# Routt vs Routt 45



## nmadse1

Can anyone who has ridden the Routt and the Routt 45 comment on ride quality between the two? I like the versatility of running up to 44mm tires on the Routt 45, but I will likely usually be running 33-35 mm. Specifically, I'm wondering how perceptible the significantly longer chain stays on the 45. If it's not terribly perceptible, I think I'd go with the Routt 45 to keep options open for larger tires when needed. Thanks!


----------



## kma

I'm not a Moots owner but just a prospective buyer. However, I would recommend the Routt 45 so you would have more tire options. Not sure why the just can't design a Routt with short stays and accommodate a 700x45c tire? Other manufactures seem to do so.


----------



## Marc

kma said:


> I'm not a Moots owner but just a prospective buyer. However, I would recommend the Routt 45 so you would have more tire options. Not sure why the just can't design a Routt with short stays and accommodate a 700x45c tire? Other manufactures seem to do so.


It is problematic, in design, for two basic reasons:

A) "Gravel"/CX bikes are based on road standards. Specifically cranksets and bottom brackets--that have narrower tread spacing (Q-Factor) as well as narrower bottom brackets/spindles (based on 68mm standard...as opposed to MTB 73mm std width BB shell). Shortening the rear center makes it much more likely for a 142mm rear-axle bike to have clearance issues AKA the crankarms or rings striking the chainstay

B) Moots works metal. Limiting what can be done to thin out the chainstay

C) Shortening the stays and having 45mm+ tires causes problems for front derailleur clearance. Many CX riders have run into problems with short-rear-center bikes with CX 35mm tires not clearing ETap's FD battery. NVM the FD cage clearing big tires. Indeed Moots shows a pic of a Routt45 built with ETap, and the battery is just barely forward of the tire as it is.


There are a few ways to solve these problems:

A) Use a "droopy" stay as in the OpenUP pictured here. But this is only viable on carbon fiber.

B) Use a yolk that adds weight and complicates machining. As seen here on my Carver in naked frame

https://imgur.com/eecm2Mz
https://imgur.com/rdyLmiP
https://imgur.com/RFBKNAU
https://imgur.com/KIt7M18

And built up with 46/30 rings and 11/32 cassette

https://imgur.com/U9yhfMw

If you read the retail listing the frame, thanks in part to the yolk, isn't light at 4lbs. OTOH it can clear a 45mm tire easily--and honestly probably a 50mm.

The catch with shortened rear-center is that is makes the bike more racey....many riders would rather have a more stable platform on unstable surfaces. My Carver has slider stays that can adjust from 425mm-445mm, and I keep them at 445--even with 42mm tires on. I want the stability for non-compacted surfaces and/or touring with panniers.


----------



## Finx

Marc's post is excellent. 

As far as longer chainstays affecting handling, it probably will. How much is hard to say. And whether it's for better or for worse is likely debatable too.

Bikes with longer stays track well, and generally feel more stable on descents. 

They are also less nimble and can feel a little less responsive to steering input.

If you are someone who likes a fast hard technical descent (think sharp switchbacks, etc...), then the shorter stays are going to do that (a little) better. If you prefer a locked in stable feeling when descending, you may very well prefer the longer stays.

I once owned a 62cm Surly Long Haul Trucker. That bike did not like to turn (I have no idea how people raced CX on it). A couple of times I had to get off and ask it nicely go go around a sharp corner. 

The bottom line is, you would probably have to ride the bike yourself to see if you even noticed the difference, and if you did, whether it was an improvement or not.


----------

