Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 285
  1. #1
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269

    dw-link 2XC and the Ibis Ripley 29er

    Bet you didn't see this coming, an all new dw-link suspension layout, dw-link 2XC (or dw-2XC for short) on the brand new Ibis 29R, the Ripley. goo.gl/UEa9A

    We've been working on this bike for what seems like forever. Far before it was fashionable or even heard of to have a shock clevis, and one of the first bikes since the I-Drive and Decathlon to use any type of eccentric link. Obviously more is better so we have two of them!

    A lot more to come but I hope you enjoy it!

    Dave
    Last edited by _dw; 08-31-2011 at 04:00 AM.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    267
    Suh-sweeeet! Not at all what I was expecting, but a pleasant surprise! Can't wait to throw a leg on it!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: digitalhippie13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    739
    The twin eccentrics - once I got over the brain ache of wondering where the link had gone, first thought was wow, kinda Yeti Switch-ish x2. Look forward to seeing video etc of it in action, and pics of a built up bike too.
    Last edited by digitalhippie13; 08-31-2011 at 04:02 AM.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    157
    There aren't any geometry numbers on the Ripley?

  5. #5
    Rides a Bike
    Reputation: fishboy2807's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    525
    Well aint that a pretty looking big wheeler. I can't wait to see the colour options.
    The rear triangle looks like it should be nice and stiff.
    What length are the chainstays relative to BB?
    Can anyone tell me how many Ibis bikes is too many to own ;-)
    Alan
    Frameskin™ Bike Protection Film
    Protect your plaything!
    www.frameskin.com
    Supporting Kowalski Brothers Trailworks

  6. #6
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,105
    It's got a cute small butt. Some interesting bits there. The swingarm to shock link looks thin, but must be solid. Haven't got a clue about the new linkage though.

  7. #7
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by fishboy2807 View Post
    Well aint that a pretty looking big wheeler. I can't wait to see the colour options.
    The rear triangle looks like it should be nice and stiff.
    What length are the chainstays relative to BB?
    Can anyone tell me how many Ibis bikes is too many to own ;-)
    Alan
    I can tell you one thing. The chainstay length is short, shorter than most if not all. I think that people will be happy.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    341
    Very nice! Thanks for the info.

  9. #9
    Singletrack Addict!!!
    Reputation: Relayden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    895
    Again, Dave, NICE JOB!!
    The world needs a huge socio-economic change...be it. We all need to ride more....

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    This frame may get me on an ibis again

  11. #11
    DILLIGAF
    Reputation: msimmons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    506
    I want one! now.

  12. #12
    Founder: Dirty3hirties
    Reputation: ddraewwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,004
    W O W. I'm not in the market for a 9'er but deeezam. How techy is this sheeeeit!?!? Way beyond me but I trust the minds of Ibis and DW.

    This changes everything....wonder if the eccentrics will trickle down to future models. If it's as good as they expect, I'm betting it will.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    315
    what size fork is intended to be run? 120-140?
    Intense Carbine C
    Intense Spider 29 C
    Ventana El Comandante
    Borealis Yampa
    9:Zero:7 Al
    Soma Wolverine
    Surly LHT

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    128
    Dave,

    Good work. I think this could be my first 29er.

    Anyone know what sizes they will be made in as I'm currently on a small Mojo.

  15. #15
    COTA member
    Reputation: Dry Side's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    967
    Geometry designed to work with 120-140mm forks
    Ripley 29

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by lifeis11 View Post
    what size fork is intended to be run? 120-140?
    That's correct - 120-140mm.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    128
    Yes - size small!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by donkeyrider View Post
    Yes - size small!
    Thanks Ibis for thinking about the smaller guys

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: manchvegas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,110
    was under the impression it was going to be 140mm all around. Oh well....
    Full time rider part time racer...

