Results 1 to 44 of 44
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172

    Ibis Mojo and GT Force comparison

    Basically i would like to hear comparisons of the two frames, most preferably from people who have ridden BOTH of these bikes. I would like to know how both of these compare in performance, performance such as pedaling, suspension design, climbing, descending, strength and etc.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,191
    The Ibis Mojo has won the MTBR Bike of the Year for two years running ... for good reason.

    Rainman.
    It is inevitable ...

  3. #3
    Huh?
    Reputation: airs0ft3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    344
    I ride an I-Drive 5 and I prefer it to the DW Link. The DW is more plush but the I-Drive feels more efficient. My opinion.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,603
    I've ridden the Mojo and the GT Sanction (which is the same frame as the Force but with a beefier spec)- To compare them in a single sentence, I would say the following:
    The Mojo is the better XC mount, the GT a much better descender.

    Most people will tell you that the dw-Link Mojo is the vastly superior pedaling platform, and while it is more effective than 99% of the stuff on the market today, I really can't take anything away from the i-Drive. In fact I can say with confidence that it is the efficiency of the i-Drive that allowed me to build up such a beefy bike to be a daily rider.

    That said, many Forces can be built up to be far more trail-friendly which I suspect would put them right on par with the awesome all-day friendliness that the Mojo is known for.

    In all honesty I likely would have picked the Mojo on account of the trick carbon fiber construction (the green scheme is just stunning in person) but from a performance perspective, I feel like the GT offers very similar results for much less coin.

    Hope this helps- feel free to ask more specific questions.
    Ever been to Mountain Bike Tales Digital Magazine? Now if only the print rags would catch on!

  5. #5
    Huh?
    Reputation: airs0ft3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    344
    The 26 pound GT Force should be a good comparison to the Mojo. If I could trade my I-Drive for a Mojo, I would. Not lying. A Mojo is a just an excellent bike. But for 2 pounds and 2000 dollars less, you could get a Force with an excellent and durable build.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by SlimTwisted
    I've ridden the Mojo and the GT Sanction (which is the same frame as the Force but with a beefier spec)- To compare them in a single sentence, I would say the following:
    The Mojo is the better XC mount, the GT a much better descender.

    Most people will tell you that the dw-Link Mojo is the vastly superior pedaling platform, and while it is more effective than 99% of the stuff on the market today, I really can't take anything away from the i-Drive. In fact I can say with confidence that it is the efficiency of the i-Drive that allowed me to build up such a beefy bike to be a daily rider.
    Thanks, SlimTwisted. Can you describe in a bit more detail the characteristics of both suspensions? Like how is the small bump compliance on both of them like? How much is it affected by pedal bob? etc...

    That said, many Forces can be built up to be far more trail-friendly which I suspect would put them right on par with the awesome all-day friendliness that the Mojo is known for.
    Yeah good that you mention that, cause i particularly would like to know more of the 'potential' of the two frame, as i intend to put together the build myself with my own selection of parts rather than buy the whole bike.

    In all honesty I likely would have picked the Mojo on account of the trick carbon fiber construction (the green scheme is just stunning in person) but from a performance perspective, I feel like the GT offers very similar results for much less coin.
    The Force in fact, also comes in carbon fiber:

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,603
    Peternguyen:

    Not a problem, happy to help. In fact it's funny you should ask these specifics because that was the exact two frames I had to choose from last year. Like yourself, I simply couldn't do too much research on the matter.

    First of all, I forgot that GT came out with a carbon Force frame, at the time of my investigating, aluminum was as good as it got. Had the fiber version existed at the time, my decision would have been even easier.

    As far as the characteristics of each, I guess the best way to describe the dw-Link on the Mojo would be to imagine a really plush 4-bar design that refuses to squat regardless of how hard you hammer the cranks. In fact it works in such a way that you could easily forget it's even there. I remember hammering along at a pretty good clip and glancing down at the shock- which was totally active there within its linkage. In other words there's no clatter, no bouncing sensation, no pedal bob or kick back. You simply spurt ahead with each rotation of the cranks and the dw-Link takes care of the worrying.

