Results 1 to 90 of 90
  1. #1
    Home of the Gravedigger
    Reputation: jkaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    384

    New Moots FrosTi

    Moots MOOTS FROSTi SNOW BIKE

    I saw this a few weeks ago in the Moots factory. I wanted to walk out with it!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveRice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    112
    No clearance for a BFL????

  3. #3
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,435
    Sweet but 4 grand just for the frame! No sliders, minimal tire clearance, stock sizes only, did I mention 4,000 freakin dollars for the frame only. One of the coolest looking fat frames I've seen though, thanks for sharing. Very cool!!

  4. #4
    Home of the Gravedigger
    Reputation: jkaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    384
    Yes, $4K is a lot for a frame. But I will say this, I own a Moots road bike. I sold 2 high end road bikes just to buy the frame. I have NEVER ridden a road bike as smooth and fast as my Moots. The attention to detail is like no other. I am lucky enough to live in Colorado and was able to visit the Moots factory. The people are great and passionate about their bikes. Here are a few pics I snapped of the new Moots snow bike and the old Moots snow bike. It's going to be hard to ride my Pugs this winter knowing that this bike is out there and far out of my reach!


    <a href="https://s427.photobucket.com/albums/pp356/jkaber/?action=view&amp;current=DSC_0132.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp356/jkaber/DSC_0132.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
    <a href="https://s427.photobucket.com/albums/pp356/jkaber/?action=view&amp;current=DSC_0112.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp356/jkaber/DSC_0112.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
    <a href="https://s427.photobucket.com/albums/pp356/jkaber/?action=view&amp;current=DSC_0107.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp356/jkaber/DSC_0107.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

  5. #5
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,950
    Wow it is a work of art for sure, but $4k ? Yikes

  6. #6
    Machinist
    Reputation: adroit 96''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    171
    very cool but not 4 grand cool even if I was loaded.
    "Ya can't argue logic with ignorance.''

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Greenfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    332
    $4000 huh. They most be proud
    Still cleaning my Fatback.
    It's a life style.

  8. #8
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,130
    I want the fork....

  9. #9
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,706
    I think the old one is a work of art.
    And the new one.....
    Well, let's just say i expected a bit more.

  10. #10
    He be a moose too.
    Reputation: pinguwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,134
    Well, I wouldn't pay $4k for a bike with a flat tire, that's for sure.

    I think Moots are nice bikes. I visited the factory, watched them weld frames, hung out with them, rode and played hackeysack with them, yeah good stuff, but I think they are overpriced. Great bikes but for what they charge, you can get a better value and not just for the Frosti.

  11. #11
    Did I catch a niner+?
    Reputation: Mr Pink57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    So for 4k I get a Mukluk fork?
    Mr. Krabs: Is it true, Squidward? Is it hilarious?

  12. #12
    Home of the Gravedigger
    Reputation: jkaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    384
    No...for 4K you don't get a fork! I'm not sure why It is so pricey. My Moots road frame and fork was $3100....but worth every penny. If I had gobs of money, I would probably buy this frame knowing how magical Moots bike ride. Maybe Mike Curiak will weigh in on this frame.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    243
    Ti fatback (aka lynskey) just as nice imo & still more then I can afford

  14. #14
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,576
    I don't understand what advantage a Ti frame has when the tires are 4" wide and 10psi.

  15. #15
    Machinist
    Reputation: adroit 96''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by jkaber View Post
    No...for 4K you don't get a fork! I'm not sure why It is so pricey. My Moots road frame and fork was $3100....but worth every penny. If I had gobs of money, I would probably buy this frame knowing how magical Moots bike ride. Maybe Mike Curiak will weigh in on this frame.

    They will most likely say because it's a ''limited'' run which required ''special tooling and fixtures''.........
    "Ya can't argue logic with ignorance.''