    See my adventures here..

    https://www.instagram.com/projectnortheast/

  20. #20
    Not just famous; infamous
    Reputation: coolhandluchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    We've been working on this bike for what seems like forever. Far before it was fashionable or even heard of to have a shock clevis...
    Wow, even before Titus used it on the Racer X?

    I saw this and had flashbacks of my old mac-strut Racer X, although, this version does pivots vertically, the RX did not.:



    Bike looks fantastic BTW! (And it has a useable water bottle mount!!!) Between this and the new Yeti, my resistance to 29ers may crumble yet. Glad I'm not in the market for at least a year.
    Last edited by coolhandluchs; 08-31-2011 at 10:13 AM.

  21. #21
    MountainGoat aka OldGoat
    Reputation: pachaven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    813
    Everything I wanted!!! Where is the wait list? Sign me up :-)
    Vote with your feet.
    No bike is perfect!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    505
    wow, cool.

    So, do I understand this correctly: eccentric bearings means that the attachment to the rear triangle is located off the centerline of the bearing, but the center of the bearing passes through the main triangle (?). Putting two of them on allows the rear triangle to move in a dwlink path, without links, saving length on the linkage and freeing up the geometry for shorter stays and more clearance etc? Do I have that right?

    Not that interested in a 29er at this point, but stoked that ibis and dw remain out front in new thinking, ideas and innovation!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    505
    How would this technology benefit future versions of the SL and HD? And when will it trickle down?

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    315
    im not super stoked on that 160mm rear brake...
    Intense Carbine C
    Intense Spider 29 C
    Ventana El Comandante
    Borealis Yampa
    9:Zero:7 Al
    Soma Wolverine
    Surly LHT

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    260
    Nice refactor Dave!

    That new linkage structure and press-fit bb must be where the rumored incoming weight drop on 2012 HDs is going to come from I would wager albeit in a more rugged design.

  26. #26
    simple
    Reputation: 69erSycip's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by lifeis11 View Post
    im not super stoked on that 160mm rear brake...
    Why? That makes the minimum size 160mm. You can go bigger with adapters.

    The 140mm rotor size is being phased out with the exception of disc cyclocross bikes.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Duncan1104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,176

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Ridge Rider View Post
    There aren't any geometry numbers on the Ripley?
    Here's some info:

    HA = 71 with 120, 69.5 with 140

    17.5" chainstays

    H

  29. #29
    Founder: Dirty3hirties
    Reputation: ddraewwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by rodeoj View Post
    Nice refactor Dave!

    That new linkage structure and press-fit bb must be where the rumored incoming weight drop on 2012 HDs is going to come from I would wager albeit in a more rugged design.
    I doubt they would use the new design/technology in the 2012 HD's (not saying that I wouldn't want it). That would mean redoing the molds which is just about 2 years old. They need to recoup the costs which I doubt they could have. And even if they did.....I'm sure they would like to maximize their investment costs by leaving the HD alone (and Mojo SLR, SL) for as long as they can.

    It's one thing to come out with new iterations of the links as they did with the original Mojo but overhauling the entire frame when it's only 2 seasons old is completely different.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by hanssc View Post
    Here's some info:

    HA = 71 with 120, 69.5 with 140

    17.5" chainstays

    H
    Thank you Hans. Can you also tell us something about the weight of the frame and when it might be available (I know it won't be before 2012)?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Fadl View Post
    Thank you Hans. Can you also tell us something about the weight of the frame and when it might be available (I know it won't be before 2012)?
    We're are going to do a real launch with frames in stock and all the rest of the info next year. We are not quoting the target weight, price or delivery date, but of course will announce it with the full launch.