    The i-Drive is just as effective (in my opinion) but feels different. Since the cranks are essentially connected on the rear triangle, pedaling on the GT feels almost more direct. Its rather hard to describe exactly but think of it where the bike almost feels disconnected. The main frame, steering, and seat are quite isolated from the activity of the rear end/ pedaling forces.

    Where the i-Drive really delivered was in the climbing department. I attribute this to the fact that the suspension is completely unaffected by whether the rider stays seated or stands up. I'm an admitted pedal masher when it comes to climbing and its here that I couldn't find the limitations of the i-Drive.

    Like I was saying before, I imagine my Sanction is up there in weight, not sure but I must be in the high 30 lbs range but the linkage has allowed me to hang on the xc trails. My only upgrade at this point will be a third chainring for even more versatility.

    I can only imagine what a light build/ CF Force frame could achieve.

    As far as small bump compliance, you might find a slight advanatage with the Mojo. Like I said, you don't even realize how much terrain the shock is gobbling up as your moving along until you actually see the shock silently doing its thing. Of course my Sanction is set up a bit on the stiff side for drops and rocks, but I suppose fine tuning the Fox DHX could make it much more compliant for singletrack use.

    Bottom line: Its close! What kind of riding do you intend to use the bike for mostly?
    Ever been to Mountain Bike Tales Digital Magazine? Now if only the print rags would catch on!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by SlimTwisted
    Bottom line: Its close! What kind of riding do you intend to use the bike for mostly?
    Thanks again! Well i'd like to have a bike for trail to all mountain use. Currently where i ride, the style is mostly trail, although i like to have a frame capable of all mountain, and to be as tough as an all mountain bike as i move on to rougher trails.

  9. #9
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    I've ridden both, far more on my Mojo, just a demo ride on the Force. The Force is very impressive in today's options for this XC-Enduro/AM travel category. The frame geometry is virtually the same, 69/73 with low BBs, the Force has 1/2 inch more rear travel so properly sagged slacks the angles slightly more than the Mojo, but the Mojo feels just as plush with a little easier/smoother mid travel sharp bump compliance while coasting and greater compliance difference when pedaling. The Force is extremely stiff and stout feeling, but that comes with more frame weight. The Mojo is not as stiff, but stiffer than most for this travel, and feels more precise handling, more nimble. The Mojo has much better braking traction and better rough trail acceleration compliance without any additional mushy feel, but the Force is very good in both areas too, with both about equal in seated or standing pedal bob and no noticeable pedal feedback. Looks are subjective of course, in my opinion the Mojo is art on wheels and still after 3 years of production gets many complements on the trail from expert riders.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,603
    I was secretly hoping Derby would have chimed in
    Of anyone's opinion here on MTBR, his is certainly one worth taking seriously.

    I think he mentioned something in his post that I was trying to say myself (but couldn't spit it out). Somehow the Mojo feels plusher (without ever giving a hint of mushy pedaling/ or bobbing suspension) while the GT simply feels more rigid overall (but again- not harsh either). Of course my knowledge is limited to the aluminum version, perhaps someone else can post to shed some light on whether this trait transferred to the carbon frame.


    Ever been to Mountain Bike Tales Digital Magazine? Now if only the print rags would catch on!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    Thanks derby, nice comparison. I would love to be able to test ride these two bikes, even if its just in the car park but unfortunately i can't find any shop that have these bikes in store - they'll only order it if i plan to buy it. I'd love to hear some more comparisons.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    choosing between the two is a nice problem to have.

    I went for a Mojo but both bikes were excellent

  13. #13
    Awesome not Rad
    Reputation: farmerjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by nzl62
    choosing between the two is a nice problem to have.

    I went for a Mojo but both bikes were excellent
    Dont forget the ease and expense of service.

