Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    52

    Buildup; talked with the guys at Ibis and WrenchScience

    My first stab at things. Will tweak here and there. Just thought I'd post to see if anyone has any thoughts, acknowledging that certain parts are highly personal. The only thing missing is Frog pedals in the build.

    ------------------------------------

    Bike Parts: Model: Weight:

    Frame Ibis Mojo Carbon Nude Carbon 15.50 22.00 Disc 5.81lbs

    Fork Maverick DUC 32 Black 24mm 100-150mm 1770g

    Rear Shock Fox RP23

    Front Brake Magura Marta SL | Red | 180.00 348g

    Rear Brake Magura Marta SL | Red | 160.00 324g

    Shifter SRAM ESP X.O. Trigger 200g

    Crank Shimano XTR M970 with BB 175.00 22-32-44 749g

    Bottom Bracket Shimano Integrated to Crank | CrMo

    Front Derailleur Shimano XTR M971 Bottom Swing 132g

    Cassette Shimano XTR M970 | Steel/Titanium | 12-34 224g

    Rear Derailleur SRAM X.O | L 204g

    Chain SRAM PC-991 300g

    Headset Cane Creek IS-6 Tall | Black 81g

    Stem Maverick DUC OS Stem | Black | 100.00 | 10.00 280g

    Handlebar Ritchey WCS Carbon Rizer Carbon Carbon Low Rise 155g

    Grip Oury Soft Grip | Black 96g

    Cable Shimano Stainless | 120g

    Seatpost Ritchey WCS Carbon Carbon 350mm Setback 160g

    Saddle WTB Rocket V SLT | Black 210g

    Front Tire Kenda Nevegal DTC | Black | Kevlar | 2.10 610g

    Rear Tire Kenda Nevegal DTC | Black | Kevlar | 2.10 610g

    Front Tube Butyl Presta 1.90-2.70 | 36.00mm 120g

    Rear Tube Butyl Presta 1.90-2.70 | 36.00mm 120g

    Wheelset Industry 9 AM - w/DT XR 4.1 Disc Red 1640g

    Skewer Set Salsa Stainless flip-off | Silver | Stainless steel 104g

    Rim Tape Velox Cloth Rim Tape 8g

    -------------------------

    total 24.69 lbs

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,843
    Quote Originally Posted by frayed cable
    My first stab at things. Will tweak here and there. Just thought I'd post to see if anyone has any thoughts, acknowledging that certain parts are highly personal. The only thing missing is Frog pedals in the build.

    Fork Maverick DUC 32 Black 24mm 100-150mm 1770g
    Stem Maverick DUC OS Stem | Black | 100.00 | 10.00 280g
    Front Brake Magura Marta SL | Red | 180.00 348g
    Rear Brake Magura Marta SL | Red | 160.00 324g
    Front Derailleur Shimano XTR M971 Bottom Swing 132g
    Headset Cane Creek IS-6 Tall | Black 81g
    Handlebar Ritchey WCS Carbon Rizer Carbon Carbon Low Rise 155g
    Seatpost Ritchey WCS Carbon Carbon 350mm Setback 160g

    Front Tire Kenda Nevegal DTC | Black | Kevlar | 2.10 610g
    Rear Tire Kenda Nevegal DTC | Black | Kevlar | 2.10 610g
    Just a few friendly comments.

    I mostly question the maverick Duke: when you sum all the weights (fork/hub/stem/crown) it is heavier then a Fox Float and I am not sure if it is up its performance. I am afraid you will spend a lot of money for no weight gain, at most similar performance and ... a double crown in front. To give you an idea I just bought a Fox Float for $450 un e-bay. If you really want something longer up front I would go Pace or even a Fox Talas 36.

    Headset: I would not get a tall, but instead get a short one: it gives you more room to play with spacers. IS-6 comes in short, but you can also look at the Token Carbon Omega C1 the 10mm version.

    For the tires I would really suggest you have a look at the Schwalbe Nobby Nic. I run 2.45/2.25 they grip, roll fantastically and work beautifully at speed. They weight 630 (with snake skin)/560. A 2.1 tire is rather small for 5.5" especially in front

    Minor things: Why the Ritchey handlebar? I would buy a Easton Monkey Lite. For the seatpost: a Thomson Masterpiece?

    The Martas are a good choice I use the same set up 180/160, although I use a braided hose in front ... and I use Frogs too.

    Silly gram counting: Some of the weights are optimistic. For example a XTR 2007 is heavier then 136, it is a few grams from the XT that is a porky 170.

    Otherwise: it looks nice

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    52
    Thanks Davide!

    The grams come from wrench science website, not me. God knows I wouldn't be so fastidious about poundages since beer tends to keep me thinking in terms of kilos and not gramms. I cut and pasted them from my email for reference.