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    I LOVE the look of this bike... the down tube is SEXY! But 4 grand- w/o a fork even? This bike is for the wealthy only! Thanks for nothin' MOOTS! Call me when you get off your "High Horse"!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,512
    Meh talk about a company that teases you and delivers nothing special. Sorry but I can't put it over at that price. Maybe if they delivered a Ti soft tail 100mm BFL compatable frame.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  18. #18
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by bighit View Post
    Meh talk about a company that teases you and delivers nothing special. Sorry but I can't put it over at that price. Maybe if they delivered a Ti soft tail 100mm BFL compatable frame.
    ....With a fork.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jfkbike2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,045
    Quote Originally Posted by pursuiter View Post
    I don't understand what advantage a Ti frame has when the tires are 4" wide and 10psi.
    Uhhh maybe weight and corrosion resistance to name two.

    This Moots must be just a prototype as there are not near enough decals on it!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    I must say, I also like the slightly lower than average "cock pit" too. looks like this one would lend itself to XC and all around FB riding as well. Could be real cool as a 29er switch. Still, at $4000, like big hit said "TEASE"! For that price I'd want it custom sized and personalized! And a steak dinner and a case of good ale!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Rabies010 View Post
    ....With a fork.
    Yeah I want that ti dual crown one for the winter. Then switch over to a DUC for the summer.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  22. #22
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by bighit View Post
    Yeah I want that ti dual crown one for the winter. Then switch over to a DUC for the summer.
    You mean the one with the fuel storage ?
    Cause for 4K they could incorporate that as well. (or at least offer that as a option)

  23. #23
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    I've got one of these sold to a customer.....can't wait to build it up!
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  24. #24
    He be a moose too.
    Reputation: pinguwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,134
    Quote Originally Posted by jfkbike2 View Post
    Uhhh maybe weight and corrosion resistance to name two.
    When I talked with Salsa, the Ti Mukluk was no lighter than the aluminum one. As far as corrosion, that's relevant with Pugsley but not a Mukluk. I think you get a frame like this because it has a coolness factor and have a spare $6k (parts included) but not because you will ride any better.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    574
    I think it is too little, too late in the fatbike game to come out with this and way too expensive. If they came out with this say 2 years ago I would be impressed but there are better, less expensive Ti frames with more options. It can't even fit a BFL. I would get a Ti Fatback way before this.

    Personally any new hardtail fatbike that comes out will leave me with a "meh" feeling unless it is all carbon fiber or a softail. It is time to stay ahead of the curve and come out with full suspension fatbikes. I am supprised Moots didn't come out with a production softail like they did for MikeC over a year ago. If they made a FS Ti fatbike I would be on the list for a new one.

    My .02

    -Nolan

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,512
    Quote Originally Posted by nolan17 View Post
    I think it is too little, too late in the fatbike game to come out with this and way too expensive. If they came out with this say 2 years ago I would be impressed but there are better, less expensive Ti frames with more options. It can't even fit a BFL. I would get a Ti Fatback way before this.

    Personally any new hardtail fatbike that comes out will leave me with a "meh" feeling unless it is all carbon fiber or a softail. It is time to stay ahead of the curve and come out with full suspension fatbikes. I am supprised Moots didn't come out with a production softail like they did for MikeC over a year ago. If they made a FS Ti fatbike I would be on the list for a new one.

    My .02

    -Nolan
    I agree. They have been teasing all this cool fat bike stuff for years and getting all the press like they were a progressive fat bike maker, but deliver a 3 year old product.

    I don't hate them. I have several moots parts, but stop playing the fat bike community.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,512
    And just wait until Greg stuffs a BFL in here,
    http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/ly...on-742637.html
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  28. #28
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    Quote Originally Posted by bighit View Post
    I agree. They have been teasing all this cool fat bike stuff for years and getting all the press like they were a progressive fat bike maker, but deliver a 3 year old product.

    I don't hate them. I have several moots parts, but stop playing the fat bike community.
    "playing the fatbike community"? Really?? Speak for yourself......I don't feel played in the least. I just wish I had the money to grab one of these.