    Not sure how the Ibis bearings are installed, how expensive they are or how hard they are to get BUT I do know that the GT requires only a simple Shimano BB tool to access the bearings and GT made it easy on the world by using simple sealed ahead type 1 1/8" headset bearings. Go to ANY LBS and score some bearings for your GT or call Ibis and wait. I am not saying that Ibis is slow in their CS, in fact I would say they have a solid customer service reputation but it doesnt get any easier with a GT, especially if you live half way around the world from California

  14. #14
    Awesome not Rad
    Reputation: farmerjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    I've ridden both, far more on my Mojo, just a demo ride on the Force. The Force is very impressive in today's options for this XC-Enduro/AM travel category. The frame geometry is virtually the same, 69/73 with low BBs, the Force has 1/2 inch more rear travel so properly sagged slacks the angles slightly more than the Mojo, but the Mojo feels just as plush with a little easier/smoother mid travel sharp bump compliance while coasting and greater compliance difference when pedaling. The Force is extremely stiff and stout feeling, but that comes with more frame weight. The Mojo is not as stiff, but stiffer than most for this travel, and feels more precise handling, more nimble. The Mojo has much better braking traction and better rough trail acceleration compliance without any additional mushy feel, but the Force is very good in both areas too, with both about equal in seated or standing pedal bob and no noticeable pedal feedback. Looks are subjective of course, in my opinion the Mojo is art on wheels and still after 3 years of production gets many complements on the trail from expert riders.
    What about the LopesLink bandaid? how much additional cost is it and will it improve stiffness to be compairable to the GT?

  15. #15
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by SlimTwisted
    I was secretly hoping Derby would have chimed in
    Of anyone's opinion here on MTBR, his is certainly one worth taking seriously.

    I think he mentioned something in his post that I was trying to say myself (but couldn't spit it out). Somehow the Mojo feels plusher (without ever giving a hint of mushy pedaling/ or bobbing suspension) while the GT simply feels more rigid overall (but again- not harsh either). Of course my knowledge is limited to the aluminum version, perhaps someone else can post to shed some light on whether this trait transferred to the carbon frame.
    I'm a perpetual student about these things, especially since trail bikes have evolved so much in the last 5 years.

    The GT Sanction should be somewhat similar to the Force but they are not the same in geometry, although both share the same 6 inch rear travel suspension geometry.

    According to the GT web site the Sanction with a 66 degree head angle is 1.75 (almost 2 degrees) degrees slacker head angle using the same 160/36mm fork than the Force or Mojo. I think the Sanction is more AM/FR oriented than the Mojo's or Force's Enduro/AM geometry.

    I agree with SlimT that the rear suspension of the Force (and I would guess the same with the Sanction's identical suspension) feels a little firmer than the Mojo's mid-travel compliance over smaller to medium sharp rock hits. The Mojo just fly's with little resistance thought chunky rocky trail, whether pedaling or not. The Force just doesn't feel quite as mid-travel compliant, even though both have nearly no pedal bob while seated or accelerating hard while standing.

    The GT Force is a very impressive ride in today's bike line up for an XC/Enduro/AM versatile use bike. In my opinion, for versatility and high end refinement, the Mojo continues to lead the 5 - 6 inch travel XC-Enduro/AM niche. But the alternatives to the Mojo are getting much closer to equally satisfying my interests, and for some riders other bikes including the Force could be better suited for their trail bike ride style or social pier group.

  16. #16
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerjohn
    What about the LopesLink bandaid? how much additional cost is it and will it improve stiffness to be compairable to the GT?
    The Lopes Link is minor enhancement for the '09 Mojo which retro fits to earlier year models. It's $75 and very easy to replace the original links.

    The Force is one of the stiffest bikes available, very few suspension bikes compare. The Mojo is now nearly as stiff with the Lopes Link, stiffer than most well known bikes with this travel.

    I've found that wheel and fork stiffness are equally if not greater factors to overall handling stiffness differences.

  17. #17
    Huh?
    Reputation: airs0ft3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    344
    When you do your comparison, I would compare an Ibis and a Force of equal cost. I'm willing to bet money that the Ibis would be just as heavy as the Force.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    I agree with SlimT that the rear suspension of the Force (and I would guess the same with the Sanction's identical suspension) feels a little firmer than the Mojo's mid-travel compliance over smaller to medium sharp rock hits. The Mojo just fly's with little resistance thought chunky rocky trail, whether pedaling or not. The Force just doesn't feel quite as mid-travel compliant, even though both have nearly no pedal bob while seated or accelerating hard while standing.
    Ah i see. Could you please describe to what degree the Force is less compliant? Not being able to ride either bikes, i'd just like to get a good idea via user experience. Like is there a considerable difference? How did you find the Forces small bump compliance to the Mojo? Also, are you basing your description on what you know to be related to the rear suspension design, or just what you experienced (as in maybe a different shock or configuration may improve the Force).