    The Duke. Here are my thoughts: 1. I remain very skeptical here b/c of what has been written on mtbr. 2. I really like the idea of a super stiff fork with dual crowns with no weight penalty. 3. I have my doubts about suspension action of the duc relative to Fox et al. In this last respect, I'm very much into cars. . . Porsches and BMWs. Have lots of track time in both marques and know what a good shock like a Moton, JRZ, Ohlin has over a run of the mill Bilstein or Koni. Based on extrapolation, a company like Fox has a HUGE advantage in bringing a sophisticated shock to the mountain bike world from the decades of experience on moto bikes.

    Headset, thanks for the input. . that's what wrench science had spec'd.

    Tires, I spec'd them b/c that's what the locals are running around here. Have had good luck on the loose, rocky terrain. But tires are consumables and I'm buying two sets of wheels, so maybe it would be fun to try both?

    Seatpost and bar, just went with light CF parts and have had good luck with Ritchey in days long ago. Maybe Easton bar and Thomson seatpost are the default for quality these days?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by frayed cable
    Fork Maverick DUC 32 Black 24mm 100-150mm 1770g
    Shifter SRAM ESP X.O. Trigger 200g
    Stem Maverick DUC OS Stem | Black | 100.00 | 10.00 280g
    Handlebar Ritchey WCS Carbon Rizer Carbon Carbon Low Rise 155g
    Seatpost Ritchey WCS Carbon Carbon 350mm Setback 160g
    Front Tire Kenda Nevegal DTC | Black | Kevlar | 2.10 610g
    Rear Tire Kenda Nevegal DTC | Black | Kevlar | 2.10 610g
    Wheelset Industry 9 AM - w/DT XR 4.1 Disc Red 1640g
    Rim Tape Velox Cloth Rim Tape 8g
    Thanks for posting ideas. The Fork looks great. Windup on that fork should be tiny!

    Play with X.0 twist grips for a while if you haven't yet. They are cheaper and, for me, better.

    The FSA carbon riser is worth 20g more, especially with that fork! (BTW: Ritchey stuff has not always matched published weight numbers, in my experience)
    Michelin XCR Dry[2] 480g non-tubeless tires run tubeless are better where I live. They rail rather than search and float slightly less on loose over.
    Consider velo plugs

    http://www.veloplug.com/index.php?ht...com/intro.html

    ... and yellow tape (look at notubes.com)

    In summary, all I really see is a nice bike with some geographic differences!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    854
    The Ritchey bar didn't do too good on the test bench. There is a pdf of the bar tests here somewhere.
    A bicycle will take you to fantastic places....if you let it.


    Ibis fan since '08 now rolling on the big wheeled Ripley.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: filegiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    184
    I just went through a bit on an ordeal with the Ritchey Low Rizer bar with my Mojo build. I chose the Rizer over the Easton simply on the basis of aesthetics (the weave matches the bike's finish) and I've had good luck with their WCS stems and seatposts in the past. However, the Rizers I received weighed 218 grams (!) on my digital scale (Ritchey claims between 160 to 170 grams depending on whether you're reading the website or catalog). I contacted warranty and explained that a 5% or so difference would be understandable, but this was a quite a bit more--especially for a near-$200 bar. Anyway, he weighed several bars around their shop and got about the same results. After looking into it further, apparently they added reinforcing at the ends (bar ends) after the weights were published. I was fortunate enough to get an exchange for the last remaining pre-production bar from InterBike (still weighed close to 180 grams), so you might keep this in mind if you're gram-counting.

    For comparison, the Easton bars that came with my Mojo were 159 grams on the digital scale.
    My Wanted List:

    1. '87 Shogun Prairie Breaker Team Issue (small)

  7. #7
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,710
    Quote Originally Posted by frayed cable
    Thanks Davide!

    The grams come from wrench science website, not me. God knows I wouldn't be so fastidious about poundages since beer tends to keep me thinking in terms of kilos and not gramms. I cut and pasted them from my email for reference.

    The Duke. Here are my thoughts: 1. I remain very skeptical here b/c of what has been written on mtbr. 2. I really like the idea of a super stiff fork with dual crowns with no weight penalty. 3. I have my doubts about suspension action of the duc relative to Fox et al. In this last respect, I'm very much into cars. . . Porsches and BMWs. Have lots of track time in both marques and know what a good shock like a Moton, JRZ, Ohlin has over a run of the mill Bilstein or Koni. Based on extrapolation, a company like Fox has a HUGE advantage in bringing a sophisticated shock to the mountain bike world from the decades of experience on moto bikes.

    Headset, thanks for the input. . that's what wrench science had spec'd.

