# New Moots Model



## Mootsie

So if Moots were to produce a new frame, what would you like it to be? I vote for a fixed gear/track frame. Your thoughts?


----------



## tigoat

It would be nice to see a 953 Moots road frame and let's call it DaMoots.:thumbsup:


----------



## CFBlue

I've been asking David for a road frame with a larger seatube and a 31.6 seatpost. Other than that, I think there frames are perfect! Maybe a Silver or Gold cast headbadge.


----------



## Forrest Root

zippi said:


> I've been asking David for a road frame with a larger seatube and a 31.6 seatpost. Other than that, I think there frames are perfect! Maybe a Silver or Gold cast headbadge.



Why? What advantage is there to a larger seatpost?


----------



## barbedwire

A 31.6 post?! Dang! How thick, I mean, what's the diameter got to be on a seat tube that uses a 31.6 post?


----------



## tigoat

barbedwire said:


> A 31.6 post?! Dang! How thick, I mean, what's the diameter got to be on a seat tube that uses a 31.6 post?


1.375" diameter


----------



## tigoat

Forrest Root said:


> Why? What advantage is there to a larger seatpost?


With a larger diameter seat tube, it gives the frame more rebust torsional rigidlity, and it also looks more proportional with the rest of larger diameter main tubes. The disadvantage would be having less selection when finding a desirable 31.6mm seatpost since it is not as common as those 27.2mm posts.


----------



## barbedwire

tigoat said:


> 1.375" diameter



Just out of curiosity. Is this the same diam seat tube on the Road Vamoots or Compact frame? I always thought they were using a 31.8mm seat tube. You get a custom frame?


----------



## tigoat

zippi said:


> I've been asking David for a road frame with a larger seatube and a 31.6 seatpost. Other than that, I think there frames are perfect! Maybe a Silver or Gold cast headbadge.


So do I? :thumbsup: 

I mentioned this many moons ago on Moots forum but got no feedback from the mothership. In fact, some kiss-ass bozos over there tried to slam me for mentioning it since he thinks it is not a good idea to have a larger diameter seatpost.


----------



## tigoat

barbedwire said:


> Just out of curiosity. Is this the same diam seat tube on the Road Vamoots or Compact frame? I always thought they were using a 31.8mm seat tube. You get a custom frame?


No it is not and yes they use 1.250 in seat tube for their road frames nowadays. They do use 1.375 in diameter seat tube for their frame with 28.6mm seatpost but it has been discontinued.


----------



## Forrest Root

tigoat said:


> With a larger diameter seat tube, it gives the frame more rebust torsional rigidlity, and it also looks more proportional with the rest of larger diameter main tubes. The disadvantage would be having less selection when finding a desirable 31.6mm seatpost since it is not as common as those 27.2mm posts.


Granted. However, I asked what advantage there was. There is no correlation between frame stiffness and performance....none documented anywhere. In fact, Tour Magazine, in Germany, the perpertrators of the Great Stiffness Race, have admitted as much.

I had a Vamoots, with a little ol' 27.2mm seat tube. I weigh 175-180lbs and put out a max of 1200 watts according to the power meter; yet, I've not had any stiffness issues.

While there is no performance advantage to more stiffness, there is always the matter of personal taste....but that's an entirely different thing.


----------



## barbedwire

*Any info/advice for top tube & down tube diameter?*



tigoat said:


> With a larger diameter seat tube, it gives the frame more rebust torsional rigidlity, and it also looks more proportional with the rest of larger diameter main tubes. The disadvantage would be having less selection when finding a desirable 31.6mm seatpost since it is not as common as those 27.2mm posts.



I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense that you'd want a bigger seat tube to get a tad more stiffness, and the other tubes are already pretty stout so, to keep things proportional, you wouldn't want to increase the other tubes. Seat tube, yes. I kinda agree with you on this one.

Do the road frames (Vamoots and Compact) have the same diamter top & down tubes. I know that Moots might use different diameter tubes depending on frame size, but for like a very average Moots road frame size, would you happen to know what the diameter of the top & down tubes are???


----------



## tigoat

Correlation between frame stiffness and performance advantage? What the heck is that mean? Where did I mention this? You don’t happen to be the bozo who slammed me on Moots forum?

Regardless, I don’t give a damn what the magazine say because I don’t read cycling magazine. However, I can tell you for a fact that a 1.375 in diameter seat tube has a higher bending strength than a 1.250 in diameter one, comparatively speaking. Whether or not if this is beneficial in the field will depend on many factors and is debatable. 