    Sorry for trying to dig out some info in more detail, might be annoying to keep asking, but if i could test ride a Mojo, i so would. Not being able to, this is all i can do. Thanks.

  19. #19
    Awesome not Rad
    Reputation: farmerjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by airs0ft3r
    When you do your comparison, I would compare an Ibis and a Force of equal cost. I'm willing to bet money that the Ibis would be just as heavy as the Force.
    I dont know what the mojo or the GT Force Carbon weigh but as long as we are compairing apples to apples. Its hard to imagine that there would be a two pound difference between the two carbon frames. So, cost and weight... If the GT weighs more but costs less, just means you have alot more $$ to spend on premium components and the GT will still be stiffer than the spicy potato's

  20. #20
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,740
    Does anyone know the weight and price of a carbon Force frame? My XL Mojo SL is 5.3lbs and sells for $2300.
    Remember when comparing the rides of these bikes that if you rode a pre '09 Mojo it was flexier and less compliant than the current bikes due to the lack of the Lopes Link and the medium compression tune shock ('09s have low compression tune). If you are getting a Mojo DEFINITELY get the Fox RPL shock. It's so nice to have the open, ProPedal, Lockout options.
    Lastly I have never ridden an I-Drive bike but did ride many URT bikes back in the day. Can you feel the effects of the pedals being somewhat connected to the swingarm? Does it stiffen when standing? I'd have to imagine that the Mojo with low tune shock is much plusher over small chop than an I-Drive bike.
    Last edited by Lelandjt; 02-26-2009 at 11:46 PM.
    Keep the Country country.

  21. #21
    half tread will travel
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    240
    hey guys, an 09 ibis mojo classic frame, shimano slx build, mavis wheels and a rock shox revelation 140mm fork retails for 2999 dollars...try to compare that for performance verses dollars...good luck...
    tread lightly...earth is our playground

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    176
    The force 1.0 retails for 3k msrp with full xt, fox 32 and mavic 719's... keep in mind, this bike could be had through Performance for about 2500 most of the time. That's even tougher to beat.

  23. #23
    Huh?
    Reputation: airs0ft3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    344
    Even better, Force Carbon (lower level) retails for 4300, so 3900 isn't a far figure at all. The higher level one is still under 6k.

  24. #24
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by peternguyen
    Ah i see. Could you please describe to what degree the Force is less compliant? Not being able to ride either bikes, i'd just like to get a good idea via user experience. Like is there a considerable difference? How did you find the Forces small bump compliance to the Mojo? Also, are you basing your description on what you know to be related to the rear suspension design, or just what you experienced (as in maybe a different shock or configuration may improve the Force).

    Sorry for trying to dig out some info in more detail, might be annoying to keep asking, but if i could test ride a Mojo, i so would. Not being able to, this is all i can do. Thanks.
    Both the Force and Mojo are designed with the same air spring shock, both with the small can RP/Float. It feels like from the ride feel difference that the high monopivot shock leverage rate of the Force is probably less progressive, more linear, in mid travel than the multi-link tuned shock leveraged Mojo, giving the mid-travel bump compliance advantage to the Mojo. The DW-Link anti-squat effects also gives a balanced and stable bump compliance, without loosing acceleration efficiency, advantage to the Mojo while pedaling through rough, chunky terrain. For an advanced rider with much experience on many suspension designs, the DWL pedaling advantage over rough trail is very noticeable. Going from DWL to other designs feels sluggish or more awkward.

