Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
I'm on team long CS, and I ride mostly tighter, flatter, natural trails. The traction and confidence boost give me, as a 'fast dad' level rider, much more opportunity to push a bike hard through corners and force it through than rely on a bit less wheel base to negotiate a turn.
New Ibis geometry is strange - I think we're seeing some fall out from designing one front triangle for multiple bikes. I never wanted a GG for exactly that reason, as much as I loved other aspects of those bikes.
Weird the ESTA is steeper in small, then slacker in m/xm, then steeper again in the big sizes. Usually they just say it's the same across the board or steepens slightly as size goes up. Must be for rear wheel clearance.
As to the short cs/long cs thing, I'll just say I wouldn't want all brands to be on the short train or long train. Why should every brand go long? That would be boring. Options are better for consumers on the whole.
Very well put on the difference in cornering.
WTF did they do to the Ripley?
How much does a complete bike weigh?
A size extra medium Ripley 5 frame with a Float shock weighs 7.3lbs / 3.3 kg. Our complete builds (size extra medium) begin at 29.43 lbs (13.3 kg) with all frame protection installed and sealant in the tires.
https://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/ripley#section-bike-specs
Really does look like they're sharing front triangles b/w the Ripley and Ripmo. BB on the smaller sizes is super low.
here's an 18-minute tech talk video with Ibis' head engineer discussing the ripmo and ripley. - full details here - https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/ibis-cycles-announces-all-new-ripmo…
I dont think that longer chain stays for longer reaches necessarily makes the bikes handle similar proportionately. Your feet are still in the same spot in relation to the rear wheel no matter how tall you are. So you are helping the overall front to back balance of the bike but it will still feel differently than a smaller size if all else is equal.
I also think people put a little too much thought into some of these numbers, that's the beautiful thing about the human body between hips,knees and ankles we can really manipulate our body weight balance pretty efficiently.
100% ^^^ So many opinions on here presented as absolutes. Everything is a compromise and a skilled rider will compensate. I won't say it's impossible to make a "bad" bike these days, but it's pretty hard. Both of these bikes look pretty stellar to me.
Man you’re right! Due to the magic of the human body geo doesn’t matter we can just adapt! Lol cmon bro that’s bad logic. if that were true it would work the other way ie you can make a cs as long as you want and the rider will adapt (actually it does kinda work that way, see reviews for high pivot bikes…)
The problem is that when you weight the pedals, the balance of front and rear center will determine where the force goes. Sure you can weight the front end on bikes with short cs, but that sucks.
While that is true, if the front center grows without the rear center also growing, the weight distribution shifts more and more towards the rear.
This results in being forced to ride with more weight on your hands which is generally undesirable. IMO, your hands should mostly be used for controlling the bike and fore-aft stability, not for supporting your weight.
I’m 6’3” and find that many bikes with short CS and long reach force me into a riding position that I don’t like in order to place enough weight on the front wheel.
Physics is an absolute. We “adapted” to horrible bike geo over the years. The progressive geo trend has been a process to make bikes work better. Saying “bikes don’t need to work better, the rider just needs to adapt” is 2012 cave man logic. We’re still working on finding a good balance between hta, reach, stack, bb height, and cs length. It’s hard. But saying it doesn’t matter, it’s just a lie. If ibis put 2012 geo on the new ripley you wouldn’t say “hey man hard to make a bad bike we will all just adapt” you would say hmm this geo looks a bit outdated, and 69* hta is actually kinda whack. So no, geo can be wrong and bad, and that’s ok, because we’re all working towards the goal of better handling bikes. It’s just a bummer for ibis because they didn’t get the memo about CS length. But we’re going to see a lot of brands getting it wrong (speci, etc.) it’s just harder for ibis because they made their front ends even longer!!!
continue chainstay length discussions HERE as to not drown the tech rumors out
https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/The-Hub,2/The-Internet-Was-Wrong-Short-…
started in 2016, @jeff.brines ' "short chainstays suck" thread can live on.