    H

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    409
    Features of the Ripley 29:
    • 29" wheels
    • 120mm rear wheel dw-link travel
    • Twin angular contact composite bearing eccentric linkages
    • Full carbon fiber monocoque with sacrifical core molding
    • Tapered head tube (Cane Creek AngleSet & Chris King InSet compatible)
    • Kashima coated Fox Float RP23 with Adaptive Logic Boost Valve technology
    • Clean cable routing with molded carbon cable stops and provisions for cable-actuated adjustable seat posts
    • BB92/Press GXP style integrated BB is lighter and stiffer and better for molding
    • 142mm Maxle rear axle provides high axle stiffness with QR ease of wheel removal and installation
    • 160mm carbon fiber post mount rear brake mounts
    • High direct front derailleur, mounted to swingarm
    • Geometry designed to work with 120-140mm forks
    • 34mm fork stanchion approved
    • 4 Sizes (S, M, L, XL)
    • Head angle - 71° with a 120mm fork / 69.5° with a 140mm fork
    • 17.5" chainstays
    • Weight TBD
    • Price TBD but in line with our other frames
    • Delivery TBD, but not in 2011

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by hanssc View Post
    We're are going to do a real launch with frames in stock and all the rest of the info next year. We are not quoting the target weight, price or delivery date, but of course will announce it with the full launch.

    H
    That's nice.

  34. #34
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,272
    So I wonder what those two little nubbins (technical term) on the seat tube are? Grease ports? Set screws to keep the outer sleeve of the eccentric from rotating? Braze ons for a flask of Courvoisier since you're such a fly playa?
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by budgie View Post
    So I wonder what those two little nubbins (technical term) on the seat tube are? Grease ports? Set screws to keep the outer sleeve of the eccentric from rotating? Braze ons for a flask of Courvoisier since you're such a fly playa?
    Maybe they are to preload the bearings?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Fadl View Post
    Maybe they are to preload the bearings?
    Exactly.

    You can adjust the pre load with a 5 mm allen wrench. One of the cool things about this angular contact system is that you can take all the lash out and still not have much friction in the system.

    H

  37. #37
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,272

    ripley's back...

    There must be an eccentric or two in here someplace. I'm putting my vote in for a black & yellow stripe paint job.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by budgie View Post
    So I wonder what those two little nubbins (technical term) on the seat tube are? Grease ports? Set screws to keep the outer sleeve of the eccentric from rotating? Braze ons for a flask of Courvoisier since you're such a fly playa?
    I believe it is to bolt the two halves of the eccentrics (part 3 and 9) once they're installed in the frame. What I mean is part 3 and 9 would each have a half inserted into the frame from opposite sides and then bolted together.



    Last edited by Moto'n'PushBiker; 08-31-2011 at 01:06 PM.
    Correct number of bikes: n+1 bikes
    Correct body weight: m-10 pounds

  39. #39
    meh
    Reputation: clewttu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,185
    late to the party, but this is pretty cool stuff, cant wait to read more about the pivots...makes my frame upgrade decision tougher

  40. #40
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by hanssc View Post
    Here's some info:

    HA = 71 with 120, 69.5 with 140

    17.5" chainstays

    H
    That's kind of a bummer...long and steep. Doesn't the steepness somewhat contradict what is typical for a 120 mm travel 29er?

    dw, any problem running an Angleset to at least bring the head angle to where it should be? When you said that the chainstays would be short, I thought you meant it as "shorter than many others" not just shorter than the longest ones out there.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200 View Post
    That's kind of a bummer...long and steep. Doesn't the steepness somewhat contradict what is typical for a 120 mm travel 29er?

    dw, any problem running an Angleset to at least bring the head angle to where it should be? When you said that the chainstays would be short, I thought you meant it as "shorter than many others" not just shorter than the longest ones out there.
    I agree. Wish it was a little slacker but if and angleset can be used then its not a big deal.
    17.5 is not too bad

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200 View Post
    That's kind of a bummer...long and steep. Doesn't the steepness somewhat contradict what is typical for a 120 mm travel 29er?

    dw, any problem running an Angleset to at least bring the head angle to where it should be? When you said that the chainstays would be short, I thought you meant it as "shorter than many others" not just shorter than the longest ones out there.
    17,5" is not that long for a 29" bike. 71°ha seems to be quite common too. I've read some reviews about the Scalpel 29 with 71,2°ha and the tester quote that it felt more than 68°.
    Ok, that was with a 100m Lefty and no 120mm Fork.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by clewttu View Post
    late to the party, but this is pretty cool stuff, cant wait to read more about the pivots...makes my frame upgrade decision tougher
    Makes mine easier