    The i-Drive (Independent Drivetrain) design of GT suspension is better than any monopivot or URT. I owned an early iDrive 4 inch travel bike bike back in 2002 for a short time as a backup for my 4 inch travel Horst link bike, an Intense Tracer, but always preferred the Tracer so never rode the GT after a few rides and sold it to a friend who still rides it occasionally. The new iDrive is much improved, particularly in improved swingarm stiffness and reduced bob when standing and pedaling.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    238
    I just wanted to second all of the nice things being said about the newer iDrive design. The biggest difference between the iDrive and other suspension designs is not the minimization of pedal bob due to my weight moving around, but the reduction of suspension compression due to pedaling forces through the drivetrain. I rode a Heckler on the street, and could feel the shock squishing just the tiniest bit the whole time there was load on it - it made it exhausting to ride. I have ridden the Force 3.0 on concrete, and it behaves better than anything else in terms of translating torque on the crank into forward motion - obviously, I mean better than other FS bikes. I haven't had a chance to get a Force into the dirt, but I'm saving my pennies so that by midsummer I should be able to order up a 1.0.

    I don't mean to sound 1 sided - the Mojo is obviously a great bike - but I haven't ridden one. I would, however, tend to suggest you stay with aluminum. I have a carbon hardtail, and while I love everything about the ride, I'm a little nervous about crashes. I ride mostly XC stuff (just moving towards AM - hence the bike research) so I don't do many big jumps or substantial drops, but I would feel weird taking a carbon frame off of a 5 or 6 foot drop.

  26. #26
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by PlasticBike
    I would feel weird taking a carbon frame off of a 5 or 6 foot drop.
    You get over it. Just think, GT's new DH bike is full carbon. Yes, crashing and having your frame smashed on rocks is bad with carbon but I've seen plenty of dented aluminum frames as well. Come to think of it, skin and bones don't do very well in the same situation so I just avoid crashing. When I start losing control, instead of bailing I fight to keep the rubber side down. Easier than it sounds with big tires and suspension.
    Keep the Country country.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    Interesting and good feedback. I wanted to compare to mojo since it seems like the benchmark for the trail/am class and i'm considering the force as my next bike/frame. It seems like the force is awesome value, comparable performance to the mojo (of course the mojo is still better overall) at fraction of the cost along with other pros and cons.

  28. #28
    Huh?
    Reputation: airs0ft3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    344
    I think the Force is the only bike that can ben matched against the Mojo. Every other against the Mojo has been "Mojo hands down."

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by airs0ft3r
    I think the Force is the only bike that can ben matched against the Mojo. Every other against the Mojo has been "Mojo hands down."
    What bikes would be in between the Mojo and Force in terms of the factors discussed?

  30. #30
    squish is good
    Reputation: Clutchman83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,933
    Seems to me the Mojo and the Force are practically opposite to each other in the AM spectrum. I'm purely speaking from frame geometry though, never ridden either. I'd wager the GT is a better descender and the Mojo is a better climber and a capable gated racing performer. If you're really wondering what is in between the answer would be just about every "All Mountain" bike there is. Do you really need us to dissect this for you Pete? You've been around for over a year, I figured you'd be able to put two and two together by now.
    Bike good, work bad.

  31. #31
    Platforms For Life
    Reputation: Halfrican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    203
    Use the force Peter.
    2008 GT Force 3.0
    2009 Bianchi Pista fixie

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,903
    isnt the force frame nearly 10lbs? gt's i-drive downside has usually been pretty high weight.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Clutchman83
    Seems to me the Mojo and the Force are practically opposite to each other in the AM spectrum. I'm purely speaking from frame geometry though, never ridden either. I'd wager the GT is a better descender and the Mojo is a better climber and a capable gated racing performer. If you're really wondering what is in between the answer would be just about every "All Mountain" bike there is. Do you really need us to dissect this for you Pete? You've been around for over a year, I figured you'd be able to put two and two together by now.
    Hmm really? derby, who HAS ridden both said they were quite similar, and many others have said that also, that's why i'm comparing the two.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,903
    a blur lt is also quite comparable.. and an mk3, or a reign, or a 575 and a insert anything with 130-150mm travel here, etc.

    theres not many 5-6 inch bikes that are really on the opposite end of the spectrum these days..

  35. #35
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    The I Drive uses a moving bottom bracket, which is going to cause stiffening of the suspension when the rider is out of the saddle.

    The Mojo (DW link) has rather high pedal feedback, which is going to compromise the rider's isolation from the bumps, whether the rider consciously perceives it or not.

