Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,636

    "advantages" of Ibis carbon Mojo over MKIII

    Is it a slacker head angle, 1/2" more travel, better warranty and less frame weight by about 1.5 pounds for a medium/19"?

  2. #2
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,076
    Serious bling!

    It is a new catagory marketed as "All Bling".

    Seriously, tho, all of the items you mentioned can be advantages (HA is more subjective). Extra 1/2 inch is only important if you have other issues

    Dropping a pound and a half would be a benefit to most anyone. (But does it cost stiffness?)

    There may be more hidden bits: DW-link different engineering, other geometry numbers, tire clearance, etc. Probably most subjective to opinion.

    IMHO, the better ride between a MKiii and a Mojo is going to go to the better rider, they are so similar.

    Mr. P

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    Serious bling!

    It is a new catagory marketed as "All Bling".

    Seriously, tho, all of the items you mentioned can be advantages (HA is more subjective). Extra 1/2 inch is only important if you have other issues

    Dropping a pound and a half would be a benefit to most anyone. (But does it cost stiffness?)

    There may be more hidden bits: DW-link different engineering, other geometry numbers, tire clearance, etc. Probably most subjective to opinion.

    IMHO, the better ride between a MKiii and a Mojo is going to go to the better rider, they are so similar.

    Mr. P
    Tire clearance and weight are rumored to be addressed for the MKIII in 07. But a 5.5" DW that weighed sub-6 pounds would be nice!! And the 69d HA is my quest; hence the wait for the 07 Rock Shox Lyric and its longer axle to crown.

    Obviously I'm in the very early stages of upgrade-itis...which will be followed by severe disappointment when I discover I can't get a carbon Mojo due to availability and/or budget.

  4. #4
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,076
    The DW man mentioned that the 07 MKiii will be "more specialized" with the intro of the 6" IH DW bike. To me this means lighter, but I am guessing.

    The current MKii has a 69.5 HA... a bigger tire can come close to wiping the .5 off the HA. Just thinkin. Also a Marz fork has longer A-C. Or get a TPC Nixon to slack off the HA, I did. It worked like a champ.

    UGI starting now.... man, you are going to hatin it come winter... to much thinking time...

    If you can, try to ride both, it is the only way to really know...

    Mr. P

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    The DW man mentioned that the 07 MKiii will be "more specialized" with the intro of the 6" IH DW bike. To me this means lighter, but I am guessing.

    The current MKii has a 69.5 HA... a bigger tire can come close to wiping the .5 off the HA. Just thinkin. Also a Marz fork has longer A-C. Or get a TPC Nixon to slack off the HA, I did. It worked like a champ.

    UGI starting now.... man, you are going to hatin it come winter... to much thinking time...

    If you can, try to ride both, it is the only way to really know...

    Mr. P
    I believe both the 06 and 05 MKIII have the same HA when measured with the same fork; the slacker HA of the 06 was a misprint in the catalog. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
    I have a All Mountain SL with a 538mm a2c, and I'm thisclose to sticking a 2.4 Mutanoraptor on the front with my smaller 2.1 Weirwolf in back to get closer to 69d.

  6. #6
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,076
    Quote Originally Posted by westin
    I believe both the 06 and 05 MKIII have the same HA when measured with the same fork; the slacker HA of the 06 was a misprint in the catalog. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
    I have a All Mountain SL with a 538mm a2c, and I'm thisclose to sticking a 2.4 Mutanoraptor on the front with my smaller 2.1 Weirwolf in back to get closer to 69d.
    I just got the info off the website:
    http://www.ironhorsebikes.com/bikes/showgeo.asp?ID=8

    Try a Continental Diesel up front, better rolling, much bigger (a true 2.5 vs the Mutano 2.1 but tall) and better grip in the dry. Another option is the Specialized Resolution 2.2 (like a 2.5), very grippy, slower rolling, light. I have ridden all 3 sizes of Mutanos up front as they used to be my fav tire, but the above tires are clearly better.

    Sorry... am I being your UGI anitdote? If so, ignore all I said, and stare at the carbon fiber a little longer. It'll come back.

