[marcoaml78]

If the BB is that low, it's a definite no. I've had friends crash from catching small stumps in races. I've seen hospital trips due to the bb being too low. I've broken countless crank brothers pedals and the bb has only gotten lower in the last decade.

I think it really depends on terrain. My Chisel has a very similar BB drop/height (63mm drop / 309mm height vs 65/308 on the DV9) and i've never hit anything with my cranks. I'd honestly only be worried if this was a FS bike we were talking about.

 

[233946]

So that bike had published 300mm (11.8) BB height before your angleset. How'd that work out? I think you're the only one here with experience on the old model.

Using a 29 wheel with 740mm OD, gives 370 axle - 65mm drop = 305mm actual height on the new DV9. Someone can correct my math but I think the old one had roughly same BB height.

Had no issues. It was setup with a 120mm fork and the old one was designed for 100-120mm. Also, it was a Fox 34 Rhythm, so ran about 15% sag. Finally, always ran it with 2.6 tires. So in combo, I may have been riding with a dynamic bottom bracket height 10-15mm over someone running a 100mm fork and 2.3 tires.

 

[justwan naride]

About low BB height on hardtails: Fork setup plays a huge part on dynamic geometry, which in turn will result in your pedals/cranks hitting stuff or not.

My old ht had a static BBH measurement of 300mm. When I ran a rock shox fork that needed around 25% sag to have any sensitinity (plus 5mm of stancion lost due to Debonair "sucking" travel) my crank arms looked like the dog chewed on them. When I switched to DVO I only needed 18% sag and pedal strikes magically disappeared.

If you want to run your fork soft and supple but have pedal strike issues, consider overforking by 10mm. It's not enough to ruin handling, but it will keep the BB high enough to minimise the issue.

 

[Rod]

I think it really depends on terrain. My Chisel has a very similar BB drop/height (63mm drop / 309mm height vs 65/308 on the DV9) and i've never hit anything with my cranks. I'd honestly only be worried if this was a FS bike we were talking about.

Best friend was on a 307mm and ended up with broken ribs. The trail builder left a tiny stump and his pedal caught it during a race.

 

[Davide]

I read the PB comments and am pretty much embarrassed to be associated with the MTB community if this what most are really like. Just dozens upon dozens of posts with vitriol and hate and insults because....the top tube isn't straight??? Good lord, man. Pathetic.

Pinkbike is indeed a bit of a disgrace. It is basically a repository for industry press releases, and the comment section is left out of control resulting is a twitting venting machine.

 

[ripn]

I know that the BB height on the DV is lower than some would prefer, but it really isn’t out of the mainstream for a hardtail. The Spec Epic/Chisel, Orbea Alma, Trek Procaliber, etc. all have BB heights within a few mm. You really have to get into more niche boutique brands (RSD, etc)to get those 320mm+ BB heights. And again, if you want something with more out there geo you are never going to get it from Ibis.

 

[Carl Mega]

While that BB has low sounding numbers, I think the context of the bike and most likely use sort of mitigates the impact. When I look at this bike, I'm not thinking a bunch of chunk or hard charging technical descents. I'd want to do things that a 120mm, sub 25lb efficient carbon hardtail are good at. Short track. Some XC racing. Some pedally long epic/marathon type riding. Maybe as a hardtail that could occasionally line up at a gravel grinder in the right kit instead of a dedicated gravel bike.

 

[michaelandk2]

I loved my DV9... It was a carbon HT with huge 29er wheels (for 2k!) and was fast as anything, i just wish it had a shorter seat tube, so I could move better, and use it for more than just a CC bike.

 

[ShakyDog]

My 2019 DV9 is sitting right in front of me and I may not have enough time riding it, but I really am enjoying it more than I ever thought. It works for me. The specs are close to my full suspension bike and I feel right at home. I have not had a pedal strike with it since I have had it in November, but I rarely pedal strike on my Intense Primer after switching to 170 mm cranks (both have 170 mm cranks). The DV9 is super light and I am really starting to consider life without a full suspension bike. :-O

Steve

 

[Whambat]

I actually think Ibis nailed it on this for a do everything XC focused bike. I actually think they shouldn’t be stuck in old ways with crank lengths they are stocking and what many people here are advocating the need for higher bottom brackets. L and XL both list with 175mm. Especially when thinking about teenagers growing bodies, I think there should be more emphasis on the higher cadence that shorter cranks run better at. I’m 6’1 and switched to 170 cranks to reduce rock strikes on modern geometry bikes after for years swearing by long cranks. Once I reduced the chainring size and ran higher cadences, my weathered body felt way better after longer rides. I think back to the growing pains I had in my knees in high school, and I think shorter cranks and higher cadences would only have helped. Enough studies have proved shorter cranks, within reason, aren’t a detriment to speed or power.

