http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118 Rider's community and more. en-US Thu, 23 May 2013 12:17:34 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://moots.com/bbpress/search.php http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-691 Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:56:29 +0000 Domestique 691@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>When I talked with Jake @ Enve, I asked him the same question. He said in addition to costing less and weighing more, the 2.0 is also a wee bit stiffer than the 1.0 He also said their is no weight limit for either fork but recommends going with the 2.0 if you are on the heavy side (such as myself). </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-681 Tue, 04 Jan 2011 07:19:03 +0000 Mark M 681@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>Before I bought a 1.0, I called Edge and asked to speak to an engineer about their two forks because I wasn't really sure of the differences between the 1.0 and 2.0, other than the 1.0 having a lower weight and higher price. Turns out that those are the two differences. They have removed a little extra material from the 2.0 to make the 1.0 a fraction lighter. I told him what kind of frame I was going to be using as well as what type of riding I do. There may not be an official rider weight limit on the 1.0 but Edge told me that if you weigh more than about 190 pounds, go with the 2.0. I am under that weight and I was seeking a little more vertical compliance to match the Ti frame so the choice was made and I am very pleased with it. </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-678 Tue, 04 Jan 2011 02:54:23 +0000 Domestique 678@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>Moots has a new fork in the works to replace their own fork to replace the defunct Alpha-Q. Might be prudent to looking into that before getting the Enve. Just my .02</p> <p>GGW, why did you chose the 2.0 instead of the 1.0? </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-676 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:47:30 +0000 gearguywb 676@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>I have spent a pretty fair amount of time on a 2.0 (about 2,200 miles on that bike this year) and love it. That is what I will be putting on the RSL as well. </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-675 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:16:33 +0000 Domestique 675@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>Agreed, I was sold on getting an Edge after Mootsboy turned me on to their forks, and everything I've read about them has been positive. I talked with Jake @ Edge and he recommended going with the 2.0</p> <p>Nuff said... thanks for the help. </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-673 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:48:28 +0000 tbill 673@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>Your right, that the frame rotates, but this makes the hta (and sta, etc.), a little steeper, maybe less than a quarter degree. A steeper hta produces less trail. You're right too, that larger tires increase trail (aside from the fact that they generally ride better ;) ). I'm sure it will be fine. I have experimented with forks with various rakes on my Moots, and I couldn't tell the difference in trail from a 43 to a 40. I think getting a fork that is matched to (or can handle) the rider's weight is much more important. </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-669 Sun, 02 Jan 2011 21:28:07 +0000 Domestique 669@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>Yep, a 43 Alpha-Q will result in 55 trail on the 56 CR whereas 40 will get you a smidgen over 58. My thinking was the Edge/Enve's shorter axle-crown distance would rotate the front end down and back slightly thus increasing trail (numerically) by a mm or two, but considering the entire front end is moving together I think any resulting change in trail will be moot. Also, taking into consideration that I usually run 25 tubulars (27 Pave Greenies currently on the Compact) is probably larger than what most riders would use on a CR will probably further offset any potential change in trail.</p> <p>Please correct me if my thinking is flawed, it's a little bit of a learning curve for me. I usually just go with whatever fork came with the bike or what the manufacturer recommends. I'm beginning to learn that choosing the proper fork can have a profound effect on the bike's handling. </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-668 Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:53:48 +0000 tbill 668@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>Assuming the a-c height for the Alpha-Q fork spec'd the frame, a 43mm rake should be closer to 55mm trail given the 73.5º hta. The shorter a-c height of the Enve fork will steepen the hta very slightly, so the trail should actually be a little less, not more. If you were aiming for trail in the 56-57mm range, the 40mm rake Enve would probably get you closer. As you said, that is if you can actually tell the difference... </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-667 Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:56:48 +0000 Domestique 667@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>I noticed that too, funny thing is the CAD build sheet Corey sent specs a 40 yielding about 58. I wanted a 'slight' emphasis towards stability at speeds where I'll be spending the majority of my time while still retaining that planted high speed feel so I opted for a 43 Edge/Enve 2. With it's shorter 367 axle-crown compared to the Apha-Q 372 which the frame's geometry was originally designed in conjunction with should work out to about 56-57. I guess when you get right down to it a few mm either way will probably be imperceptible. Also, the Edge/Enve should (will) make a HUGE improvement in front end feel compared to the Easton EC90SL currently in use.</p> <p>D </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-665 Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:02:46 +0000 tbill 665@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>In the FAQs on the website, Moots now recommends a fork with 45mm rake for the size 56:</p> <p><a href="http://moots.com/our-bike/road/vamoots-cr/geometry/" rel="nofollow">http://moots.com/our-bike/road/vamoots-cr/geometry/</a></p> <p>On the older website, Moots recommended a fork with 40mm rake (and the hta is the same—73.5º). With that hta, 45mm rake produces a pretty low amount of trail, in the mid to low 50mm's, depending on the tire size. 40mm rake would produce more trail, around 57mm or so, which is considered by many builders to be "neutral." I'd be curious to know why the recommended rake changed... </p> http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=118#post-660 Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:43:58 +0000 Domestique 660@http://moots.com/bbpress/ <p>Jon,</p> <p>What fork rake offset do you recommend for a 56 CR? (want to keep handling as neutral as possible with a 'slight' emphasis towards high speed stability).<br /> Thanks.</p> <p>D</p> <p>PS, I placed my order for a 56 CR yesterday, I'm already giddy with anticipation!<br /> PSS, Corey has been AWESOME, very helpful, IMHO he deserves a big raise. :-) </p>