    What makes this a 3 year old product?? Does every new fat bike need to fit BFL to be relevant?

    To me....this frame is just as current/viable as their other frames. It's a well designed, well built frame that the owner can hold on to for years to come.

    I'd not spend a penny on a FS fat bike........but I would spend the money on this bike(though I am bummed they can't do the YBB....but I understand their reasons)
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  29. #29
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,797
    No offense guys, but I'm surprised at the level of... surprise, here. You know what you're getting when buying a Moots. Primo stuff for primo price. A fat Moots should be different?

    One can get Ti fat bikes elsewhere.

    I do agree that the notion of fitting 3.7" tires is a bit odd.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey View Post
    "playing the fatbike community"? Really?? Speak for yourself......I don't feel played in the least. I just wish I had the money to grab one of these.

    What makes this a 3 year old product?? Does every new fat bike need to fit BFL to be relevant?

    To me....this frame is just as current/viable as their other frames. It's a well designed, well built frame that the owner can hold on to for years to come.

    I'd not spend a penny on a FS fat bike........but I would spend the money on this bike(though I am bummed they can't do the YBB....but I understand their reasons)
    Donkey's got a point... even though I made similar comments to Bighit's above. Farrari's & Porsch's exist out there... high performer's and cool lookin' but most of us wont be buyin' 'em any time soon. Sure is pretty, that MOOTS... guess it just kind of hurt's that it's sooo far out of my reach, especially in this economy! And, IMO, bighit's right too, just not enough value there for the regular guy... Get that thing away from me before I do something stupid like sell my house or a kidney or something!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,512
    They have been parading around and made high end fat bikes for a couple of years. The designs show that they know what's going on. they didn't see BFLs coming, but made a fork and frame with fuel storage tubes, please.

    It is what it is.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  32. #32
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    Quote Originally Posted by bighit View Post
    They have been parading around and made high end fat bikes for a couple of years. The designs show that they know what's going on. they didn't see BFLs coming, but made a fork and frame with fuel storage tubes, please.

    It is what it is.
    Perhaps they knew the wider tires were coming but didn't want to build around them due to the fact that they rely on either a new, wider rear hub standard or an offset rear end(in order to maintain proper chainline).

    I think you're simplifying things and acting like any schmoe can just build up a frame that'll fit the BFL comfortably. It just isn't quite that easy......and it won't be necessary for most people.

    BB
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,000
    Fugly. $4k. No way. Moots is a little too proud of themselves judging by that pricepoint, or they have a large customer base with stacks of money burning holes in their pockets.

  34. #34
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    Quote Originally Posted by tiflow_21 View Post
    ........or they have a large customer base with stacks of money burning holes in their pockets.
    Precisely......and those people apparently appreciate bikes that are built to last....and are made by people who care about their end product/work.

    B
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,512
    In the name of The Path Bike Shop stop defending the Moots line like that.

    Let's just say this, it's a great entry level Ti fat bike for Moots aimed at the people who don't want to run BFLs.
    Next we will release our fat soft tail, or our super fat long range Arctic explorer with fuel carrying capacity.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by donkey View Post
    Precisely......and those people apparently appreciate bikes that are built to last....and are made by people who care about their end product/work.

    B
    I, and I'm guessing many of the others in this thread, appreciate bikes that are built to last. However, I find $4k beyond the worth of any frame with no special features beyond other offerings in the market. MC's moots fat bike is far more drool worthy than this thing. Speaking of caring about the end product/work... they couldn't even manage to re-paint the mukluk fork? That's pretty half-@ssed IMO. Seems like they're a bit too dependent on their customer base being rich than actually doing anything new or better. Now, I do agree moots has pretty welds and I wouldn't turn one down if I could get the frames at cost.