    Tires, I spec'd them b/c that's what the locals are running around here. Have had good luck on the loose, rocky terrain. But tires are consumables and I'm buying two sets of wheels, so maybe it would be fun to try both?

    Seatpost and bar, just went with light CF parts and have had good luck with Ritchey in days long ago. Maybe Easton bar and Thomson seatpost are the default for quality these days?
    Davide and I have voiced our differences on the DUC in another thread (hi Davide, it's me again)... Maverick makes a great fork. I have had experience on both the SC32 and DUC and am pretty sure they are the best out there. Do your own research on the weights- just don't get caught in that whole maddening trap of including the hub with the fork weight. IF you sum all the parts including hub, stem, crown, ect... it is heavier than the Fox if you weigh the fork all by itself. However, if you include the weights of the fork, hub, skewer, and stem for the Fox the DUC is about the same (depending on which parts you're using). So just be sure you're comparing apples to apples. The DUC with all it's travel and double crown is VERY competitive (some would even say lighter) with the fox offerings. Performance and tunability are exceptional, it steers with scapel-like precision and the guys at Mav are AWESOME when it comes to customer service. You make a good point about Fox's rep on the moto circuit, but consider this: Maverick was started by Paul Turner- the man who originated Rock Shox. This guy has more experience with bicycle suspension than anyone else out there.
    They are both great products, and in the end you will probably be completely happy with either and sing their praises with vigor equal to Davide's and my own. But it is fun to be in that position of decision.

    Last edited by subliminalshiver; 03-21-2007 at 09:29 AM.
    **** censorship

  8. #8
    flow where ever you go
    Reputation: noshortcuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,512

    Lovin' Salsa

    140 grams confirmed (after cutting 1/2") and wider than many. Claimed 166 grams at 660mm !! salsa2.JPG

  9. #9
    Downunder Mojophile
    Reputation: ozelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    28
    I would caution against the DUC 32. I have not ridden it personally, but I respect the guys from AMB:








  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    68

    10 grand

    How did that nomad come out to over 10 thousand dollars? Ive never seen such an expensive set of test bikes in any magazine.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    52
    Australia

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1

    Ml 8

    Listen everyone,

    I have been riding Mavericks since the first ML 7 came out. I can tell you that any bike can be set-up to handle poorly or very well, with just a few changes. The ML8 is the best single "trailbike" I have ever owned. I have let 2 friends ride my bike on a long ride and now they own ML8's. I have tried it all and have owned many different bikes and the ML8 is still the best. I have spent some time on a Nomad and will give kudos to the Santa Cruz- it is a fine bike and might be the better choice if you lean more towards the AM and light downhill scene.

    The bottom line: If your Maverick ML8 is not riding well, then something is wrong with the frame or with the build. Also, I don't have alot of respect for AMB now that I read the article and saw the pictures. The ML8 is a "trailbike" it is not , and never wasd intended to be used for aggresive AM, FR, or downhill. It is obvious that they weren't riding it that way from the pictures.

    Charlie S.
    NM, USA

  13. #13
    Gone riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,369
    Quote Originally Posted by ozelise
    I would caution against the DUC 32. I have not ridden it personally, but I respect the guys from AMB.
    Sorry, but in my opinion AMB have barely written a decent review since the magazines creation. The last few years in particular have been especially craptastic.

    Dave.




    Welcome to MTBR Charlie!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,843
    Quote Originally Posted by subliminalshiver
    Davide and I have voiced our differences on the DUC in another thread (hi Davide, it's me again)... Maverick makes a great fork. I have had experience on both the SC32 and DUC and am pretty sure they are the best out there. Do your own research on the weights- just don't get caught in that whole maddening trap of including the hub with the fork weight. IF you sum all the parts including hub, stem, crown, ect... it is heavier than the Fox if you weigh the fork all by itself.
    Heila', yes we had this exchange before, it is mostly minutia I am sure the DUC works great. But just for the record the weight of my Fox + stem + front hub is 1740 (Fox) +180 (thomson) +145 (WTB) =2065 gram = 4.55 pounds (why I am counting these grams? what a useless post I am posting! it is sunny out ... off off for a ride on the Mojo )

    cheers!

