Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
www.derbyrims.com
Joined
·
6,766 Posts
looks are growing

Davide said:
Maybe the page has been up for a while but I noticed it today. After the Interbike presentation here it is: a jewel in carbon with DW suspension ... my horst-5-spot might have to go!
http://www.ibiscycles.com/mountain/
The looks didn't appeal to me at first. I like triangles on bikes. I didn't like the looks of my Tracer's seat tower at first either. But otherwise the Intense design engineering metal work was was a step or three above all others at the high end, and it was the best performer I've ridden until the last couple years for trail bikes.

One thing I hate about this design is cables above the TT. Mostly because it's uncomfortable to sit on while resting. They scratch the finish easily. And are simply ugly (unless you've got a cable fetish). The strut design in the middle of the frame prevents a clean cable route under the TT. I'd prefer if they ran the cables along both sides of the TT. if I get one I'll clean that problem up myself and remove the cable stops off the TT.

It's this bike or the 6.6 that will likely be my next bike. This much lighter bike and steeper geometry angles makes more sense for 99% of my riding requirements where much climbing is required. And the DW-Link is the best.

- ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
derby said:
The looks didn't appeal to me at first. I like triangles on bikes. I didn't like the looks of my Tracer's seat tower at first either. But otherwise the Intense design engineering metal work was was a step or three above all others at the high end, and it was the best performer I've ridden until the last couple years for trail bikes.

One thing I hate about this design is cables above the TT. Mostly because it's uncomfortable to sit on while resting. They scratch the finish easily. And are simply ugly (unless you've got a cable fetish). The strut design in the middle of the frame prevents a clean cable route under the TT. I'd prefer if they ran the cables along both sides of the TT. if I get one I'll clean that problem up myself and remove the cable stops off the TT.

It's this bike or the 6.6 that will likely be my next bike. This much lighter bike and steeper geometry angles makes more sense for 99% of my riding requirements where much climbing is required. And the DW-Link is the best.

- ray
Same here, I could never really warm up to interrupted seat tube, I am even more conservative: I don't like the asymmetrical Blur rear triangle.

It is too bad that a bit of lazyness prevents internal routing: I still miss my GT STS (that is sleeping in Italy right now) because of cable routing.
The over the TT cable routing is indeed not very nice, but I kind of get used to it because the 5-spot (and my Kona hardtail) has it too. Cable rub is not much of an issue since I have no steel cable on the TT (I use IRD, which are full-housed, and disc) ... and I guess you do develop a bit of cable fetish: in my case I enclose the housing in a shiny mylar tube that gives the cables a sort of costum (ops custom, costums are for carnival, remember Davide) look ... very nerdy.

For the IBIS routing to the sides of the FT might also be an option.

But damn ... I really wanted to keep Spotty for 10 years ... and now :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,207 Posts
All in all it does't look that bad. There are far worse abominations of style.

This Ibis is very different to the Ibis of the last few years. Has ownership changed at Ibis?

The geometry is long travel XC. In fact with it's shortish chainstays, 70 degrees HA, reasonably low BB, it all leads to fast single track and good climbs.

The trend these days is to use 69 HA for all mountain bikes to get a 150mm fork. What fork can the Mojo run?

DW Link does the job. Intense 6.6 is a performer, and a bit of a different breed to the Mojo. Derby, you've got some deciding to do if you are choosing between these. Which personality is best for you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
All Mountain said:
All in all it does't look that bad. There are far worse abominations of style.

This Ibis is very different to the Ibis of the last few years. Has ownership changed at Ibis?

The geometry is long travel XC. In fact with it's shortish chainstays, 70 degrees HA, reasonably low BB, it all leads to fast single track and good climbs.

The trend these days is to use 69 HA for all mountain bikes to get a 150mm fork. What fork can the Mojo run?

DW Link does the job. Intense 6.6 is a performer, and a bit of a different breed to the Mojo. Derby, you've got some deciding to do if you are choosing between these. Which personality is best for you?
The bike in the picture is the prototype, the production version will look alittle different than the picture above, according to Hans, co-owner of Ibis cycles. I will be receiving mine in May or June of 06 which will be the second batch of bikes made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
All Mountain said:
The geometry is long travel XC. In fact with it's shortish chainstays, 70 degrees HA, reasonably low BB, it all leads to fast single track and good climbs.