  44. #44
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Oh, and what's the bottom bracket height. I'm guessing it may follow a similar pattern as the SLR and HD having a tallish BB.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  45. #45
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Fadl View Post
    17,5" is not that long for a 29" bike. 71°ha seems to be quite common too. I've read some reviews about the Scalpel 29 with 71,2°ha and the tester quote that it felt more than 68°.
    Ok, that was with a 100m Lefty and no 120mm Fork.
    17.5" is long when you're used to the snappy handling of a 29er with 16-3/4" stays. The rather sluggish feel of 17.5" stays is great for those XC types who spend all their time in the saddle.

    While the Scalpel may have felt like 68...71 is 71.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  46. #46
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by hanssc View Post
    Exactly.

    You can adjust the pre load with a 5 mm allen wrench. One of the cool things about this angular contact system is that you can take all the lash out and still not have much friction in the system.

    H
    OK, sounds good, but where am I going to put my flask?
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  47. #47
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200 View Post
    That's kind of a bummer...long and steep. Doesn't the steepness somewhat contradict what is typical for a 120 mm travel 29er?

    dw, any problem running an Angleset to at least bring the head angle to where it should be? When you said that the chainstays would be short, I thought you meant it as "shorter than many others" not just shorter than the longest ones out there.
    71 degrees on the 29er will be equivalent to 68.5 to 69 head tube angle on a 26" bike with the same tire height. That's why I don't talk about head angles with my partners anymore. I have them all speaking the language of "mechanical trail". 17.5 is pretty short for a 29er, at least equivalent with a few of the shortest that I know about. I'm sure someone has a list of the shortest ever and will be quick on the draw with that. I'll tell you what, it's a heck of a lot shorter than most...
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  48. #48
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200 View Post
    17.5" is long when you're used to the snappy handling of a 29er with 16-3/4" stays. The rather sluggish feel of 17.5" stays is great for those XC types who spend all their time in the saddle.

    While the Scalpel may have felt like 68...71 is 71.
    Agreed totally on your first point, although the guys coming off bikes with 18 inch chainstays (and that's a lot of them) will be stoked at that 17.5 number. It's all relative.

    To your second point, 71 is 71 for 26" bikes, 71 is 68.5 when comparing a 26" to a 29". You can't directly "feel" head tube angle, it's just a random number. What you actually feel is the effect of the measurement that we call "trail" broken down into ground trail and mechanical trail.

    Did you know that changing from a 2.1 inch tire to a 2.3 inch tire, even without any head tube angle change, has the equivalent change in handling that almost a degree of head tube angle change has? Science can be fun at times.

    Dave
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    I know it's not the same but it reminds me a little to the Corsair Konig.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    260
    Dave,

    1 - Keep dropping science on us, its awesome.

    2 - The new pivots, and the eccentric, seems really close to Yeti's new Switch. Now obviously DW link has been around a long time and Yeti's work I think is to be taken as a compliment to your engineering skills. Does Yeti's direction pay homage, and is there play back and forth in a friendly competitive way between these two designs?

    // This probably belongs in the suspension forum but since Dave is posting here I couldn't help myself. Though Yeti just came forth with their sb-95 5 inch 29er switch bike.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    After looking over the geo again it is pretty dialed. Just need to know the XL TT length and I will be all set to order.
    69.5 will be perfect and may be 69 with a 2.4 tire.

  52. #52
    Missouri sucks...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,306
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    Agreed totally on your first point, although the guys coming off bikes with 18 inch chainstays (and that's a lot of them) will be stoked at that 17.5 number. It's all relative.