As for personal tastes, wouldn’t you also have one? If performance advantage were all you care about then you probably wouldn’t be having a Moots, as there are many cheaper and better performance bike frames out there. :mad2: 



Forrest Root said:


> Granted. However, I asked what advantage there was. There is no correlation between frame stiffness and performance....none documented anywhere. In fact, Tour Magazine, in Germany, the perpertrators of the Great Stiffness Race, have admitted as much.
> 
> I had a Vamoots, with a little ol' 27.2mm seat tube. I weigh 175-180lbs and put out a max of 1200 watts according to the power meter; yet, I've not had any stiffness issues.
> 
> While there is no performance advantage to more stiffness, there is always the matter of personal taste....but that's an entirely different thing.


----------



## tigoat

The most common straight guage diameter tubing Moots uses are 1-1/4, 1-3/8, and 1-1/2. I think they also use 1.6+" tubing as well for some of their mountain bike frames. I believe that their butted Reynolds tubing come in metric and they are slightly smaller in diameter than those common ones mentioned above.

The most common top tube diameter they use is 1.375" and 1.500" for the down tube. I think for smaller frames, they also use 1.375" for the down tube. However, with a custom frame, you can pretty much spec out any diameter for the top and down tubes within their tubing collection. 



barbedwire said:


> I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense that you'd want a bigger seat tube to get a tad more stiffness, and the other tubes are already pretty stout so, to keep things proportional, you wouldn't want to increase the other tubes. Seat tube, yes. I kinda agree with you on this one.
> 
> Do the road frames (Vamoots and Compact) have the same diamter top & down tubes. I know that Moots might use different diameter tubes depending on frame size, but for like a very average Moots road frame size, would you happen to know what the diameter of the top & down tubes are???


----------



## Forrest Root

tigoat said:


> Correlation between frame stiffness and performance advantage? What the heck is that mean? Where did I mention this? You don’t happen to be the bozo who slammed me on Moots forum?
> 
> Regardless, I don’t give a damn what the magazine say because I don’t read cycling magazine. However, I can tell you for a fact that a 1.375 in diameter seat tube has a higher bending strength than a 1.250 in diameter one, comparatively speaking. Whether or not if this is beneficial in the field will depend on many factors and is debatable.
> 
> As for personal tastes, wouldn’t you also have one? If performance advantage were all you care about then you probably wouldn’t be having a Moots, as there are many cheaper and better performance bike frames out there. :mad2:


Christ. Don't drive angry, Phil. I wasn't arguing with you. Maybe it'd help if you ease'd up on the sensitivity pill dose a bit. I just said there's no correlation between frame stiffness and performance. Simple. But, since you mentioned it, it's not really debateable. You can't debate personal preference with any success, and there's no science, here, to debate.

Ease up, dude. I didn't know I was stepping on your dogma. "Bozo." Interesting. Carefull. Your response might make that bozo thing fit uncomfortably close to where you sit.


----------



## Forrest Root

Forrest Root said:


> Christ. Don't drive angry, Phil. I wasn't arguing with you. Maybe it'd help if you ease'd up on the sensitivity pill dose a bit. I just said there's no correlation between frame stiffness and performance. Simple. But, since you mentioned it, it's not really debateable. You can't debate personal preference with any success, and there's no science, here, to debate.
> 
> Ease up, dude. I didn't know I was stepping on your dogma. "Bozo." Interesting. Carefull. Your response might make that bozo thing fit uncomfortably close to where you sit.



Has someone done a test that shows the Moots seat tubes are causing some problems with torsional rigidity? Did someone then do a test to show that this horrible lack of torsional rigidity that must, apparently, be there, is killing riders' riding buzz? Interesting. Must alert Moots to this dramatic development at once.


----------



## tigoat

Well if you are gonna call me names then do it here in one shot instead of sending me a private message and then posting a different note here, since it all started here. Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion and I do not have a problem with that. Chill out. :mad2: 



Forrest Root said:


> Christ. Don't drive angry, Phil. I wasn't arguing with you. Maybe it'd help if you ease'd up on the sensitivity pill dose a bit. I just said there's no correlation between frame stiffness and performance. Simple. But, since you mentioned it, it's not really debateable. You can't debate personal preference with any success, and there's no science, here, to debate.
> 
> Ease up, dude. I didn't know I was stepping on your dogma. "Bozo." Interesting. Carefull. Your response might make that bozo thing fit uncomfortably close to where you sit.