  37. #37
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    Quote Originally Posted by bighit View Post

    Let's just say this, it's a great, high-end Ti fat bike for Moots aimed at the people who don't want to run BFLs.
    Fixed that for you:-)

    Personally.....I'd buy this before I bought a version that fit BFL tires. The increase in Q is not something I want to deal with.

    B
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  38. #38
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Moots are spendy. I don't think there is any argument there.

    This one is designed so you can use a triple and 9 cogs out back. Yes- that limits you to the tires at 3.8 (Not sure why they put 3.7' out there, but whatever), and has been said here, many have gotten on for years with such width tires and need no bigger.

    The bikes that do fit BFL's have compromises elsewhere. Maybe Moots sees that as worse than having clearance for BFL's? maybe. I could see that as being completely valid.

    Added to this is a certain level of exclusivity. You can poo-poo that if you'd like. Some folks will pay for that notoriety.

    Moots are pretty bomber, straight, no issues bikes. Made in the U.S.A, so I see where premium craftsmanship will cost more as well. I'm sure Moots made overseas would be less, but then.......would it be a Moots?

    I see a certain level of value there, but I also agree the price is steep. I wouldn't expect anything less from Moots though either. They are Moots, after all.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bighit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,512
    All great points, but in the end I expected way more from them.
    2013 mongoose Fat bike
    2012 Moonlander.

    http://undergroundvelo.proboards.com/

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,866
    4K for frame? Cut it out.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    574
    All good points above. I guess I feel let down that they came out with this when I have been so jealous of MikeC's Snoots and softail for a long time. I figured they would have added to those designs.

    Fatbikers (IMO) are the more forward thinking group of people in mountainbiking. We have people making bamboo fatbikes, full suspension fattys and even tandems. So for us as a community we are always looking for something better even if we have to do it ourselves first. I think in 3-5 years we will all be riding full suspension carbon fatbikes that weigh under 28lbs.

    I am sure the Moots is awesome but not 4 grand awesome. Plus it is already limited to tire size.

    As I said before too little too late and way too much.

    -Nolan

  42. #42
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,797
    Quote Originally Posted by nolan17 View Post
    I think in 3-5 years we will all be riding full suspension carbon fatbikes that weigh under 28lbs.
    -Nolan
    I think you overestimate a bit how light things are going to get. Hydroformed aluminum frames can compete with carbon frames in terms of weight. Pivots and shocks do add up.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    574
    I was thinking that the technology of rims and tires as well as tubless would save most of the weight. The carbon frame could save you a pound over an aluminum frame and may be a wash against a Ti frame. 3 years in bike technology is a long time and with the popularity of fatbikes continuing to grow more R&D from bigger companies looking to gain market share will be put in to making them lighter and better than ever. Its a win for us all so lets let them know what we want now so they can start designing them.

    Carbon hardtail, full suspension frames, carbon tubless rims(Drews idea). This is what I would like to see in the future. What do you want?

    -Nolan

  44. #44
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    Quote Originally Posted by nolan17 View Post
    What do you want?
    An outdated Moots FrosTi with a Ti fork, light 100mm rims, 3.7 tires and a nice set of bags. Narrow Q factor cranks would be nice as well.

    That's it. That's perfect.
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    116
    ditto
    Ridin ridin ridin..... raw ti!

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,732
    I don't why people are griping that this doesn't fit BFL's. Is that suddenly the must have tire size? I have no desire to go to anything larger than the Nate and Larry, and if it was so important, I reckon Surly would have made a new Pugsley that fit BFL's instead of selling the Moonlander and the Pugsley simultaneously.

    If you want a Moots and want to fit a freaking BFL front and back, they'd gladly do it for you I'm sure, for a price of course.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    87
    Moots are made in Steamboat Springs, CO. I've had the factory tour, it appears to me that production expenses are not spared. Only make about 5 frames a day. They need to charge a lot to make a profit I assume. I've never heard anyone complain about their Moots.