    To your second point, 71 is 71 for 26" bikes, 71 is 68.5 when comparing a 26" to a 29". You can't directly "feel" head tube angle, it's just a random number. What you actually feel is the effect of the measurement that we call "trail" broken down into ground trail and mechanical trail.

    Did you know that changing from a 2.1 inch tire to a 2.3 inch tire, even without any head tube angle change, has the equivalent change in handling that almost a degree of head tube angle change has? Science can be fun at times.

    Dave
    I love it when people argue with people who are obviously more educated than they are I've never ridden a DW bike I didn't like so if 71 degrees is what the man says, just ride and enjoy!

    I think headangle is more drastic on hardtails. I spent some time on my buddies 2010 RIP9 a few weeks ago and it had a 71.5 degree head angle. It felt no different to me than my 70 degree Yeti BigTop! Once you get suspension sag accounted for, 71 is actually pretty slack. Seems that way to me anyway...

    Dave, any aluminum 29er bikes in the works for this new design or is it exclusive to Ibis? I like carbon but my wallet doesn't

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    372
    how does tire width affect trail? A 2.1 tire and a 2.3 tire are the same diameter, just different thickness - I just measured two of the same tires in different widths to make sure before posting.
    here we go again

  54. #54
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by rodeoj View Post
    Dave,

    1 - Keep dropping science on us, its awesome.
    I sure will try... Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by rodeoj View Post
    2 - The new pivots, and the eccentric, seems really close to Yeti's new Switch. Now obviously DW link has been around a long time and Yeti's work I think is to be taken as a compliment to your engineering skills. Does Yeti's direction pay homage, and is there play back and forth in a friendly competitive way between these two designs?

    // This probably belongs in the suspension forum but since Dave is posting here I couldn't help myself. Though Yeti just came forth with their sb-95 5 inch 29er switch bike.
    Eccentric pivots are nothing new, I mean, one of the best selling line of bikes ever, the GT I-drive used one, that was my first real experience with the design. Also there is the Decathlon NEUF bike from France in production from 2001 to ???? that is strikingly similar to the Yeti. The dw-2XC design has been around for some time in testing, well before David Earle made the Yeti design public, but I'm sure people who have been paying attention to my work saw this coming a while ago. I mean, it's kind of telling when the dw-DHR has ~40mm long links and 210mm of travel that things can get a lot smaller.

    If anything, to me, the Yeti design seems a heck of a lot closer to a VPP in terms of performance, and almost nowhere near a dw-link. It relies on a very low leverage ratio in the early travel (regressive in the beginning travel) to force a lot of oil through the shock and develop a lot of low speed compression damping.

    dw-links don't need to do that, the linkage effectively counteracts the effects of acceleration on the suspension, so I can concentrate on getting the most traction out of the shock as I can. The goal is as little compromise as possible, and that's an absolutely huge distinction, I believe in the favor of my design.

    Also, as a funny side note, almost every dw-link bike since 2005 has a link that "switches" directions. I have never seen it as a notable distinction becuase it has absolutely no direct bearing on performance. All of the old Marin Quad bikes and I believe a couple of the really old VPP bikes did as well. I'm sure there are more that I'm not remembering off the top of my head (been working for 15hrs, I'm beat). It's always interesting to read the marketing fodder thrown out there. I try to keep discussion about my designs to the facts, it's safer that way, and for sure I feel better about it... It's a weird world though.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  55. #55
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    Agreed totally on your first point, although the guys coming off bikes with 18 inch chainstays (and that's a lot of them) will be stoked at that 17.5 number. It's all relative.

    To your second point, 71 is 71 for 26" bikes, 71 is 68.5 when comparing a 26" to a 29". You can't directly "feel" head tube angle, it's just a random number. What you actually feel is the effect of the measurement that we call "trail" broken down into ground trail and mechanical trail.

    Did you know that changing from a 2.1 inch tire to a 2.3 inch tire, even without any head tube angle change, has the equivalent change in handling that almost a degree of head tube angle change has? Science can be fun at times.