    Mr. P

  7. #7
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,478
    I for one would never be caught riding one of those propoganized, over-hyped, faux four bar virtual pivot point Dw-link bikes

    but that Carbon hot dam

    So is the Ibis carbon different than the carbon used in the Scott Ransom or Spesh bikes?

  8. #8
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,525
    1) Finding a Mojo will be like finding a needle in a haystack. They are only making a few hundred of them this year (a few each month) and Iím sure they are pretty much all sold. You got better chances of getting a 07 MkIII than a Mojo

    2) Do you really want to ride an ĎAll-Mountainí carbon bike? I would HATE to lay that baby down on rocks - especially Tahoe rocks! Heck you don't even have to lay the bike down - what if your front wheel throws a big tock at your downtube? I've seen many dented downtubes on trail bikes, I would hate to see what would happen to that nice carbon finish - and at that point I wouldn't feel safe riding the bike. with that said, that's why I could never push myself to buy a carbon Trail bike.

    3) yeah the 05 and 04 MkIII both have 70 degree head angle. I for one was mega disappointed about that since I waited a full year before buying an MkIII JUST BECAUSE I wanted the 69.5 head angle. I was told that the change didnít make it for 06 AFTER I bought my bike. I decided to give it a try anyway and it only took me 3-4 rides to get used to the head angle. I run a Pike 454 at full 140mm and it gives me a head angle that is pretty close to 69.

    Another option would be to add stack height to the bottom of the head tube by pressing in a traditional headset. Alas the MkIII uses an integrated headset BUT check out what I found last week (https://www.betd.co.uk/product_list.asp?CategoryID=169) I ordered some Giant AC Headset reducers which will allow you to press in a traditional headset in. By using these on the MkIII youíll be able to add about 10mm of stack height under the headtube, which will slacken your head angle a bit. I got my cups yesterday Ė they are nice!

    Funny Ė the HA on the MkIII fells PERFECT on flat to mid grade trails. Especially tight singletrack. Itís when stuff gets steep and/or fast that I wish I had a little slacker head angle.

    4) I also with the MkIII was a tad lighter Ė but Iím sure Dave is working on that. Reason why Iím saving my pennies for the 07 bikes. 6Point, new MK, etc.... But for now I'm REALLY enjoying the Mk - by far the best FS trail bike I've ridden in a long while.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    I just got the info off the website:
    http://www.ironhorsebikes.com/bikes/showgeo.asp?ID=8

    Try a Continental Diesel up front, better rolling, much bigger (a true 2.5 vs the Mutano 2.1 but tall) and better grip in the dry. Another option is the Specialized Resolution 2.2 (like a 2.5), very grippy, slower rolling, light. I have ridden all 3 sizes of Mutanos up front as they used to be my fav tire, but the above tires are clearly better.

    Sorry... am I being your UGI anitdote? If so, ignore all I said, and stare at the carbon fiber a little longer. It'll come back.

    Mr. P
    Trickery, I tell you: trickery! That chart, like the brochure, is incorrect for the HA measurement.

  10. #10
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Acadian
    1) Finding a Mojo will be like finding a needle in a haystack. They are only making a few hundred of them this year (a few each month) and Iím sure they are pretty much all sold. You got better chances of getting a 07 MkIII than a Mojo

    2) Do you really want to ride an ĎAll-Mountainí carbon bike? I would HATE to lay that baby down on rocks - especially Tahoe rocks! Heck you don't even have to lay the bike down - what if your front wheel throws a big tock at your downtube? I've seen many dented downtubes on trail bikes, I would hate to see what would happen to that nice carbon finish - and at that point I wouldn't feel safe riding the bike. with that said, that's why I could never push myself to buy a carbon Trail bike.

    3) yeah the 05 and 04 MkIII both have 70 degree head angle. I for one was mega disappointed about that since I waited a full year before buying an MkIII JUST BECAUSE I wanted the 69.5 head angle. I was told that the change didnít make it for 06 AFTER I bought my bike. I decided to give it a try anyway and it only took me 3-4 rides to get used to the head angle. I run a Pike 454 at full 140mm and it gives me a head angle that is pretty close to 69.