The trend these days is to use 69 HA for all mountain bikes to get a 150mm fork. What fork can the Mojo run?
Intense EVP 5.5 comes to mind ... I kind of assumed the Mojo to be in the 4.5-5.5" range

At least for my style of riding I see no use for 150mm travel: I am 148 pounds, do 3 feet (real, or is it 4 for my friends?) drops and I stilll don't use all the travel of my vanilla 130mm (I actually building spacers to drop it to 126 and balance a bit more my 5-spot ...too bad I cannot get custom, or is it costum, springs). 70 vs 69 degress ... mah ... the usual suspects in Turner forum now think all bikes with a Turner label are identical, so I would not be surprised if there is much difference between 70-68 (Konas are at 68) ... of course a 69 might handle a longer fork better ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,207 Posts
Davide

Off topic: I'm debating to get a Fox 32 Vanilla 130 just because the price/value is so good. Could you tell me the A2C dimension of it? Also, I don't need lock-out which leads me to the R (instead of RLC). If you have the RLC do you use the compression adjustment often?

On topic: 5.5 is agreat comparison to the Mojo. Comparing geometry I think I like the looks of the Mojo better. Mojo has a steeper SA than 5.5. Both have shortish chain stays and I think the Mojo's SA may put more weight on the front for climbs? Just my thoughts. I really like the look of the 5.5 though.

I'm a skeptic about carbon, just as I was skeptic about Alum when cromo ruled the roost. That must mean carbon is here for good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,233 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
All Mountain said:
Davide

Off topic: I'm debating to get a Fox 32 Vanilla 130 just because the price/value is so good. Could you tell me the A2C dimension of it? Also, I don't need lock-out which leads me to the R (instead of RLC). If you have the RLC do you use the compression adjustment often?

On topic: 5.5 is agreat comparison to the Mojo. Comparing geometry I think I like the looks of the Mojo better. Mojo has a steeper SA than 5.5. Both have shortish chain stays and I think the Mojo's SA may put more weight on the front for climbs? Just my thoughts. I really like the look of the 5.5 though.

I'm a skeptic about carbon, just as I was skeptic about Alum when cromo ruled the roost. That must mean carbon is here for good.
The A2C of the 130 should be 500, the 125 is 495. I have PUSH fox Vanilla which I think is worth every penny in respect to the stock because it is so much more tunable + you get the lockout to act as a platform on/off which is very nice. With the platform on the fork is VERY stable but stil plenty sable on the trail.

Intense vs Ibis ... man what a wonderful choice! and carbon ... I think it got a bad press for a while, it is one of the materials of the future and it is to be better then aluminum once the glitches are worked out ... as it has happened for at least a couple of years (look at Scott!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,467 Posts
At least you would have the option of owning your 5-spot in ten years!

How many ten year old carbon bikes are there?
What about chainsuck/chainslap on carbon?
How do UV rays affect it? (thats right)
Any concerns about the leverage exerted on those short linkage plates with bearings? Heard any horror stories from SC owners about replacing bearings every 5 rides?
Any concerns about threads or surfaces that need to be faced and chased? or do you just skip that with carbon?
Why isn't it lighter- I heard 6lbs from ibis. Thats not any lighter than a motolite, 5-spot, or 575 with comparable shock.
how will the carbon exterior hold up to abrasion?
What is it you don't like about your turner? You sound pretty disapointed in it.

The Ibis is one bike I just don't understand the hype about. It will probably sell well at the sharper image. Personally I would never touch carbon for a frame material after seeing so many bars and other carbon things break. Most recently, a brand new trek fork at the LBS. No thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
FM said:
At least you would have the option of owning your 5-spot in ten years!

How many ten year old carbon bikes are there?
What about chainsuck/chainslap on carbon?
How do UV rays affect it? (thats right)
Any concerns about the leverage exerted on those short linkage plates with bearings? Heard any horror stories from SC owners about replacing bearings every 5 rides?
Any concerns about threads or surfaces that need to be faced and chased? or do you just skip that with carbon?
Why isn't it lighter- I heard 6lbs from ibis. Thats not any lighter than a motolite, 5-spot, or 575 with comparable shock.
how will the carbon exterior hold up to abrasion?
What is it you don't like about your turner? You sound pretty disapointed in it.

