2.8 tires were just a wrong marketing direction taken by the industry 5-6 years ago. They make you climb slower (and arguably go slower anywhere) on any conceivable terrain with the exception of sand dunes.he Mojo 3 was lauded for its ability to climb anything. Part of that might have been the 2.8s and low pressure that most of the initial reviews used ....
The effective top tube is only slightly longer than previous, 23.5 vs 23.7" for Medium, so seated pedaling is still about the same. The bike NEEDED to grow in the Reach and WB IMO. I'd go with the same size you had.Looking at the specs, am I understanding this correct? The Mojo 4 medium numbers look as though it's all around bigger in every way then the Mojo 3 Large? The sizing chart recommendation though has not changed. So if I'd be on a Mojo 3 large wouldn't it make more sense to get a Mojo 4 Medium?
But his has grown, a lot. If the medium is almost much larger in every way vs the older large.The effective top tube is only slightly longer than previous, 23.5 vs 23.7" for Medium, so seated pedaling is still about the same. The bike NEEDED to grow in the Reach and WB IMO. I'd go with the same size you had.
I think Ibis designs bikes for a purpose and not multiple purposes. Right or wrong. just seems they don't get on board with chips and dual wheels sizes.This is a logical update to the Mx lineup and I'd like to try one, but I can't help but feel a little bit of "that's it?". I guess I was hoping for some interesting tidbit, like the ability to change a link and run it as mullet. Something to set it apart a bit.
On a shallow note, I am not crazy about the blueish color (but would need to see it in person). The white is ok, but I always like having a black option. Boring I know, but I like how easy they are to maintain because I usually keep my bikes for a while.
I love the spirit of the Mojo line and want them to be successful and I am glad ibis pumped some fresh life into them. I am eager to hear more ride reports from folks.