    Dave
    I am quite familiar with mechanical trail. 71 is still 71 when comparing 29ers to 29ers.
    Since I would be using the same Fox fork with the same rake and the same wheel and tire as on the other 29er I have, I'm simplifying the discussion to change the only variable that is different than the Ripley - the head angle (unless you have some science up your sleeve where you can change the trail without changing the fork or tire). Remember, since all else is otherwise the same, why discuss the other factors that aren't going to change? Ibis simply made the mechanicl trail less desirable by making the head angle rather steep.

    And yes, I am very familiar with the differences in trail and the head angles (not going into fork rake, tire size, etc.) between 26ers and 29ers. In my opinion, for the type of riding I enjoy, even a 68.5 degree head angle is steep for a 26er designed for trail use. XC guys love it. Other, more active type riders don't. That's where this bike is confusing. Nearly 5" of travel with XC geometry?

    And to your point, yes, 17.5" is shorter than some XC bikes, but average for most other 29ers. The spec isn't necessarily long, but I certainly wouldn't consider it short. It's average at best. Now if it were 17", or even less, then the Ripley would be above average.

    So far, unfortunately it appears that this is just another "me too" 29er. I had much greater expectations. I will say that the eccentric links are really cool, though. The frame will probably sell very well for the XC crowd, assuming they can actually produce enough, unlike their other models. An Angleset may be a savior for this for those who ride more aggressive stuff, typical of 5" 29ers.

    Quote Originally Posted by eleven-yo View Post
    how does tire width affect trail? A 2.1 tire and a 2.3 tire are the same diameter, just different thickness - I just measured two of the same tires in different widths to make sure before posting.
    Maybe for different brand or model of tire, but for the same brand and model, the larger tire will have a larger diameter - at least all of the ones I have measured.
    Last edited by Blaster1200; 08-31-2011 at 03:38 PM.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    141
    hmmmmm, it'll certainly be a seller

    as for eccentric pivots, pretty sure my old Santa Cruz Tazmon had and eccentric pivot pin on the rear shock mount.

    ... wow, i can remember every detail about that bike, from 16 years ago, but have dificulty remembering what i did yesterday or where i put my shoes....

    personally i'd like to see half a degree or even one degree less in the HA across the whole of the Ibis range, but that doesn't mean that you should...

  57. #57
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232

    New question here. That's all fine and well...

    But is this big wheeler UCI legal for cyclocross???
    - -benja- -

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,036
    I'd put a 2.4 MutanoRaptor up front on a 26" rim and a regular ol Crossmark 2.1 in back on a 26" rim. The 2.4 MR was not a true 2.4 width but it had a very tall sidewall. This made my front end not such a steep xc type feel.

    Then I put a 650B up front with a 26" rear wheel and that tall high volum 2.4 MR and that's when the best of both worlds was born.

  59. #59
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles View Post
    After looking over the geo again it is pretty dialed. Just need to know the XL TT length and I will be all set to order.
    69.5 will be perfect and may be 69 with a 2.4 tire.
    Agreed. Not sure what all the smack talk from the hardtail rider about 17.5" being too short. My responce is stick with a 26er if CS length is such a huge concern. And this is no FR bike either so the HA numbers look spot on too. Nothing worse than a climbing bike that doesn't steer worth a $hit.
    I'll wait for the XL TT length too, but if past DW bikes have anything to tell about this one it will be too short for my lanky ass. I need a 26" TT like the XXL Tallboy to satisfy my 6'4" body and having a super long stem that throws off the steering is not an option. It's too bad we are such a minority when it comes to FS 29ers to not have bikes made for our size....I would have thought otherwise.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200 View Post
    17.5" is long when you're used to the snappy handling of a 29er with 16-3/4" stays. The rather sluggish feel of 17.5" stays is great for those XC types who spend all their time in the saddle.

    While the Scalpel may have felt like 68...71 is 71.

