (http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/vamoots-fork-selection-13515.html)

so I've never been on a Moots; how does the Moots RSL? compare to that Pronto of yours? (if you know) Thanks!They are very similar in terms of their extreme stiffness for ti bikes. The weather turned nasty before I could do a proper a-b comparison (using the same wheels, etc.), so it's on the docket for spring. Honestly, those two bikes are way stiffer than what I really like—they are fun to ride from time to time and on certain types of rides, but I wouldn't own either as my only bike.

[enr1co]

enr1co, it looks like you got your fork questions sorted out. There was a similar discussion across the hall several years ago, right around the time that Moots revamped the road line up. If you read my posts (#s 3, 9 & 18) you'll get some potentially useful info about recommended forks, etc.

Vamoots Fork Selection (http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/vamoots-fork-selection-13515.html)

They are very similar in terms of their extreme stiffness for ti bikes. The weather turned nasty before I could do a proper a-b comparison (using the same wheels, etc.), so it's on the docket for spring. Honestly, those two bikes are way stiffer than what I really like—they are fun to ride from time to time and on certain types of rides, but I wouldn't own either as my only bike.

More excellent info - thank you HC!

[laupsi]

enr1co, it looks like you got your fork questions sorted out. There was a similar discussion across the hall several years ago, right around the time that Moots revamped the road line up. If you read my posts (#s 3, 9 & 18) you'll get some potentially useful info about recommended forks, etc.

Vamoots Fork Selection (http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/vamoots-fork-selection-13515.html)

They are very similar in terms of their extreme stiffness for ti bikes. The weather turned nasty before I could do a proper a-b comparison (using the same wheels, etc.), so it's on the docket for spring. Honestly, those two bikes are way stiffer than what I really like—they are fun to ride from time to time and on certain types of rides, but I wouldn't own either as my only bike.

thanks, patiently waiting the outcome when/if you get the opportunity and if you remember :)

[enr1co]

Viewed a few inexpensive used Ouzo Pros and new Ritchey forks but ended up pulling the trigger on nicely discounted new Enve w/ the 45 mm spec for my "new to me" Moots Compact :banana:

[redir]

A lot of good information here. I have a similar question - I just built up a 56 Compact and am using an Enve with a 40 rake. How can I expect this to handle compared to using a 43 rake?

It currently looks nice, rides nice, I'm not sure where I would see a difference.

I have a Compact and it had a fork on it with a 43 rake. The bike is a size 59 (I think) The virtual TT is 58. So it's a large frame and originally was designed to have a 41 rake fork. Just last fall I ponied up for a Moots fork with a 41 rake.

The handling is way twitchier. It corners on rails. It could be that I just need time to get used to it but honestly I wish I got it in a 43. The 43 was more plush and it still cornered fine. Plus now I have a bit of toe overlap which isn't terrible but still.

[tuscanyswe]

I have a Compact and it had a fork on it with a 43 rake. The bike is a size 59 (I think) The virtual TT is 58. So it's a large frame and originally was designed to have a 41 rake fork. Just last fall I ponied up for a Moots fork with a 41 rake.

The handling is way twitchier. It corners on rails. It could be that I just need time to get used to it but honestly I wish I got it in a 43. The 43 was more plush and it still cornered fine. Plus now I have a bit of toe overlap which isn't terrible but still.

I have the same frame with a 43 easton ec90. Its perfect imo.

[thunderworks]

I have a Compact and it had a fork on it with a 43 rake. The bike is a size 59 (I think) The virtual TT is 58. So it's a large frame and originally was designed to have a 41 rake fork. Just last fall I ponied up for a Moots fork with a 41 rake.

The handling is way twitchier. It corners on rails. It could be that I just need time to get used to it but honestly I wish I got it in a 43. The 43 was more plush and it still cornered fine. Plus now I have a bit of toe overlap which isn't terrible but still.

Perhaps I misunderstand the relationship between rake and trail . . . but I thought that if you went from a 43mm rake to a 41mm rake, the bike should get less twitchy. I might not fully understand this, but trail and rake are inversely related. If you decrease rake, which you did in going from a 43 to a 41mm rake fork, you increase the trail and should have made the bike more stable.

Am I missing something?

[tuscanyswe]

Perhaps I misunderstand the relationship between rake and trail . . . but I thought that if you went from a 43mm rake to a 41mm rake, the bike should get less twitchy. I might not fully understand this, but trail and rake are inversely related. If you decrease rake, which you did in going from a 43 to a 41mm rake fork, you increase the trail and should have made the bike more stable.

Am I missing something?

You are correct but it also depends on the length of the axle to crown measurement of the fork. The now common enve fork has something like 5mm less than a reynolds ouzo i think. So it would effectively make the HTA a tad steeper (im sure someone on here knows just how much). So unless its the same fork its really not much one can determine from changing 2mm rake. I would think a 5mm axle - crown change would yield more of a change in trail then the change in rake did. But im speculating.

Even so i hear its very very difficult to feel a change in rake of 5mms so a change in 2mm feel is most likely due to other circumstances (or a very sensitive person perhaps) Maybe the fork in question just makes the bike ride a bit better for that person.

[Mark McM]

You are correct but it also depends on the length of the axle to crown measurement of the fork. The now common enve fork has something like 5mm less than a reynolds ouzo i think. So it would effectively make the HTA a tad steeper (im sure someone on here knows just how much). So unless its the same fork its really not much one can determine from changing 2mm rake. I would think a 5mm axle - crown change would yield more of a change in trail then the change in rake did. But im speculating.