----------



## Forrest Root

tigoat said:


> Well if you are gonna call me names then do it here in one shot instead of sending me a private message and then posting a different note here, since it all started here. Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion and I do not have a problem with that. Chill out. :mad2:


I'm chilled, dude. You're the one that came off with the 'tude.

I do like, though, how you did the petulant little child thing and mentioned the PM.

Nowhere in the post you whined about did I slam you, slander you, or otherwise ridicule you. I made an objective statement. Full stop.

You have big issues, fella, if you so easily confuse objectivity with personal attack.

As to the rest of the Moots crowd, apologies. I wasn't poking anyone with a stick, and I wasn't the one who trotted out with the Bozo comment and got defensive.


----------



## barbedwire

Just to add my 2 cents. I don't see what the big deal is. tigoat seems to have a good take on it after I thought about how a bigger seattube would help.

Consider this, you got a bike that's almost perfect. Ex: Moots Compact. Let's say you are a big gear masher and you want to add a little more stiffness. Well, increase in tube diameter = more stiffness. So you can generally pick to inc either the diameters for the seat tube, top tube, or down tube. Wouldn't it make sense aesthetically, to increase the tube with the smallest diameter? In this case, the seat tube. I mean, what's all the fuss about for recommending an 1/8" increase in seat tube? The tubes are more in proportion. It would look good.


----------



## Forrest Root

barbedwire said:


> Just to add my 2 cents. I don't see what the big deal is. tigoat seems to have a good take on it after I thought about how a bigger seattube would help.
> 
> Consider this, you got a bike that's almost perfect. Ex: Moots Compact. Let's say you are a big gear masher and you want to add a little more stiffness. Well, increase in tube diameter = more stiffness. So you can generally pick to inc either the diameters for the seat tube, top tube, or down tube. Wouldn't it make sense aesthetically, to increase the tube with the smallest diameter? In this case, the seat tube. I mean, what's all the fuss about for recommending an 1/8" increase in seat tube? The tubes are more in proportion. It would look good.


Maybe, maybe not.

What do you gain with the added stiffness? Anything? If it's a matter of aesthetics, that's fine, naught wrong with that. One shouldn't, however, do something out of a mistaken belief that there's a performance advantage, unless one wants to avail themselves of a nice dose of the placebo effect. Placebo effect is fine, too, and very powerful. There's no denying that. However, for Moots to change a product line, I suspect they'd need to see a reason or benefit, and there's no clear benefit from a fatter seat tube, other than it looks like the other tubes....and that's a personal viewpoint. There is, however, no data that indicates that Moots frames are deficient, from a performance point of view, because of a lack of torsional rigidity around the bottom bracket. There is no data because there is no data anywhere that shows that frame flexure adversely affects performance.

Stiffness is highly over-sold. It is one of the hip buzz words in cycling.


----------



## CFBlue

I'm with you Tigoat. It's all about estetics for me. I have a custom Vamoots SL, built as stiff as possible. So the toptube is the same as the downtube. The seattube looks kinda thin compared to the rest of the frame. I've seen some of the frames Holland is putting with a 31.6 seatpost and they look great! I still prefer a Moots. Maybe they'll come around.


----------



## CFBlue

This is what I mean. If the seattube were larger, it'd be perfect!


----------



## barbedwire

zippi said:


> I'm with you Tigoat. It's all about estetics for me. I have a custom Vamoots SL, built as stiff as possible. So the toptube is the same as the downtube. The seattube looks kinda thin compared to the rest of the frame. I've seen some of the frames Holland is putting with a 31.6 seatpost and they look great! I still prefer a Moots. Maybe they'll come around.




Man zippi, that is one sweet lookin' ride. :thumbsup: 
That Moots looks to be about the same size as what I ride. Is it a 54 C-T? I was just wondering, you got a custom frame and had them increase the top tube diameter. What diameter is it? Is that the only tubing diameter change you made?


----------



## tigoat

zippi,

I have a custom Moots as well as a Holland's with a 1-3/8 seat tube that uses 31.6mm seatpost so I know exactly what you mean. Knowing what I know now, I would have asked Moots to use a 1-3/8 seat tube then. 