  15. #15
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Heila', yes we had this exchange before, it is mostly minutia I am sure the DUC works great. But just for the record the weight of my Fox + stem + front hub is 1740 (Fox) +180 (thomson) +145 (WTB) =2065 gram = 4.55 pounds (why I am counting these grams? what a useless post I am posting! it is sunny out ... off off for a ride on the Mojo )

    cheers!
    True story! I just got back from a sweet ride, and I right now I'm pretty sure I could care less what fork I was running. Funny how endorphins can take all your cares away. Prolly shouldn't say that too loud, lest someone makes them illegal too.
    **** censorship

  16. #16
    holding back the darkness
    Reputation: subliminalshiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,710
    I agree. You must always consider your sources. Always the grain of salt. For instance, anyone who has spent any time perusing the product reviews found elsewhere on this site can attest to this. Yes, undoubtedly reviews are a great way to get feedback on products before you drop hard earned bucks on equipment. However, we've all seen the reviews from folks who have a bad ride for whatever reason and then turn around and fire both barrels at an otherwise good product. Usually this happens when someone spent top dollar for a top-shelf component and then pushed it beyond the design limitations. Case in point with this Mav DUC issue. The DUC is not a hard-core downhill's dream. It kinda looks that way 'cause of the dual crown and so some folks try to ride it that way and put it into the same classification as some big-hit forks. Sure, a SID world cup is gonna be substantially flexier than a Fox 40. In a comparative review the tester is probably going to say how flexy and harsh the SID is. I guess my point is: The DUC is a sweet long-travel cross-country fork. Stiffer, plusher, and way cooler than most of its competitors. Yes it has a double crown and 6 inches of travel. That's a little outside the box for the Cross-country crowd, but it works.The magazine hacks @ AMB might not have given the Mav a fair shake when this is considered. If you need big-hit protection for big hucks and bomber decents without need for light weight, climbability, ect, then maybe it's not a good fit for you. If you're into cross-country rides that go up as well as down like 90% of the MTB population the Mav is probably gonna work out great for you. So a person has to ask him/her self what they really need in a fork. My money's on most people needing exactly what the Mav delivers.
    **** censorship

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    52
    GAWD.

    This fork thing is a PITA. Last thing I would have thought is the mags picking on the Mav fork as being flexy. OTOH, I've never been a Rawk Shawx fan. . . I started riding around the advent of the Mag 21, hated the fork and bought a Manitou 2? at the time. More plush, simpler.

    The guys at wrenchscience really are pushing the Mav fork. . . .

  18. #18
    Downunder Mojophile
    Reputation: ozelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    28
    It is only one person's opinion after all, but I thought you might be interested in it seeing that you specced it. Most MTB mags rarely criticise a component so blatantly; the negative comments are generally qualified and delivered with a touch more subtlety and finesse. I don't know the implications of this apart from the possibility that the reviewer had a really bad day on the ML8 and Nomad, or Neezy had just pulled its ad account from AMB.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    498
    People's models of how their world works sometimes shows in their language.
    For example, in this article:

    "Someone at Giant clearly has some dirt on someone at SRAM. And someone at FOX."

    Even when said in jest, this is the last thing that would occur to me because threatened punishment is not a part of my equation... Maybe they are roadies?

    Anyway, a morning urban ride is calling.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    52
    Based on what I have heard from other folks, I'm going to largely discount the article. People with far more experience with the fork endorse it w/o equivocation. I'm trying not to overthink it, but b/c the fork requires a dedicated front hub and stem it makes switching out that much more costly.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Irrenarzt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    853
    Quote Originally Posted by frayed cable
    GAWD.

    This fork thing is a PITA. Last thing I would have thought is the mags picking on the Mav fork as being flexy. OTOH, I've never been a Rawk Shawx fan. . . I started riding around the advent of the Mag 21, hated the fork and bought a Manitou 2? at the time. More plush, simpler.

    The guys at wrenchscience really are pushing the Mav fork. . . .
    I like the Float RLC for this build Frayed. If you go Mav, you have to spec a custom set of IN9's with the appropriate hub for their 24 mm TA. Fine but for a Texas trail bike, I think it's overkill.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    52
    Thanks. I went with the Float. Bike arrived this weekend! I'm pretty pumped, and probably will be spoiled for my first full susser.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Irrenarzt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    853
    Mine came in too. Can't wait to build that bad boy up. That's half the fun for me as I like wrenching.

  24. #24
    T.W.O.
    Reputation: mimi1885's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    I just build my Mojo up with Duc32 and loving it!!

    It's my 3rd Duc32 and the 4th one is on the way(29er project), After my built today at the bike company in the OC, I was told that there's a trick to make the fork feel even more buttery and still bottomless. Check it out with Mike at the bike company here's the link

    http://www.bikeco.com/productcart/pc...t.asp?idpage=2

    Joe, and Terry just fitted the Duc32 to a small Mojo(something everyone said I can't be done) I absolutely love the fork I think it's a great trail fork not downhill or hucking. It tracks and carve corner like it's on rail after reading the AMB review and pics I was glad we don't have those guys here reviewing stuffs. what a bunch of cra@!!

    Check out my bike later on the Ibis build thread I'll post pics soon

Posting Permissions

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