I can't see anything on Ibis's site, maybe I need a coffee, but here's a video on it. I really dig the bronze color of Evan's Ripley AF.
New Ripley/Ripmo AF is out
tryrebooting
41 - 60 of 111 Posts
Joined
·
551 Posts
Would like to see a head to head smuggler Ripley comparison. If the radavist numbers are correct, a 38lb short travel trail bike is kind of weird territory. I know weight ain’t the b all end all but man, my XL coil shock coil fork steel sled is the same weight and has pretty much the heaviest wheels you can buy lol. I don’t love the radavist reviews, they feel like they have some sort of agenda I can’t quite put my finger on, almost like they have meeting to decide what they think is “cool” and then try to promote that image, I don’t know how else to describe it. But their review wasn’t exactly gushing, and I expected it to be.
I might pull the trigger on a Ripmo frame to build a second bike that I could swap between a Ripley setup and a Ripmo setup.
I can’t remember, are you the one riding a long-stroked Vivid? If so, could you share the dimensions and what tuning you’re running on the Vivid? (Did you ask for a tuning close to the stock Float X?)
My plan would be to ride the frame mostly in “Ripley mode” and switch it to a Ripmo setup for the summer and a few more bike-park-oriented rides. I’m thinking about going with a Vivid instead of the Float X, which I didn’t find that impressive during a bike test.
Joined
·
220 Posts
If that 37.75 pound XL weight is correct that is unacceptable IMO. I don't buy the argument that weight doesn't matter much anymore. That thing is over 7 pounds heavier than my current bike with the same travel.
Also, that reach is long. 38 pounds and a long reach, doesn't sound at all like a bike I'd want to ride all day. Which is kind of the point of short travel bikes, or at least, it used to be.
Looks better than the old one though I guess.
Also, that reach is long. 38 pounds and a long reach, doesn't sound at all like a bike I'd want to ride all day. Which is kind of the point of short travel bikes, or at least, it used to be.
Looks better than the old one though I guess.
Joined
·
131 Posts
35 pounds is probably too heavy for that bike. My old medium was 31 ish.
Joined
·
220 Posts
The old version had all three. Relative to this one.
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
Wonder how much of that weight is battery?
Joined
·
551 Posts
I guess we really need to see frame weights, maybe with fancy stuff you could get one down to 34lbs.
I steered a friend couple into buying on sale rimpo/ripley af’s this spring, I told them the tiny weight penalty for aluminum didn’t matter…but…I really hope the wife’s ripley isn’t 38lbs lol, I don’t remember what the last gen af weighed 😬
I steered a friend couple into buying on sale rimpo/ripley af’s this spring, I told them the tiny weight penalty for aluminum didn’t matter…but…I really hope the wife’s ripley isn’t 38lbs lol, I don’t remember what the last gen af weighed 😬
Just a guess, but I’d bet the frame weight is probably in line with the alloy Stumpjumper. So figure something in the 9-10 pound range which would put it about 2ish pounds heavier than the carbon versions. If that’s the case, bike builds in the low 30’s would be doable with some weight conscious part choices.
Seems to me like there is room in the Ibis lineup for both the Gen 1 and Gen 2 Ripley AFs. They're fairly different bikes. And my Gen 1 is probably about my favorite bike I've ever owned. Wouldn't replace it with a Gen 2, though - don't really need any more travel, don't care about in-frame storage, and don't want such a heavy bike. If anything, I'd replace my Gen 1 with an Exie, or something from a different brand.
Joined
·
551 Posts
How much different is a gen 1 from a modern xc whip like a mach4sl?
So the Gen 1 Ripley AF is quite a bit different from a Mach 4 SL or even an Exie. The Gen 1 had 120/130mm travel and a 65.5 HTA. The Mach 4 is 95/115 and a 68 HTA. Probably the Gen 1 is indeed closer to the Gen 2 than it is an XC bike. But for me personally, I'd probably be better off on an XC bike than an even heavier duty trail bike, if I had to choose.
I don't see any solid steel chunks in the build but it does have 2020's giant bike syndrome and nothing especially weight weenie
Joined
·
7,189 Posts
Agreed. I'm no weight weenie but a 38 lb short travel bike just seems to defeat the purpose. You could get sub 30 lb alloy Trance 29 mid-tier complete builds a few years ago (not sure about current offerings). Once you have a bike that's the same weight and geo as an enduro bike, you're already making 95% of the comprises associated with a big bike. The actual mm of travel isn't that significant as you can always run more pressure/compression to firm up the suspension.
If I wanted a cheap short travel trail bike, I'd take a used Tallboy, Ripley or Trance 29 over this new Ripley AF every time. I see no reason to buy this.
Joined
·
551 Posts
Oh oops I didnt realize how steep the HTA was on the mach4 given where other modern xc stuff has gone. Maybe the rocky mountain element would be the closest XC...but I was thinking that if you're on the XC end of trail, the new XC stuff is pretty amazing.
It seems like they have to build even these short travel trail bikes to be able to cope with guys bike parking them or sending them down enduro courses without a hiccup...so now we have 38lb bikes that normies are having to peddle around the local blues on. Meanwhile I'm setting downhill PR's on my 24lb Scalpel on local blues and blacks and its not disintegrating. Just an interesting time I guess and a pretty extreme spectrum of what we all want from the same bike.
I don't know. If the frame is 2 pounds heavier and $1100 less than the carbon version is that a good compromise? I completely agree that 38 pounds is super heavy for a short travel bike. But, that was also an extra large with the base build. The XM with the SRAM build that Evan reviewed was under 34. With some carbon wheels and a few other parts swaps it's probably 32. That seems pretty reasonable to me to save some bucks.
41 - 60 of 111 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