    I think the BFL is likely too big, but I'm happy people are buying them and tires are getting bigger. I assume there is a critical mass but until someone builds too big a tire, we won't know what size that is.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,884
    I simply do NOT see the lure. Different strokes, and all that...


  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,142
    I like the looks, especially the swoopy tubes. That blue Muk fork ruins it. Shoulda showcased it with a carbon Snowpack (especially since the frame doesn't include a fork). Moots makes nice stuff. But $4K? C'mon, you can get a custom Black Sheep fatbike frame for $3500. Probably not by December, though...

  50. #50
    I'm attracted to Gravity!
    Reputation: campredcloudbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    598
    Perhaps they're busy enough with their normal frames that they don't want to competitively price these. so, if you just want a Ti fatbike, you'll go elsewhere, but if you really want to have a Snoots, they'd be more than happy to take your money, at an increased profit margin. If you want fewer orders, just raise the price. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

  51. #51
    MORBID
    Reputation: ppgc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    109
    If I remember correctly they were only going to make 20 of these this year.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    40
    What fat bikes can you fit a BFL and get all the gears out the back? Maybe that is why they are advertising it as only accommodating a 3.7, not sure. When does flotation become more of a priority than traction?

  53. #53
    Slow But Still Pedaling
    Reputation: JimInSF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    484
    Love the curves! But I really want to go FS fat, and will probably have James build me one at some point. Hopefully the fat Flame will be production by then.

  54. #54
    Caveman
    Reputation: Bearbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,002
    People have been asking for a moots snow bike for years.. so here it is. They are obviously not trying to compete with the other options out there and are shooting for the sky. Hats off Moots - looks beautiful.

  55. #55
    Stubby-legged
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,130
    Despite all the doubters...I'll bet they sell everyone of them!

  56. #56
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,256
    Quote Originally Posted by turbonate View Post
    What fat bikes can you fit a BFL and get all the gears out the back? Maybe that is why they are advertising it as only accommodating a 3.7, not sure. When does flotation become more of a priority than traction?

    Uhhh...........if you mean by having a 3 X 9 with BFL's on 100mm rims, then no fat bike does that, yet. Not even the Moonlander, and it was designed for the best combination of 100mm rims/BFL's and a 9 spd cassette. They managed every thing but a big ring on the crank. Probably will suffice for the purposes of the bike.

    The Moots was designed to work with a traditional mtb drivetrain, and that's probably why clearances are limited to the size they specify.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  57. #57
    Home of the Gravedigger
    Reputation: jkaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    384
    Think of it this way. Bicycling Magazine has all sorts of $4,000 mass produced Chinese plastic road bike frames showcased every month. For $4,000 you get something hand made in the USA that rides like it it has heart and soul. If I had the means, I would buy this frame and build up one sweet ass snow bike that only 20 other people have. Moots is one of the top Ti frame builders in the world. If you want the best, it's going to cost you...plain and simple.

    For now, I will ride the piss out of my Pugs and play the lottery until I hit the jackpot.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wieczorek24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by jkaber View Post
    Think of it this way. Bicycling Magazine has all sorts of $4,000 mass produced Chinese plastic road bike frames showcased every month. For $4,000 you get something hand made in the USA that rides like it it has heart and soul. If I had the means, I would buy this frame and build up one sweet ass snow bike that only 20 other people have. Moots is one of the top Ti frame builders in the world. If you want the best, it's going to cost you...plain and simple.

    For now, I will ride the piss out of my Pugs and play the lottery until I hit the jackpot.
    Amen
    I live in "bush" Alaska, in Galena on the Yukon River.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dvo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    753
    To little substance for me.

    I like Moots frames, but this frame doesn't do fuel storage, runs a nothing special fork, a problem solver adapter WTF you can't machine a fitting and weld it on for 4K?

    Measurement is TT? I would like to see the rest of them also thank you.

    Yeah, I am glad someone else is building my next fat bike.

