Correct.

Steel. Please.

I've had a few steel bikes. All of them sucked except one. The Ti bikes were so much better it was ridiculous.

Ti rules.

Essentially.

That's all you need . . . what else is there?!

Oh you want to start with the Ti porn, huh?

I can go there . . . .

how the hell tall are you Billy?

Amazing.

Bump. I've been considering a Moots Vamoots as a non-race fast day touring bike for from metric centuries to double mile centuries. I'd like something at least as good as my old 1970's Ron Cooper steel road bike, which really rides like a dream w/o being overly flexy. My choices are something like the Moots Vamoots or a modern steel bike, probably custom built, but I can't decide if there is a sufficient adavantage in Ti to justify the added cost. Most of my bikes are/have been steel with some aluminum, mostly MTB and incuding my current track race bike (Bianchi Pista Concept) and road racing bike (Monoc), which has an aluminum main frame with carbon stays and fork and has a harsh ride no matter the wheels/tires/pressure. Basically, what I am seeking is something that is as comfortable as possible on rough roads while still being responsive. I'd appreciate any experience/opinion on the Moots Vamoots and other Ti frames.

Mine is smooth like UNsliced butter.

One of the roughest riding frames that I ever owned was a '98 Litespeed Ultimate. My '92 C'dale 2.8 was worse, though.

Edit: I didn't type Ultimate twice, but there it is and editing won't remove it.

I had a Paramount OS, lugged steel bike, eseentiallyequivalent to a current lugged Waterford. Very nice responsive ride.

I have a Merlin Extralight. It rides very simialr to the Pramount, but lighter, and a bit more "lively" i.e. springier. ( A lot of the "Magic Carpet Ride" bit for TI IMHO, is attempting to explain the flex/springiness)

I also have TCR Team Advanced. Its is much stiffer than either the steel bike or the Ti bike, and that IMHO makes it more responsive (at least in subjecitive feel) than the softer Steel and Ti bikes, but less comfortable on long rides.

I'll grant that there is a small amount of low energy "buzz" that the CF frame dampens, and the TI frame transmits, but the CF frame is harsher over big impacts that the Ti Merlin tends to soften.

So for my particular frames I find the Ti Merlin more comfortable, the CF Giant more responsive, most notably due to a stiffer front end leading to more precise handling.

My experiences mirror this, but with a Kestrel Talon (CF) and a Lynskey - and in my case, the CF frame is more responsive because of more aggressive geometry. The differences are subtle - subtle enough that changing tire pressure by 5 - 10 PSI is more than a big enough change to swamp the difference in feel between the frames.

JB

I own both a Merlin and an Orbea Orca. The Orca really climbs nicely and the tight rear triangle certainly adds to the stiff responsive feel. My Merlin is far from mushy and also climbs nicely, but it is not nearly as light weight. As for comfort, on all day rides or even three or four hours, the Merlin is more comfortable for sure. All of this being said, wheels do play a factor in the feeling from both bikes. The Rolfs on the Merlin are very supple and are also tubular. The Mavic RSYS on the Orca are very stiff and a bit harsh feeling on rough road.

ftfy






sorry, couldn't resist the gratuitous R Sys shot.

Depends upon how it is built.
Have a very stiff Serotta Ti Fierte that will jar your fillings loose and a long wheelbase bike that rides like a magic carpet. Both are titanium.

The material is only part of the equation.

Carbon rides noticeably different than titanium. Titanium rides closer to steel than anything else.

I'd like to find a road bike that can go down NM roads with cracked chip seal and potholes and still call it a buttery ride, unless you are heavy and bending your seat post and it is acting like a spring. I do use my ti more than the other bikes.

So, again I'll ask if anyone has extensive experience with a Moots Vamoots?