    Another option would be to add stack height to the bottom of the head tube by pressing in a traditional headset. Alas the MkIII uses an integrated headset BUT check out what I found last week (https://www.betd.co.uk/product_list.asp?CategoryID=169) I ordered some Giant AC Headset reducers which will allow you to press in a traditional headset in. By using these on the MkIII youíll be able to add about 10mm of stack height under the headtube, which will slacken your head angle a bit. I got my cups yesterday Ė they are nice!

    Funny Ė the HA on the MkIII fells PERFECT on flat to mid grade trails. Especially tight singletrack. Itís when stuff gets steep and/or fast that I wish I had a little slacker head angle.

    4) I also with the MkIII was a tad lighter Ė but Iím sure Dave is working on that. Reason why Iím saving my pennies for the 07 bikes. 6Point, new MK, etc.... But for now I'm REALLY enjoying the Mk - by far the best FS trail bike I've ridden in a long while.
    I have a Nixon Platinum on my MkIII (IT replaced with RTWD after exploding it twice) and the BB height on the bike is more than 1/2" taller than spec. I wonder if that means my HA is slacker than 70 degrees?

    I have to agree with you on the handling. I just rode my '05 MkIII for the first time in a few months after getting to know my new 29er SS. It took no time at all to feel completely comfortable on the MkIII again. It feels like a natural extension of my body. To listen to the religion preached on the 29er board, going back to 26" wheels should have been about as pleasant as burning in the lake of fire for eternity.

    Back to HA, I don't know if the stock FSA Orbitz headset is compatible with a Chris King crown race but if so, Ventana makes thicker crown races (4 mm and 7 mm) for CK headsets that would help a bit with the HA. I have the 4 mm model on my singlespeed because the PopLock thingymabobber on my RS Reba hits the downtube otherwise.
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,636
    Your #2 point makes too much sense.... and is a total buzzkill!!!!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Acadian
    1) Finding a Mojo will be like finding a needle in a haystack. They are only making a few hundred of them this year (a few each month) and Iím sure they are pretty much all sold. You got better chances of getting a 07 MkIII than a Mojo

    2) Do you really want to ride an ĎAll-Mountainí carbon bike? I would HATE to lay that baby down on rocks - especially Tahoe rocks! Heck you don't even have to lay the bike down - what if your front wheel throws a big tock at your downtube? I've seen many dented downtubes on trail bikes, I would hate to see what would happen to that nice carbon finish - and at that point I wouldn't feel safe riding the bike. with that said, that's why I could never push myself to buy a carbon Trail bike.

    3) yeah the 05 and 04 MkIII both have 70 degree head angle. I for one was mega disappointed about that since I waited a full year before buying an MkIII JUST BECAUSE I wanted the 69.5 head angle. I was told that the change didnít make it for 06 AFTER I bought my bike. I decided to give it a try anyway and it only took me 3-4 rides to get used to the head angle. I run a Pike 454 at full 140mm and it gives me a head angle that is pretty close to 69.

    Another option would be to add stack height to the bottom of the head tube by pressing in a traditional headset. Alas the MkIII uses an integrated headset BUT check out what I found last week (https://www.betd.co.uk/product_list.asp?CategoryID=169) I ordered some Giant AC Headset reducers which will allow you to press in a traditional headset in. By using these on the MkIII youíll be able to add about 10mm of stack height under the headtube, which will slacken your head angle a bit. I got my cups yesterday Ė they are nice!

    Funny Ė the HA on the MkIII fells PERFECT on flat to mid grade trails. Especially tight singletrack. Itís when stuff gets steep and/or fast that I wish I had a little slacker head angle.

    4) I also with the MkIII was a tad lighter Ė but Iím sure Dave is working on that. Reason why Iím saving my pennies for the 07 bikes. 6Point, new MK, etc.... But for now I'm REALLY enjoying the Mk - by far the best FS trail bike I've ridden in a long while.