For a nominal wheelbase of 1000mm, each 1mm difference in fork length will result in about 0.06 degree difference in the frame angles (head tube and seat tube). The 0.06 degree difference in head tube angle will in turn result in an approximate -0.36 mm change in trail. Let's say that the bike in question has a wheelbase of 970mm the fork is 5mm shorter, the angles will increase (steepen) by 0.3 degrees, which will decrease trail by about 1.8 mm.

The long and the short is that an increase in fork offset will result in roughly the same magnitude decrease in trail, while a increase in fork length will result in roughly a 1/3 as great magnitude increase in trail. So in this example, the changes in trail due to the 5mm shorter fork will almost completely cancel the changes due to the 2 mm shorter offset, resulting in almost no change in trail.

[bluesea]

E,
The path always leads to Moots, doesn't it?

[Mark McM]

Looking at the geometry charts for the Moots bikes, I notice that they have shorter than typical trail dimensions. The 'sweet spot' for road bike trail dimension is often accepted to be between 55 and 65mm. The Moots RSL and CR have trail dimensions ranges of between 51mm and 55mm across the range of frame sizes, with an average of 53mm. The Vamoots has a trail dimension of between 52mm and 56mm across the range of frame sizes, with an average of 54.5mm.

Me personally, I actually like Moots geometry philosphophy. Of my several bikes, the one whose handling I like the best has a trail of 51mm. My other bikes, with trails closer the nominal 55 - 65mm range, feel like their handling is slower and less nimble.

[tuscanyswe]

Looking at the geometry charts for the Moots bikes, I notice that they have shorter than typical trail dimensions. The 'sweet spot' for road bike trail dimension is often accepted to be between 55 and 65mm. The Moots RSL and CR have trail dimensions ranges of between 51mm and 55mm across the range of frame sizes, with an average of 53mm. The Vamoots has a trail dimension of between 52mm and 56mm across the range of frame sizes, with an average of 54.5mm.

Me personally, I actually like Moots geometry philosphophy. Of my several bikes, the one whose handling I like the best has a trail of 51mm. My other bikes, with trails closer the nominal 55 - 65mm range, feel like their handling is slower and less nimble.

Thanks for the explanation of what the a-c differences actually turns into in trail in the previous post.

The above is interesting! I too think my Moots handles and turns faster than the other bikes i have and have had and its definitely part of the appeal for me. Strange that i haven't heard this generalization before since i usually snap up most things moots related that i come by. Is it really that much different than most other race bikes today? (have no knowledge of the normal trail of say a modern carbon race frame).

[beeatnik]

Smart move enr1co.

My experience of Moots handling with a Vamoots fork: the steering was super "quick," what one would hope for in a crit bike. Some make the mistake of calling that type of steering twitchy. I think of it in terms of input. "Fast" steering means you have to give the front end less input (under certain conditions). Eddie liked the opposite. He didn't want a tiny flick of the wrist to throw a bike off-line while going 40kph on bad roads/cobbles. He liked less trail or all things being equal, more rake.

What folks forget in discussions of trail/rake is that speed impacts the perception of handling ("twitchy" "slow," etc).

Anyhoo, I switched to a Ritchey Pro and I prefer the ride and handling to the Vamoots fork. The bike now behaves like a CAAD10 but rides like a Legend.

[enr1co]

E,
The path always leads to Moots, doesn't it?

It was my destiny... or at least I made it my destiny :p

Unfortunately, can't afford to keep or ride them all so will need to put something on the selling block... :(

[enr1co]

Smart move enr1co.

My experience of Moots handling with a Vamoots fork: the steering was super "quick," what one would hope for in a crit bike. Some make the mistake of calling that type of steering twitchy. I think of it in terms of input. "Fast" steering means you have to give the front end less input (under certain conditions). Eddie liked the opposite. He didn't want a tiny flick of the wrist to throw a bike off-line while going 40kph on bad roads/cobbles. He liked less trail or all things being equal, more rake.

What folks forget in discussions of trail/rake is that speed impacts the perception of handling ("twitchy" "slow," etc).

Anyhoo, I switched to a Ritchey Pro and I prefer the ride and handling to the Vamoots fork. The bike now behaves like a CAAD10 but rides like a Legend.

Thanks for the fork feedback and info beeatnik!

Ritchey was the runner up choice but my shallow priority for aesthetic thought that the matte finish black looks pretty trick with the Moots Ti finish.

With the info that the Enve will be super quick" is a good thing as I prefer the "responsiveness"

ETA of the frame and fork is end of next week but will be sure post some quick pics if it arrives prior to me heading out to the NAMM show in Anaheim :cool:

[redir]

Perhaps I misunderstand the relationship between rake and trail . . . but I thought that if you went from a 43mm rake to a 41mm rake, the bike should get less twitchy. I might not fully understand this, but trail and rake are inversely related. If you decrease rake, which you did in going from a 43 to a 41mm rake fork, you increase the trail and should have made the bike more stable.

Am I missing something?

That stuff always confuses me. Maybe I am using the wrong term. It IS stable, very stable, but for example it just feels like when I just barely counter steer the thing wants to just dive into a corner where as before it took a bit more effort.

And I mean the difference is slight but noticeable.

[Mark McM]

That stuff always confuses me. Maybe I am using the wrong term. It IS stable, very stable, but for example it just feels like when I just barely counter steer the thing wants to just dive into a corner where as before it took a bit more effort.

And I mean the difference is slight but noticeable.

Stability is a complex property, and has many variables in addition to front end geometry (such as weight distribution, frame and fork stiffness, speed and rider feedback). When we talk about the affect of trail on stability, we really mean the tendency for bike to keep itself upright and in a straight line without rider input. A bike with a lot of trail can still feel unstable at speed if it has a poor weight distribution, or if the frame is very flexy (or if it is in a speed/stability regime that induces a shimmy).