    You are riding a Hardtail! The new Specialized SJ 29er for example has 17.78" chainstays... I think the new Cannondale Scalpel 29 has a little bit shorter Chainstays at 17.3 or 17.4" claiming that they are the shortest out there. Just to give you an idea....

  61. #61
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by eleven-yo View Post
    how does tire width affect trail? A 2.1 tire and a 2.3 tire are the same diameter, just different thickness - I just measured two of the same tires in different widths to make sure before posting.

    Wider tires have larger diameters, at least so says Kenda, Maxxis, and my plastic tailors tape measure that I've been using to record the mounted circumferences of almost any tire I can get my hands on for the last 10 years.

    If you apply physics to the problem, it gets more clear. The tubular section of any tire is round in cross section. Therefore, if you increase the width, you must by default, also increase the height.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  62. #62
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200 View Post
    In my opinion, for the type of riding I enjoy, even a 68.5 degree head angle is steep for a 26er designed for trail use. XC guys love it. Other, more active type riders don't. That's where this bike is confusing. Nearly 5" of travel with XC geometry?

    And to your point, yes, 17.5" is shorter than some XC bikes, but average for most other 29ers. The spec isn't necessarily long, but I certainly wouldn't consider it short. It's average at best. Now if it were 17", or even less, then the Ripley would be above average.

    So far, unfortunately it appears that this is just another "me too" 29er. I had much greater expectations. I will say that the eccentric links are really cool, though. The frame will probably sell very well for the XC crowd, assuming they can actually produce enough, unlike their other models. An Angleset may be a savior for this for those who ride more aggressive stuff, typical of 5" 29ers.
    I have a feeling that you and I would really love the same kind of ride in a bike!

    I don't view ~80mm of mechanical trail as very XC, most riders wouldn't. That number is usually associated with bikes on the more aggressive side of things. Also, this bike was designed around a 44mm offset fork, not a 51mm, so that's going to make a big difference compared to each other (more mechanical trail/ more aggressive ride for a a shorter offset.) I'm not sure that a lot of riders would want to go slacker, but it's a possibility with an angleset, I think.. Who knows, maybe it will change for production, it's not impossible.

    All in all though, I am really confident that Ibis knows their customers and what they want. They seem to have nailed it with the Mojo series.

    I thought people were going all GAGA about the Santa Cruz tallboy and it's 445 chainstays? This bike is shorter than that, so as long as people are down with the length being shorter than what's obviously one of the best bikes in the segment then I think it will be OK.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    I just hope the BB is high enough for us east coast riders and the TT for XL is at least 25"

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    266
    First of all, I think the suspension looks genius! (But I am no genius.)

    Second of all, I think that the geometry is on par with the Ibis theory. That is to say, 69 degree head angle seems steep for a 140mm travel bike (ibis sl). And it is! Ibis seems to put extra travel on bikes whose geometry suggests that they ought to have less. The reason seems to be that the extra travel creates no compromise in terms of weight and pedaling efficiency, so why not have it? So, as I see it, the Ripley will be on par with it's 100mm full suspension 29er brethren, but have the added bonus of 20 extra mm of travel. I expect the Ripley to be a "longer travel" xc race bike, just like the SL.

    For the rest of us, myself included, there's the HD! (Until I get rich-- then I'll have all three!)

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vittorio64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    73

    Missing the Mojo hole in the front T

    I miss on Replay, the Mojo hole in the front triangle. I love the IBIS/Roxy style.

  66. #66
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    Wider tires have larger diameters, at least so says Kenda, Maxxis, and my plastic tailors tape measure that I've been using to record the mounted circumferences of almost any tire I can get my hands on for the last 10 years.

    If you apply physics to the problem, it gets more clear. The tubular section of any tire is round in cross section. Therefore, if you increase the width, you must by default, also increase the height.
    Using the same tire casing, increasing the height of all the knobs from the casing to make a wider tire at the edge of the outer knobs, also increases the tire diameter more than the width is increased.