  60. #60
    MORBID
    Reputation: ppgc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by dvo1 View Post

    Yeah, I am glad someone else is building my next fat bike.
    Got pictures of said next Fatty? Black Sheep building a bike to match that fork?

  61. #61
    Home of the Gravedigger
    Reputation: jkaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    384
    Is this the Moots that would make everyone happy?

    MC's Moots Snoots | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

  62. #62
    MORBID
    Reputation: ppgc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by jkaber View Post
    Is this the Moots that would make everyone happy?

    MC's Moots Snoots | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
    No, they would still b!tch because it can only run 3.8's.

  63. #63
    Home of the Gravedigger
    Reputation: jkaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by ppgc View Post
    No, they would still b!tch because it can only run 3.8's.
    Good point! I remember before my pugs I was riding a cross bike with 32mm tires in the snow. What was I thinking!

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,213
    Quote Originally Posted by jkaber View Post
    Good point! I remember before my pugs I was riding a cross bike with 32mm tires in the snow. What was I thinking!
    But do you ride it now?
    Seriously I think what most people are grumping about is that they expected great things from Moots, especially in light of the aforementioned soft tail. They were dissappointed to see another version of snow bike that Speedway, 907, Vicious, and others have already done. No matter how nice it is it can only at best be a minor improvement. Will they sell them all? Of course they will but it's still too bad they didn't push the envelope a bit.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    137
    I think the build kit itself is most disappointing. Speedway Cycles (Fatback) is a stocking Moots dealer. Why wouldn't Moots use the US made Fatback (Hadley) hubs and the new Fatback carbon fork? Come to think of it, Greg has been racing the new Moots 29er all summer and siging it's praises. Come on Moots, don't forget who supports your products!

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,142
    Quote Originally Posted by ANYRIDE View Post
    I think the build kit itself is most disappointing.
    Build kit? I thought it was just a frame.

  67. #67
    Home of the Gravedigger
    Reputation: jkaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    384
    I am pretty sure the bike in the Moots picture is an employee's bike that built it how he wanted it. It is not intended to be a display bike. Hence the blue fork, dropper seat post, etc. With that being said, the employee probably built up the frame for himself and said, hey, why not build a few more while the jig is set up.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,142
    The Moots site does say the geometry is designed for the Salsa Enabler fork. I'd prefer black over the obvious "this-is-a-Mukluk-fork" blue color. Like ANYRIDE, I'd like to see a carbon fork on there. I like my $4K frames blinged out, thank you.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by SmooveP View Post
    Build kit? I thought it was just a frame.
    True. I just got all worked up over what I expected to be a classy(er) build for the sake of advertising.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by 1spd1way View Post
    Despite all the doubters...I'll bet they sell everyone of them!
    Anybody? Deadline is today!
    Ridin ridin ridin..... raw ti!

  71. #71
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    Just got a little surprise in the mail here at the shop.....

    Looks awesome......as in....really freakin awesome.. Hopefully it'll be built up in the very near future. Pics forthcoming.
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,501
    I'm always happy to see another fatbike option even if there is no chance it will end up in my garage...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    41
    The Fatback ti @ 2000.00 and 9:Zero:7 @ 2800.00; according to their respective websights.

    My question for Moots is what is the basis for valuation?

  74. #74
    giddy up!
    Reputation: donkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,247
    3.9lbs with seat collar. Not bad.

    Oh.....and it clears Larry mounted on Daryll's with lots of room to spare. BFL/Daryll should be no problem at all.