The Ripley of yesteryear is officially dead. No longer a light XC bike that could shred trails with 120mm. Now a 130mm bike that's pretty heavy and is actually the exact same frame as the Ripmo (just different clevis and shock between the two frames). This plus weird geo changes... Ibis trying to stay afloat/be profitable by selling two bikes with the same frame--just swapping a part and shock.
Thanks Sspomer,
Has anyone noticed a real change recently from open mindedly discussing/presenting rumours and innovations, to endless posts about "opinions as facts" on the topics?
Maybe its just me, but I felt like this thread used to be more open to ideas, and just seeing cool things, and I'd like a return to that. These new things arent for everyone, and not every product is meant to be the perfect fit for everyone, which is friggin great, we should want diversity in the marketplace, shouldnt we?
I feel like we have strayed from that recently.....
There are always going to be people looking for progress and other people defending the status quo. Some people will see new bikes and say “great! Just like my old bike!” Others will say “dammit, just like my old bike.” I feel like discussing these points is worthwhile. I just think some of y’all don’t like being wrong
If we're sharing our wishlists, I'd like to suggest that everyone who makes an argument like "because physics" kindly show your work. On the topic of the sciences, the goal typically is the characterize the size of the difference. It's a tell whenever an argument takes the form of "less weight" or "more traction" (i.e. "A and B are different") must be better because if two things are different one is better than the other. There's a whole universe of real, detectable differences that are small enough to be meaningless with respect to some outcome people actually care about. Even when we're sure they must (they must! these Ti bolts weren't cheap!**) matter. It's not intuitive just where that transition lies.
**W = Fs & F= ma ∴ W = (ma)s ∴ less mass is less work, work less ride more brooooo! [rides into the sunset]
^^^ an example of what I think is not a good argument, in case that wasn't clear
I just think, "cool, new bike!"
Friggin love new bikes, and brakes, and forks, and shocks, hmmmmm tires, stems......Not helmets though, frig I could care less about new helmets....
The popularity of social media and the need for new content (see also the daily news cycle) in the past 10 years or so has blurred the line for many between opinion and fact and has created comfy echo chambers for us lazy animals. Or somethign like that.
Back to Ibis... it's commendable they tried to limit investment by reusing materials through the range, clearly the financial sting from the past few years is still there. But like what often happens, that middle ground is OK at everything and not great at any one thing.
What coudl this be?
Either alloy version of the new spectral or new torque... The torque while is good at freeride/big jumps, really needs a Park version thats less progressive IMO
As a consumer I think it's so rad to have two bikes in one. One of my favorite bikes was my second gen Bronson that I swapped for a 5010 frame to race slalom. But the ability to use a 5mm longer stroke shock/fork air spring to turn it back into a Bronson made it the best of both worlds. With two different clevis and shock sizes I feel like the Ripmo/Ripley would be even better.
I agree & while looking at geo charts I think me at 6ft could ride a large ripmo with a 170 fork and then happily adapt it to shorter travel being the ripley.
The new Norco Sight is at the top of the list for me, it's 150mm rear takes a 205x60 shock stock, but it can take a 205x65 to bump it to 160mm. I currently have a bike running a 205x65 coil so I'm eying the alloy frameset since you get a Vivid Ultimate air and both shock mounts to run it mullet or full 29er.
Why is it that the Gen 2 Bronson/5010 were so damn good for so many people, but we are so far away from that now? I had the bronson and felt like it was perfect in the middle, run light tires for XC/all mountain and then throw heavys on for DH laps. Miss that bike a bit too much.
I notice you mention specialized have also missed the boat on longer CS and i can only assume you meant on the new stumpy. This was also my initial impression but i was chatting to my local dealer about the new bike losing the chain stay adjustment that the stevo had and he informed me that bb high/low setting flip chip would still change chainstay length approx 7mm.
Can anyone actually confirm this is true? It makes sense but it doesn’t seem to be advertised anywhere nor have I found a chart for it.
Pulled from the manual:
Chainstay Rants and Opinions Forum?
Also the geo tool: https://www.specialized.com/us/en/app/stumpjumper-15-geometry
Video of the Bike Yoke wireless dropper
Edit: added pic, looks like charging port on collar?