  12. #12
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,076
    Quote Originally Posted by andy f
    To listen to the religion preached on the 29er board, going back to 26" wheels should have been about as pleasant as burning in the lake of fire for eternity.




    Just to expand on what everyone is saying in case this is not known:

    1" (25mm) more A-C length = 1 degree slacker HTA (this is a rough equation)

    Mr. P

  13. #13
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by andy f
    I have a Nixon Platinum on my MkIII (IT replaced with RTWD after exploding it twice) and the BB height on the bike is more than 1/2" taller than spec. I wonder if that means my HA is slacker than 70 degrees?
    isn't the Nixon a 145mm fork? if so, that means your head angle should be about 1.5 degree slacker (my guess is around 68.5).

    Quote Originally Posted by andy f
    Back to HA, I don't know if the stock FSA Orbitz headset is compatible with a Chris King crown race but if so, Ventana makes thicker crown races (4 mm and 7 mm) for CK headsets that would help a bit with the HA. I have the 4 mm model on my singlespeed because the PopLock thingymabobber on my RS Reba hits the downtube otherwise.
    You would need to run a CK headset or bearing in order to run the CK or Ventana race.

    the only options I had:
    1) run a deep Cane Creek zero stack insertion cup and add some custom shims (which I would have had to get machined). This would have made the cup extend a bit. But I donít think I could of gotten more than 3 or 4 mm extra stack height. Not worth it.
    2) Get those Giant cups from BETD and run a Chris King lower cup (10mm stack). Which is what I opted for.

  14. #14
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Acadian
    isn't the Nixon a 145mm fork? if so, that means your head angle should be about 1.5 degree slacker (my guess is around 68.5).
    A-C on the Nixon at 145mm is 518mm, same for the Pike at 140mm but a Marzocchi AM-1 at 130mm has a 521mm A-C and 541mm @ 150mm travel.

    I wonder what A-C was assumed for IH's MkIII 70 HA spec?
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

  15. #15
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by andy f
    I wonder what A-C was assumed for IH's MkIII 70 HA spec?
    most likely a 5" fork..(around 130mm or so)

  16. #16
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Acadian
    most likely a 5" fork..(around 130mm or so)
    That could be anywhere from 500-520mm, depending on which 130mm travel fork.
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

  17. #17
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,321
    I've been keeping my eye on all the DW trail incarnations and the Mojo has some nice bits. I currently ride 2 vpp bikes so pivot maintenance is on my mind, and the Mojo's bearings pressed into the links instead of the frame sounds great. The weight to travel ratio is also insane!

    However, I'm just not sure I can trust all that carbon beneath me. Acadian makes a great point about laying the bike down, one crash could ruin your confidence in the frame forever. I'm also concerned about wear on the shock's DU bushings, since it looks as though the shock will have a fair amount of rotation through travel. The mkIII has very little shock rotation.

    Plus, even the look of woven carbon is very '01, and every frame will look the same.

    But DAMN that weight to travel ratio is noice!

  18. #18
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms
    I've been keeping my eye on all the DW trail incarnations and the Mojo has some nice bits. I currently ride 2 vpp bikes so pivot maintenance is on my mind, and the Mojo's bearings pressed into the links instead of the frame sounds great. The weight to travel ratio is also insane!

    However, I'm just not sure I can trust all that carbon beneath me. Acadian makes a great point about laying the bike down, one crash could ruin your confidence in the frame forever. I'm also concerned about wear on the shock's DU bushings, since it looks as though the shock will have a fair amount of rotation through travel. The mkIII has very little shock rotation.

    Plus, even the look of woven carbon is very '01, and every frame will look the same.

    But DAMN that weight to travel ratio is noice!
    yeah the weight is definitely appealing – and it’s a mega beautiful frame. I can’t take that away from the frame. But I have some scuffs on the DT of my 5-spot and not my MkIII that would of caused some serious damage on a carbon frame.

    Specialized is another company going the way of full carbon longer travel trail bikes. If you only ride buffed trails with no rocks, then by all means get one. But that defies the entire purpose of a 5+ inch trail bike.
    Last edited by Acadian; 05-31-2006 at 01:35 PM.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Acadian
    yeah the weight is definitely appealing Ė and itís a mega beautiful frame. I canít take that away from the frame. But I have some stuffs on the DT of my 5-spot and not my MkIII that would of caused some serious damage on a carbon frame.