    B
    www.thepathbikeshop.com

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,524
    any of these been built yet?

    cheers.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: deleteyourselph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    125
    First off, why the snobbery against Moots? I can't afford one, but that doesn't mean they're not awesome. Second, why the hate against the price? Personally I bought a Pugs because I thought the Fatback's complete price of $2,000 wasn't worth it. Doesn't mean I don't like Fatback's though. And third, I have to agree with those that asked why BFL's are the standard now. Why are they? I don't know that I would want them, they're a nice option, but not having them on your bike doesn't mean it's not relevant. Personally my Larry/Endo combo is working good for beach riding so far, although we'll see how they are in snow if Wisconsin ever gets any.
    "You don't cross my ***** line, I don't cross your ***** line".
    - James Lahey Sunnyvale Trailer Park Supervisor

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: deleteyourselph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    125
    Donkey we needs pics please!!!
    "You don't cross my ***** line, I don't cross your ***** line".
    - James Lahey Sunnyvale Trailer Park Supervisor

  78. #78
    Home of the Gravedigger
    Reputation: jkaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by deleteyourselph View Post
    First off, why the snobbery against Moots? I can't afford one, but that doesn't mean they're not awesome. Second, why the hate against the price? Personally I bought a Pugs because I thought the Fatback's complete price of $2,000 wasn't worth it. Doesn't mean I don't like Fatback's though. And third, I have to agree with those that asked why BFL's are the standard now. Why are they? I don't know that I would want them, they're a nice option, but not having them on your bike doesn't mean it's not relevant. Personally my Larry/Endo combo is working good for beach riding so far, although we'll see how they are in snow if Wisconsin ever gets any.
    I'm with you deleteyourselph. I own a Moots road bike and the ride is so amazing its hard to put into words. I can only imagine how sweet the ride of a Moots snow bike is. The price is high for the Moots...but it's a Moots. They ride nice, the build is flawless, and if I had the money I would probably get one. But I'm not sure why there is so much hatred towards them. It's another snow bike for us to enjoy looking it and that is awesome. As far as BFL's......it was not long ago that they came out! No matter how you slice it, you can't put it on the rear unless you drop gears anyway! I have a BFL on the front of my pug....it's nice...but not a game changer on a 70mm rim. I talked to a Moots rep at a race a few weeks ago and he said all the FrosTi's sold! So if a $4000 frame sells out....I guess there is no need to lower the price to appeal to the riders on the Fatbike forum.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,142
    I don't think any of the comments qualify as hate. It's certainly valid to question the price of a product, especially on a Review site (The "R" in MTBR, remember?). I love Moots stuff, but bought a Twenty 2 ($2599 for frame only). Equally nice looking (IMHO), handmade in Colorado, and better geometry for me. I wouldn't mock anyone for getting a Moots, though. Unless they put that Salsa fork on it

  80. #80
    He be a moose too.
    Reputation: pinguwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,134
    I don't hate on the Moots but I'm not impressed by it. There is nothing in the design that is new or innovative, it's just a pricey Ti bike. I've ridden many Moots before. My sister lived in Steamboat and I've been to the factory when they were in the beehive, went riding with the guys and played hackey-sack with them. I think they are very good bikes but not to the level of "It's a Moots!" I say, "It's a bike." I can afford one of them if I chose to but have no reason to think it will gain me anything over what I have. For that price, I need a compelling reason to get it and the Fros-ti doesn't provide one for me.

    I agree with the BFL thing. Yes, my bike can fit them but if it couldn't, I would still have bought it.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    574
    I DO like Moots as a company and had asked if they would make me a snowbike a few years ago, but they wouldn't and I still like them (They are on my list for a custom road frame next year). That being said I agree with Pinguwin that they didn't bring anything new to the table. Both of Mikesee's Moots are way more innovative than the FrosTi and they were made way before the FrosTi came out (at least one of them). Personally I was expecting something more, something unique only to them that would make me want it no matter what the price. Thats all.

    As far as the BFL's go: Well I love it as a back tire on my 46mm rim for dirt, a little extra squish to soften the ride is always welcome. If we ever get snow I think it will be good on the 82mm rear wheel for breaking trail or deeper snow. But we need snow!!!

    -Nolan

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    I imagine that being such a small run they would not employ too much on R+D efforts. Seems to me this is more of a exploratory effort than anything.