    The Felt Equilink design would seem to be the one that acomplishes the same goals of plushness and good antisquat, without either drawback.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  36. #36
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by peternguyen
    What bikes would be in between the Mojo and Force in terms of the factors discussed?
    Of bikes I've ridden with similar travel few could fit between they are so similar in frame geometry and low bob. The new Turner DW-Link 2009 5-Spot would fit between, especially if considering the aluminum version Force. All have the same geometry using the same fork with similar cornering and downhill braking balance. The Force has slightly higher BB and 1/2 inch more rear travel. The Mojo is more plush than the other two with same shock, and brakes with the easiest mid-travel bump compliance, the new 5 Spot has a slightly firmer similar suspension compression rate feel as the Force and stiffer rear braking suspension also more similar to the Force. (I rode all three bikes on the same day at the same place, demoing the new 5 Spot and carbon Force, and of course prefer my Mojo the best, but really liked both other bikes very much with the Turner better in my opinion for pedaling more freely like the Mojo through bumps, although the GT Force does pedal very well too. The Force is stiffer laterally than the slightly more flexy Mojo and 5 Spot.)

    Just my opinion!
    Last edited by derby; 03-27-2009 at 03:02 PM.

  37. #37
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    The I Drive uses a moving bottom bracket, which is going to cause stiffening of the suspension when the rider is out of the saddle.

    The Mojo (DW link) has rather high pedal feedback, which is going to compromise the rider's isolation from the bumps, whether the rider consciously perceives it or not.

    The Felt Equilink design would seem to be the one that acomplishes the same goals of plushness and good antisquat, without either drawback.
    The Equilink appears to have a rather "vertical" path which produces lower anti-squat rate than the more reward path of these other bikes. It appears the Equilink shock mount geometry is digressive throughout and falling rate from mid travel to bottom out, which would reduce bob similar to how the Yeti 575 reduces bob. The Felt Compulsion had that falling-rate firm mid-travel feel when riding also.

    Just my opinion!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    It also depends on how big you are regarding terms of stiffness with the Mojo. The Lopes link is a band-aid solution. Plain and simple. I have heard from a few heavier riders that have made the Mojo squirm with the L-link. A 180lb rider is not going to have the same flex issues as 200lb plus rider.

    I would take a Turner 5.5, Knolly Endo, Nomad 2, Blt2, Banshee Rune, Pyre, and a Pivot to mention a few over either of the bikes in question on this thread.
    Last edited by ronny; 03-27-2009 at 04:55 PM.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: peternguyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    Just my opinion!
    Thanks derby! You always respond with good information/comparison.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WarriorPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    I would take a Turner 5.5, Knolly Endo, Nomad 2, Blt2, Banshee Rune, Pyre, and a Pivot to mention a few over either of the bikes in question on this thread.
    me too if I didn't mind throwing money away.
    Rethink all that you know and perhaps you'll realize how much you don't.

    Big fan of Mountain Bike Tales magazine.

  41. #41
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    The Equilink appears to have a rather "vertical" path which produces lower anti-squat rate than the more reward path of these other bikes. It appears the Equilink shock mount geometry is digressive throughout and falling rate from mid travel to bottom out, which would reduce bob similar to how the Yeti 575 reduces bob. The Felt Compulsion had that falling-rate firm mid-travel feel when riding also.

    Just my opinion!
    The Equilink actually has a quite progressive shock rate (falling leverage ratio).

    The axle path is indeed as close to vertical as a suspension based on rotating links can get. But the axle path doesn't tell you anything about the anti-squat the way it would on a conventional single pivot or 4 bar. By tweaking the pivot positions, Felt's engineers can produce as much or as little anti-squat as they want, while keeping the nearly vertical axle path. The Virtue, designed for XC racing, has more than the Compulsion.

    The pedal feedback is quite low except for deep into travel when in a granny ring, large cog combo. And when you think about it, you're virtually never going to be deep into travel when pedaling in such a low gear. You simply won't be going fast enough to hit anything hard enough.