    Specialized is another company going the way of full carbon longer travel trail bikes. If you only ride buffed trails with no rocks, then by all means get one. But that defies the entire purpose of a 5+ inch trail bike.
    You really are talking me out of the Mojo, huh?! I don't ride tons of rocks, but the roots and fallen branches I travel through could do the same. But.... Ibis has a good warranty!

  20. #20
    shins meet handlebar.
    Reputation: Accidental Endo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    277
    It's been said a bunch, but I'll say it again, because I speak from experience - a carbon mountain bike is a freaking nightmare.

    I ride a Kestrel CSX now, and it has all sorts of little chips and scuffs on it that scare the hell out of me. It's a great bike - light and stiff - but I'd readily trade an extra pound or two of weight for a steel frame.

    Even if you can afford to replace the frame often, or if there's some magical free-replacement warranty, having a carbon frame fail at an inopportune time could be really bad for more than your wallet.

    So yeah, when are the 07 MKIIIs coming out?
    Fear is the mind-killer.

  21. #21
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Accidental Endo
    It's been said a bunch, but I'll say it again, because I speak from experience - a carbon mountain bike is a freaking nightmare.

    I ride a Kestrel CSX now, and it has all sorts of little chips and scuffs on it that scare the hell out of me. It's a great bike - light and stiff - but I'd readily trade an extra pound or two of weight for a steel frame.

    Even if you can afford to replace the frame often, or if there's some magical free-replacement warranty, having a carbon frame fail at an inopportune time could be really bad for more than your wallet.

    So yeah, when are the 07 MKIIIs coming out?
    Maybe strips of black or clear tape or automotive mylar under the downtube and around the chain stays and behind the seat tube would be preventative of the CF rock chip problem?

    - ray

  22. #22
    Riding a Rig.
    Reputation: Vulcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Maybe its just me... But I think that the Mojo got beaten with the ugly stick at some point.



    Using carbon really opens up the design possibilites... and it seems to me atleast that they didn't really take advantage of that. I really just hate the way that frame looks.

    Quote Originally Posted by baycat
    I for one would never be caught riding one of those propoganized, over-hyped, faux four bar virtual pivot point Dw-link bikes
    That doesn't even make sense. How can you have a faux four bar vpp?

    And even if you could... VPP != DW-Link Spend a few minutes comparing them in linkage and the differences are obvious.
    Last edited by Vulcan; 06-01-2006 at 02:36 PM.
    "Physics is timeless. Marketing and bs never lasts. Thats been proven time and time again."
    -Dave Weagle

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan
    Maybe its just me... But I think that the Mojo got beaten with the ugly stick at some point.



    Using carbon really opens up the design possibilites... and it seems to me atleast that they didn't really take advantage of that. I really just hate the way that frame looks.


    That doesn't even make sense. How can you have a faux four bar vpp?

    And even if you could... VPP != DW-Link Spend a few minutes comparing them in linkage and the differences are obvious.
    I like your signature/DW quote.... but I beg to differ: Gary Fisher is the marketing/BS king, and he's been around forever!

  24. #24
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,478
    Tony Ellsworth is good at that marketing/bs stuff too!

    Just check out the annual Ellsworth Catalog, holy marketing **** batman.

    Just read the review for the Mojo in my favorite rag MBA, very positive and a paragraph on Dw-link and how it is the greatest thing since ribbed condoms

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    474

    Carbon doesn't scare me...

    I've had a couple of carbon frames in the past (Both Treks) and had zero issues. Granted these weren't long travel bikes, but unbreakable all the same. I beat the h*ll out of an old Y22 for several years and then passed it on to a friend of mine. I sent this frame flying many of times and even watched it drop off of a bike rack at 55+MPH The thing is still going strong. I personally wouldn't shy away from it, as long as I've got a good warrantly standing behind me (5 year I believe on the Ibis).

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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