Objective assessment?

[hookookadoo]

The attached link ranks the benefits of various materials used to build bike frames. There is clearly a bias to Ti but it appears generally objective. The one criticism I have is that the ties goes to ti(no pun intended). Would like to hear what others think.

http://www.mootscycles.com/#/why_ti/

[BengeBoy]

I agree with this part:

Originally Posted by hookookadoo

There is clearly a bias to Ti

I'm the owner of a Ti frame, and an admirer of Moots, but I think that when you put qualitative assessments in a format that makes them look like quantitative data you're engaging in marketing puffery that demeans your brand.

My two cents (btw, I ran across their "chart" a couple of years ago)

Just one example: instead of confronting the issue of cost/price -- where Ti would rank as the worst, because it's generally more expensive -- they event a score called "long term value" and then give Ti a ranking of 1. Well, that's something that could be resolved by looking at real data - what is the true cost of of Ti frames vs. other frames, and what's the actual lifespan and/or resale value? You could get actual data and figure this out. Instead, they just invented a column, gave Ti a rating of 1, and put it on their website. B.S. of the worst kind masquerading as objective data.

I think it would be more honest if they just said, "Here's why *we* think Ti is a superior frame material, and why it's the only material we stand behind with our good name."

[daylate$short]

I like the fact that the columns for weight and stiffness have a best score of 1.5 for C.F. and all the other columns have a 1 for Ti. Probably the best material for weight and stiffness has not yet been invented... Also not sure how you rate the properties of C.F. without taking into consideration the design and fabrication. I guess it's covered in their disclaimer.

[happycampyer]

Originally Posted by daylate$short

<snip>I guess it's covered in their disclaimer.

That's key. Don't forget that Mr. Moots is a bicycle-riding alligator who was a pencil eraser in another life. Kind of like the framebuilding equivalent of the Geico gecko.

[eddief]

it rides really nice, looks organic, does not need a $500 Joe Bell paint job, cosmetically maintainable with scotchbrite, sort of a frame making magical material...i think are all true. weight is in your belly and water bottle. price is in your wallet. steel is real, but you have to paint it, it rusts, but when was the last time you had to dump a steel frameset cause it wore out?

[dsteady]

Originally Posted by BengeBoy

I agree with this part:
I'm the owner of a Ti frame, and an admirer of Moots, but I think that when you put qualitative assessments in a format that makes them look like quantitative data you're engaging in marketing puffery that demeans your brand. . . .

I own 2 Moots frames and I have to agree with this statement. It does the brand little good to put a misleading chart like that up their website. Most people who are going that deep into the site are probably halfway sold on Ti already, they don't need spurious 'data' to push them to the sale.

Ti is in a funny place right now, it's a great modern frame material that's caught between the resurgence of steel and the continued mass domination of CF.

[eddief]

on a "mass produced" Madone and an off the rack Moots?

[Charles M]

I think the scoring is horse ****.

Sorry...


Moots make VERY good bikes. I would love one. But the scoring thing is nonsense.

[happycampyer]

I think Moots acknowledges the hyperbole in the fine print:

"Rated on a 1-5 scale by the sage himself, Mr. Moots, with a 1 being the 'best option for'. Of course, there are many variables to consider when determining attributes of various frame materials."

As I mentioned, Mr. Moots was a rubber pencil eraser of Kent Eriksen's as a kid, and Kent's doodles of Mr. Moots became the mascot for the company. I don't think the chart is meant to be scientific, but a bit tongue-in-cheek.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by PezTech

I think the scoring is horse ****.

Sorry...


Moots make VERY good bikes. I would love one. But the scoring thing is nonsense.

Altho I don't agree with everything you say, I do admire how you get to the point so well on this one.

[dsteady]

Originally Posted by eddief

on a "mass produced" Madone and an off the rack Moots?

Much lower on the Moots, I'll bet. They're paying livable wages in a town dominated by ski and real estate development. I'm pretty sure that no one is getting filthy rich at Moots HQ.

[mike p]

"There is clearly a bias to Ti " Understatement of the month! Ti is a great material and I'd love to have an ericksen or moots. That said I have to fully agree with the master of subtlety Pez, "that chart is horse ****."

Mike

[Charles M]

It's not as if Madison and the people at Trek are lesser to the degree most might think.

It would probably be a big help to see Trek hand laying up all of the fiber to fabricate the tube sets and then building them all up.

That place may operate very well, but there is a lot of hands on happening in Madison, from the time they pull fiber from the fridge to the time they take the frames to one of a couple of painting areas for custom or standard paint.

That Madone is a heck of a nice bike too.




As for that chart being tongue in cheek... I don't think it is at all.

Like I said, I really like Moots and they make a hell of a frame. So do Lynskey and Serotta and SEVEN and Kent and others. I would trade a couple of my carbon bikes and a couple of other metal bikes for a custom YBB ANY DAY!


Great builders make great bikes.


But...

A standing note to a few builders and frankly, some consumers... (don't want to make this out to be a Moots thing or put too much focus on them...)

Speaking poorly (especially when it's not completely accurate) of materials you don't use or failed to succeed with is also an insult to the intelligence of educated customers.

It does not make your bikes better... It takes something away.


.