    I also think that many of the buyers would probably run top notch components (XTR, XO, XX, carbon/titanium bits.) At least that is what I would run. Perhaps the employee could only afford a salsa fork after the $4k price tag? LOL (Just kidding of course, he probably needs it to run anything cages.)

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    859
    Quote Originally Posted by deleteyourselph View Post
    First off, why the snobbery against Moots? I can't afford one, but that doesn't mean they're not awesome. Second, why the hate against the price? Personally I bought a Pugs because I thought the Fatback's complete price of $2,000 wasn't worth it. Doesn't mean I don't like Fatback's though. And third, I have to agree with those that asked why BFL's are the standard now. Why are they? I don't know that I would want them, they're a nice option, but not having them on your bike doesn't mean it's not relevant. Personally my Larry/Endo combo is working good for beach riding so far, although we'll see how they are in snow if Wisconsin ever gets any.
    On the BFL issue, I think there are 2 responses:
    1. Now that the BFL is out, I think we all suspect it is just a matter of time before there is a BFE, BFN, or other similar big fat tires that will be superior for just about any fat bike application.
    2. Now that BFL is out, it seems kind of anti-technology to buy/build a bike that doesn't fit them. Unnecessarily limiting one's options. Kind of like a new 29er that cannot be built with disc brakes, IMO. Or maybe like a 29er that can only fit tires up to 2.1". There are options available, but there are some very good options that are immediately off the table.

    It does, in some meaningful ways, limit the options available to the rider to cross out the state of the art in tire design.

  84. #84
    I'm how far behind?
    Reputation: Soloracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by wrcRS View Post
    I imagine that being such a small run they would not employ too much on R+D efforts. Seems to me this is more of a exploratory effort than anything.
    They have been in the snowbike biz for over a decade,this is just the first time that they are making a run of them. I have their first attempt in my garage right now. Fits a gazzo in the rear but was designed for a remo sand tire which was the biggest tire available at he time. Prior to this run you would have to either be a friend or pay big bucks to get one.

    I'm picking up a moon lander in the morning, I should probably sell off the moots. It is a sweet bike but it won't get much more use from me.
    Fatter than most.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,025
    Is it going to be flexible like alot of their past frames? Seems to be lacking leading edge technology (like shaped tubes- as opposed to bent tubes) to add rigidity. My $ 399 aluminimum Fatback is likely stiffer laterally, which is important when havagating icy rutted trails! Just my $.02 worth (as a Moots owner -YBB SL Ti - which by todays standards is a very flexy frame).
    Last edited by buggymancan; 12-30-2011 at 09:30 AM.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,524

    Smile

    whoa! errr...didnt mean to re-open the can of worms. as for price and shaped tubes and whatnot....moots justify the price *easily* in terms of quality and origin of the ti tubing (which is more than likely a gimmick if it gets significantly shaped....) and the skill in manufacture. i would say $4000 is well justified - just remember that not all ti is created equal!...

    as for innovation....that might be a risky step in a frame like this....at that price i doubt many would consider it disposable....and as such, you want it to utilise proven-over-time design criteria. and as for mikesee's frame....how many of those who could step up for the extra features $ value are going to store white gas in the bars and use such a beast in anger? yep...just cos you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

    but my purpose in bringing this up again was to get some juicy pics of a what i think may be a very beautiful and purposeful bike....i'm very glad moots took this step.

    as you were!

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dvo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    753
    Still no pics.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    54

    Smile Great looking fat bike

    If I had an extra 6 grand I would have one of these puppies in my garage right now. Mainly an emotional purchase as lots of other nice choices out there for less cash. I do agree with a previous post suggesting the evolution of fatbikes will surely move in leaps and bounds in the next 5 years giving us sub 30 lb full suspension fatbikes for an affordable price.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,025
    Mine weighs sub 28 lbs right now!

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    54

    Smile Sub 28 lbs

    Congrats on the lightweight fatty

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.