The Ibis is one bike I just don't understand the hype about. It will probably sell well at the sharper image. Personally I would never touch carbon for a frame material after seeing so many bars and other carbon things break. Most recently, a brand new trek fork at the LBS. No thanks!
Have you ever ridden a carbon bike? I work on old carbon Miyata's,Trek's and a TVT (pre-look) and most are at least 10 years old and still working just fine. Common sence would tell you to put clear tape or a lizard skin to prevent cable rub or chainslap.

Aluminum will also break. You need to be a little open mined about Carbon Fiber.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,243 Posts
FM said:
At least you would have the option of owning your 5-spot in ten years!

How many ten year old carbon bikes are there?
I have a 1996 Trek Y-22 (days away from 10 years old) and it is still running fine after taking a beating for many years. Have you ever owned/ridden a carbon frame? If not, I am not sure you can make such broad statements and be taken seriously by anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,467 Posts
Yeah sorry to come off as being closed minded, but I have had bad experiences with carbon. I've had carbon bars break, a long walk out. Sure that happens to alu as well, but this was on the first ride, on a XC trail. My buddy had a similar experience last year with monkey lights, 3 mile walk on a night ride. He was on a single-speed, pretty weird to watch him try and climb in his one gear with 1/2 a handlebar.

On top of that, I have a freind who had a minor accident on her carbon road bike, didn't even knock the wheels out of true, but the frame broke. And this week my friend who works at a trek dealer had the drop-outs fall off a brand new, never ridden carbon fork that came with a modeno road bike. It was seemingly only held on by paint!

I have carbon cranks and fork on my road bike (FSA and Look) and they have been great. However for the kind of abuse that mountainbikes see, I just don't see any reason to go carbon for a frame, especially from a manufacturer that is new to carbon. At 5.8lbs according to MBA, the ibis isn't even light compared to the titus motolite which is 5.9lbs and 5" of travel.

I just don't see any benefit to carbon at this point.

Just my .02c.

brianthebiker said:
I have a 1996 Trek Y-22 (days away from 10 years old) and it is still running fine after taking a beating for many years. Have you ever owned/ridden a carbon frame? If not, I am not sure you can make such broad statements and be taken seriously by anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,207 Posts
FM, you have made a good point. If you can build a AL for the same weight as carbon, why go carbon? For a 6" bike why bother saving even 200 grams? Reliability and durabililty are more important. On the other hand wouldn't a carbon frame be stiffer, which is more important for a 6" bike? Maybe that's the benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,467 Posts
All Mountain said:
FM, you have made a good point. If you can build a AL for the same weight as carbon, why go carbon? For a 6" bike why bother saving even 200 grams? Reliability and durabililty are more important. On the other hand wouldn't a carbon frame be stiffer, which is more important for a 6" bike? Maybe that's the benefit.
I suppose Carbon could be stiffer, but would the benefits of stiffness outweigh the weaknesses of carbon- durability, impact resistance, etc. My main concern with carbon (or alu bonded into carbon) would be any areas that involve a press fit- especially bearings which may not last long on VPP/DD links. The people I know that own SC VPP bikes here in the seattle area have complained that the bearings go pretty fast in wet conditions. Also expansion/contraction issues- how many people are going to use a torque wrench when they raise/lower their seat? If you like to drop the saddle for downhills, will an alu sleeve eventually become unbonded? This even happened to my buddies Ti bike.

FWIW I just put money down on a titus motolite with 2006 rears- $1095, 5.9lbs, 5" travel. I'm sure I can shave of 200g with the $800 I saved!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
FM, my carbon GT-STS is still in perfect condition after 8 year of really abuse
The only scratchs are in the aluminum parts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,207 Posts
Congratulations. Titus ML is one sweet ride. You are going to one happy FM.

Personally, all take an AL frame anyday. I'm rough as guts on my bikes, and I don't own a torque wrench.

FM said:
I suppose Carbon could be stiffer, but would the benefits of stiffness outweigh the weaknesses of carbon- durability, impact resistance, etc. My main concern with carbon (or alu bonded into carbon) would be any areas that involve a press fit- especially bearings which may not last long on VPP/DD links. The people I know that own SC VPP bikes here in the seattle area have complained that the bearings go pretty fast in wet conditions. Also expansion/contraction issues- how many people are going to use a torque wrench when they raise/lower their seat? If you like to drop the saddle for downhills, will an alu sleeve eventually become unbonded? This even happened to my buddies Ti bike.

FWIW I just put money down on a titus motolite with 2006 rears- $1095, 5.9lbs, 5" travel. I'm sure I can shave of 200g with the $800 I saved!
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top