    Another interesting thing about this Stephenson linkage, something I have never heard discussed, is that the suspension will react to square edged bumps that want to force the wheel backwards as though it had a rearward axle path, even though it doesn't. It's part of the same kinematic feature that gives you copious anti-squat with a vertical path and a horizontal chain. On conventional designs the maximum leverage is exerted on the shock when the bump force is acting in the same direction as the axle path. On the Equilink the maximum leverage is generated with a bump force acting in the direction of the path of a high single pivot bike (pivot up near the top of the big chain ring). But the actual axle path corresponds to a low single pivot bike (pivot down near the BB).

    I'm hoping to get a Compulsion frame this spring and possibly equip it with a Cane Creek Double Barrel.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ToneyRiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    397

    Ibis Mojo

    Both the GT and the IBIS are nice bikes but I would have to go with the MOJO. I really like the DW Link and the Mojo is a nice looking bike. Go for the IBIS MOJO!

  43. #43
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    The Equilink actually has a quite progressive shock rate (falling leverage ratio).
    I was just looking at the frame to shock mount leverage considering a rate of upper link rotation that is constant with axle travel rate. Perhaps during a constant rate of axle compression the upper link rotates very slowly during shallow travel and increasingly faster deeper into travel, to more than offset the frame to shock mount digressive and falling rate leverage, producing a net rising rate of shock mount compression (or a flat rate of shock mount leverage to support a net progressive rate from an air shock's rising rate spring).

    By saying there is more anti-squat leverage than apparent by just looking at the axle path perpendicular line and chainline, you are in other words saying the axle path does not describe a swing line. Maybe that is possible, DW claimed it was not, and intuitively (from my own sense of physical balance) I agreed with DW, but maybe he never studied it and my sense of balance is dizzy, so that we could be wrong. Have you ever found a diagram of Stephenson linkage that shows an effective swingarm or drive force line when applied to vehicle dynamics?

  44. #44
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    I was just looking at the frame to shock mount leverage considering a rate of upper link rotation that is constant with axle travel rate. Perhaps during a constant rate of axle compression the upper link rotates very slowly during shallow travel and increasingly faster deeper into travel, to more than offset the frame to shock mount digressive and falling rate leverage, producing a net rising rate of shock mount compression (or a flat rate of shock mount leverage to support a net progressive rate from an air shock's rising rate spring).

    By saying there is more anti-squat leverage than apparent by just looking at the axle path perpendicular line and chainline, you are in other words saying the axle path does not describe a swing line. Maybe that is possible, DW claimed it was not, and intuitively (from my own sense of physical balance) I agreed with DW, but maybe he never studied it and my sense of balance is dizzy, so that we could be wrong. Have you ever found a diagram of Stephenson linkage that shows an effective swingarm or drive force line when applied to vehicle dynamics?
    Igorion produced a force analyzing applet for the Equilink that can be found here: http://www.igorion.com/_equilink_force/

    He also produced a diagram listing all of the instant centers for all the links of the Equilink system: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...99662#poststop

    Unfortunately Igorion did not properly apply his own diagrams. In the force diagram he has a line he calls the "axle path normal". That means the same as axle path perpendicular. That line is not in fact the axle path normal but rather the zero force line. Force acting along that line will produce zero force at the shock, as the applet shows. Igorion, assuming the same as you and DW, concludes that must be the axle path normal. It would be on any conventional swingarm or linkage bike.

    But the actual axle path normal can be found by using the IC diagram and applying the Kennedy theorem. We're interested in the instant centers I56, I15, and I16. Those would be the IC's between the chainstay and seatstay (the axle point on the Virtue, and the rear pivot point on the Compulsion and Redemption), the main frame and chainstay, and the main frame and seatstay. The axle path normal on the Virtue must correspond to the line that those three IC's lie on. The Kennedy theorem says that when any three bodies share three instant centers, the instant centers must all lie on the same straight line.

    I have applied this method to an actual diagram of the Virtue and double, triple, and quadruple checked it. The line runs from the axle through the front lower frame pivot next to the BB. I have also verified this experimentally when I rented a Virtue for two days and traced out its actual axle path with the shock removed.

    Everything I have said about the Equilink follows from using the force applet and the axle path normal I found.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •