Anyone have more details on the '12 Mooto X RSL? Frame weight ... is it slightly heavier with the double bend down tube (assume the down tube has to be slightly longer with the double bend)? Heard it was set up for 100mm of travel vs. 80mm for '11 ... why did they switch to 100mm? Why did they move to a different frame style when the previous version was only out for about a year? The picture of the frame on Bike Rumor looks nice but haven't seen any meaningful details on the new frame but assume there must be some advantages to the new style to trigger a change so soon?
-
I would love to see an updated Geo chart for the 2012 Mooto X RSL since it is now based on a 100mm fork. The 2012 frame in the Bike Rumor article looks great in my opinion.
Posted 1 year ago # -
All info being posted in the next couple of days.
Facts:
MX RSL goes to 100mm of travel.
Double bend DT does not add any weight...okay, maybe 10 grams.More to come.....
Jon@Moots
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cusco
MemberOkay - so it looks like the Moots Mooto X RSL website picture has been updated with the new '12 RSL (looks nice!) but the specs. listed are still for the '11 version. I have been working on the build for my '12 RSL and trying to make some decisions on component selection and seem to have encountered a bit of an issue (hopefully minor). The RSL comes standard with a 44mm head tube which enables the use of zero stack headsets for 1 1/8th steerer tubes, however, the 2012 Fox 100mm fork I will be using has a tapered steerer tube. It seems that given the head tube is 44mm both top and bottom that the lower headset cup will have to use a external bearing set up (to accomodate the 1.5" steerer tube diameter at the crown of the fork) which will increase the stack height on the heasdset / head tube (Chris King's Inset 7 model). From the information I have gathered thus far it seems like the stack height will be increased by ~ 10mm as a result of the external bearing cup on the bottom of the head tube. My questions is whether this will have a noticable impact on the handling of the bike given this change will throw the intended headtube angle / geometry off a bit. I assume this is a minor / basically imperceptable issue but I'm really not sure and was hoping not to deviate from the intended geometry. I suppose I could try to compensate by reducing the travel on the fork down from 100mm to 90mm ( I think this may be possible ... I know it can definately be reduced to 80mm)?? Suggestions??
Posted 1 year ago # -
kalamath
MemberDepends on the rider Cusco. Some people react adversly to tiny changes even on a MTB. Myself, I can ride a huge range of stuff and seem to just adapt to it. ie. I'm currently SSing on my wife's 16" frame at 6' tall and can go for hours on that bike w/o ill effects. 10mm + or - up front makes a faily small impact, but you will have to decide what feels right for you. Since you already have the fork, running a 10 or 20mm spacer to compensate would be best, imo. Also, if Fox dosen't offer a 10mm spacer, one can be fabbed fairly easily. So issue = minor. =) edit: to clarify - ride it at 100mm, then adjust it down if it feels too slack.
Nino
2010 Ibis Mojo SL
2005 Moots CompactPosted 1 year ago # -
Gents,
Yes, specs are coming to reflect the new 2012 layouts. Sorry for the delay on our end. Yes, to run the 1.5 tapered fork you will have to run the external lower bearing, the change will be 10mm of ride height as you state above. We are building around the 100mm travel with the internal inset. The change of 10mm will be felt the most if you run the fork locked out. In the open position with the correct amount of sage based on body weight and preferences it will be less of an issue due to the fact that you sit into the travel a bit more on the 100mm (more % sag).Let me know if you have more questions.....back into the site I go.
Thanks,
Jon@Moots
Posted 1 year ago # -
WLewis
MemberJon,
Any chance you can let us know what pushed you guys to go 100mm up front? I know you've done a few custom geos for 100mm but what pushed you over the line here in 2012 that didn't come into play for 2011 when the MX RSL was released? Just wondering if there was a watershed or clarifying moment for you guys that triggered the revamp (i.e. work on the Divide design, volume of requests, etc.).
I'm happy with my '11 RSL at 80mm up front and feel like it's lightning. Just wondering what was happening in the mind of the Moots. Thanks.
-Will
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gents,
New geo charts are up.... http://moots.com/our-bike/mtb-29/mootox-rsl/geometry/Divides coming tomorrow w/ PX RSL....a few bugs in the site to work out.
Why 100mm? Well, we had been asked a bunch during 2011 and for the most part to get a 15mm QR up front requires a 100mm fork unless you drop the travel. We also like the feel...meaning that while running the 80mm fork you run say, 20mm of sag, resulting in 60mm of usable travel. A bit on the short side...with the 100mm, you can run the same 20mm of sag and still get 80mm of travel.
That's my/our short answer.
Let me know you thoughts....
Jon@Moots
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think 100 is great! I wish I had the coin for a RSL...
Just checked out the new pic of the RSL on the website. The downtube's double bend looks more subtle on there than it did in the "spy" pics that have popped up on the web. Good look.
One question for Jon. What size is the frame is pictured on the website? Just wondering about any issues the double bend may cause for clearance between the tire and downtube when the fork is fully compressed on the small (16) frame sizes.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TF,
The MX RSL pictured is a 17'' size. No issues of the wheel contacting the DT on any size.thanks,
Jon@Moots
Posted 1 year ago # -
Three pages of high-res Moots MootoX RSL images.
http://windinmyface.com/Moots-2011MootoX_RSL-gallery.html
http://windinmyface.com/Moots-2011MootoX_RSL-gallery2.html
http://windinmyface.com/Moots-2011MootoX_RSL-gallery-frame.html
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.