The reality is lower BBs ride better. Period.

I’ve ridden in Santa Cruz and I get why Ibis might not understand rock strikes as I’m pretty sure I never saw a rock on the trails. And most HS race courses aren’t technical by design. However, as a company marketing a bike to high schoolers, they should be looking at ergonomics, especially on growing bodies.

Regardless, I think they did a heck of a job on this bike, including the bent top tube that lets kids start on a slightly bigger bike and grow into it.

Edit: I should add that it’s not just the higher cadence that’s better on the body from shorter cranks, but it allows to stay in a more optimized position for power. Long cranks make most people have higher hip and knee angles than are good for our joints. Shorter cranks keep our knees straighter at the top end of the stroke, closer to optimum power.

 

[jspin]

I’m 6’1 and switched to 170 cranks to reduce rock strikes on modern geometry bikes after for years swearing by long cranks.

does 5mm really make a noticeable difference in rock strikes?

 

[ShakyDog]

does 5mm really make a noticeable difference in rock strikes?

I had the same doubt, but then I tried it and I have not had as many. I also ride like an old-school trials rider at times, so I got that going for me.
So to answer, "Yes, for me 5mm makes a noticeable difference in rock strikes."

Steve

 

[louiesquared]

does 5mm really make a noticeable difference in rock strikes?

That depends on the rocks. 2mm could make a difference.

 

[FrankS29]

does 5mm really make a noticeable difference in rock strikes?

Yes.

Moving from 175's to 170's on my Ripley eliminated nearly all rock strikes.

When I moved to my SJ Evo, 170's were rock striking like crazy when I tried to pedal like I was still riding my Ripley. Moved to 165's and issue solved.

 

[Scott In MD]

When the guys who didn’t get in their first choice of college and majored in marketing then start talking $#!+ about frame geometry…,

 

[norcalbike]

When the guys who didn’t get in their first choice of college and majored in marketing then start talking $#!+ about frame geometry…,

Probably the same marketing majors at Ibis who called an XC hardtail do-all.

 

[Zen_Turtle]

Yes.

Moving from 175's to 170's on my Ripley eliminated nearly all rock strikes.

When I moved to my SJ Evo, 170's were rock striking like crazy when I tried to pedal like I was still riding my Ripley. Moved to 165's and issue solved.

Absolutely. Same. There is no reason to ship a Full suspension bike with 175mm cranks, it's just dumb.

 

[Zen_Turtle]

Today I decided to drive my beloved 2019 DV9 into the garage door, resulting in a cracked top tube. With a week to go for 24HOP I scrambled to find a replacement frame (and some other parts) and was lucky enough to get my greasy hands on a new DV9 frame.
The process of swapping parts became less trivial than expected as in fact they changed a number of things not mentioned in any of the press releases (yea, yea, half a degree here, half a degree there...)
First off the headset moved from regular cups to integrated (so I can toss my beloved CK...), then the chainline has changed to 55mm. Luckily ok with SRAM cranks, but more problematic on Shimano.
The brake lines are now internally routed (pretty nice, with sleeves, super easy) except I need to get new brake lines, as the old ones, externally touted for rear brake are too short.

But the best part is that the recommended forks offset is nor 44mm (more standard) than the old 51mm recommended for the old DV9.
So now in addition to steeper head angle I also have longer offset, which results in reduced trail.

The position of the rear brake caliper has also moved, gone from the chain stay to the seat stay.
The addition of integrate chan guard is a nice touch.

Considering getting a 140mm forks (currently in Fox 34 120mm 51mm offset) with the right offset - thoughts?

 

[Carl Mega]

lucky enough to get my greasy hands on a new DV9 frame.

I saw the IS in the spec but didn't know what the old frame was... I'll pay shipping for your old, obsolete CK .

Interesting about the tube-in-tube brake line, agree - new lines are a pain.

I'd try your current 51 offset fork on a bike like this first. It's not an implausible spec and you may not even notice TBH. That said, my preference would be a lower offset esp if you up the travel.

You can be the first guy here to report back on BB height and pedal strikes .

Good luck at 24HOP - fun race, good memories.

 

[rakerdeal]

Put a 59 degree head angle and 180 fork on it; bulk it up to 5 lbs; widen it to allow five inch wide mud grip tires...and Pink Bike posters will call it a damn legend.