Man your Moots sets the standard so high that it will be hard for mine to match yours, componetry wise. Those Lightweight wheels are just plain awesome and I hope I will be able to justify getting a set in the near future. Have fun!:thumbsup: 



zippi said:


> I'm with you Tigoat. It's all about estetics for me. I have a custom Vamoots SL, built as stiff as possible. So the toptube is the same as the downtube. The seattube looks kinda thin compared to the rest of the frame. I've seen some of the frames Holland is putting with a 31.6 seatpost and they look great! I still prefer a Moots. Maybe they'll come around.


----------



## CFBlue

Barbedwire, the whole thing is custom. I asked for the stiffest frame possible. 1 to 2 degree slope, shorter chainstay, shorter toptube, 135 headtube, 72.75 front/74 seattube and no finish. I had it brushed. So both toptube and downtube are the largest diameter 6/4 they offer. And Tigoat, Moots does not offer 1 3/4 seattube. If they did....


----------



## barbedwire

zippi said:


> Barbedwire, the whole thing is custom. I asked for the stiffest frame possible. 1 to 2 degree slope, shorter chainstay, shorter toptube, 135 headtube, 72.75 front/74 seattube and no finish. I had it brushed. So both toptube and downtube are the largest diameter 6/4 they offer. And Tigoat, Moots does not offer 1 3/4 seattube. If they did....



Nice. Well, what is the diameter of your top tube? I have no idea what Moots largest diam tubing they offer. I am going to get a totally tricked out custom Ti ride in a month or two and the contenders are Moots, IF, and Seven. Moots is great, but I get tube info alot easier from IF and 7 for some reason. Anyway, do you know what your top tube diameter even is. It would help my cause a bunch. thanks


----------



## CFBlue

call moots. they should have that info. I just know it's stiff!


----------



## barbedwire

zippi said:


> Barbedwire, the whole thing is custom. I asked for the stiffest frame possible. 1 to 2 degree slope, shorter chainstay, shorter toptube, 135 headtube, 72.75 front/74 seattube and no finish. I had it brushed. So both toptube and downtube are the largest diameter 6/4 they offer. And Tigoat, Moots does not offer 1 3/4 seattube. If they did....



Cowabunga! A 1 3/4" seattube?! As in 1 3/4" (44.6mm) seat tube? That would mean that the seat tube was even fatter than the down tube. I haven't seen that before. Wow. I can't imaging what kind of seat post that would require. Anyway, you sounded like you were to say that if Moots offered a 1 3/4" seat tube, you would get it.

I was thinking of even going past the Hollands ST of 1 3/8 and upsizing to 1 1/2" seat tube. Do you think instead of a 1 1/2" ST, I should maybe look into getting a 1 3/4" seat tube? I'm thinking that I'm probably about the same frame size as you. What do you guys think? Should I go with the 1 1/2" seat tube or bump it up to 1 3/4"?


----------



## ghostzapper2007

I'm a little confused. If frame flex hs no effect on performance than why would the toptube or the downtube on a Moots have to be larger diameters than the seatube? It would seem you would use the same size tubes possibly reducing the stiffness, the frame weight, while having no effect on performance? If a person went to larger diameter toptubes and downtubes would it not be logical to use t he same diameter tube for the seatube? Just curious what people think. 

One other question, for straight gauge ti in a roughly size 57/58 road frame, would 1 1/2 diameter tubes for toptube and downtube be considered stiff, average...or what?


----------



## zoikz

*Go back to the roots moots*



Mootsie said:


> So if Moots were to produce a new frame, what would you like it to be? I vote for a fixed gear/track frame. Your thoughts?


Would be nice to see Moots do some steel again. A kickin SS cruiser with the alligator lugs, hippie paint and a cargo rack. Don't forget the weed bin in the top tube.


----------



## mendo

These threads seem like the place where people affect a who's-the-cock-of-walk attitude that they'd never have if they were face to face. It does make for interesting reading though.


----------



## ghostzapper2007

Forrest Root said:


> Granted. However, I asked what advantage there was. There is no correlation between frame stiffness and performance....none documented anywhere. In fact, Tour Magazine, in Germany, the perpertrators of the Great Stiffness Race, have admitted as much.
> 
> I had a Vamoots, with a little ol' 27.2mm seat tube. I weigh 175-180lbs and put out a max of 1200 watts according to the power meter; yet, I've not had any stiffness issues.
> 
> While there is no performance advantage to more stiffness, there is always the matter of personal taste....but that's an entirely different thing.


What were the diameters of your toptube and downtube and what size is the frame?


----------