  67. #67
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by derby View Post
    Using the same tire casing, increasing the height of all the knobs from the casing to make a wider tire at the edge of the outer knobs, also increases the tire diameter more than the width is increased.
    In tire design there are advantages to using the largest carcass possible, and that's frequently a goal. Henceforth, there are very few tires to my knowledge that have knobs that are significantly wider spaced than the carcass. Even on DH tires, which have some of the largest knobs, the carcass width and knob width are similar. What you are saying makes total sense, it's just that it's not frequently done in practice.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by vittorio64 View Post
    I miss on Replay, the Mojo hole in the front triangle. I love the IBIS/Roxy style.
    Yeah, I admit to being a little bummed that the iconic Mojo shape didn't carry over to the new bike, but there are sound reasons for the change.... and with 70+ days over 100 this summer in Austin, the water bottle placement sounds like a real nice upgrade.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: younior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by vittorio64 View Post
    I miss on Replay, the Mojo hole in the front triangle. I love the IBIS/Roxy style.
    +1.
    DW link aside, Ripley has no Mojo, to me . But then it would have to be Mojo 29 not Ripley.
    I love my HD.

  70. #70
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    In tire design there are advantages to using the largest carcass possible, and that's frequently a goal. Henceforth, there are very few tires to my knowledge that have knobs that are significantly wider spaced than the carcass. Even on DH tires, which have some of the largest knobs, the carcass width and knob width are similar. What you are saying makes total sense, it's just that it's not frequently done in practice.
    Although 26" tires, Maxxis has some examples. The 2.1 Crossmark is the exact same carcass as the 2.35 Highroller.

    I think WTB has is similar with some tires where the 2.24 Mutanoraptor has wider knobs than the 2.4 Mutanoraptor, even though the 2.24 uses a smaller carcass. It's been a while since I measured these, but if I recall correctly the actual width of the tire was the same, but the 2.4 may have been a little taller.

    Back to the frame...I think one of the best parts of this frame is the stiffness offered by the eccentric design compared to multiple links, cartridge bearings on pins - there's a lot of flex and stacked up tolerances there.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    6
    Is it patented using the two eccentrics or is it the dw link path that is the IP here
    I understand why you rotated the shock eyelet through 90 degrees a long time before bikes we use the same principle to isolate forces on a very big gun system for the US army

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    447
    Are there any videos of the eccentric linkage in action out there?

  73. #73
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by thedevelopmentengineer View Post
    Is it patented using the two eccentrics or is it the dw link path that is the IP here
    I understand why you rotated the shock eyelet through 90 degrees a long time before bikes we use the same principle to isolate forces on a very big gun system for the US army
    There are existing and pending patents on both aspects of the design, the mechanics that make dw-link special and also the use of the eccentrics. We have been planning this bike for a LONG time.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    703
    "We did some durability calculations and we predict that the eccentrics will outlast the bearings in our linkages considerably. We designed them with extra load capacity which provides increased life. The system is sheltered from direct spray by the design of the frame and also fully sealed. When you do go to replace the bearing material it is easier than pressing bearings out and less wasteful and expensive than replacing the entire link. It’s just the cone shaped bushing material that needs to be replaced. Not that you’ll need them in your lifetime, but they will be reasonably priced."

    I'm assuming Ibis has not only run the calculations but beat on a handful of test mules to prove out the durability of these bushings and links. Calculations are great, but can't replace a real-world beating.

    Right?

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    14
    Any ideas on pricing and delivery timeframe?

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    372

    the dubiousness

    Quote Originally Posted by reamer41 View Post
    "We did some durability calculations and we predict that the eccentrics will outlast the bearings in our linkages considerably. We designed them with extra load capacity which provides increased life. The system is sheltered from direct spray by the design of the frame and also fully sealed. When you do go to replace the bearing material it is easier than pressing bearings out and less wasteful and expensive than replacing the entire link. It’s just the cone shaped bushing material that needs to be replaced. Not that you’ll need them in your lifetime, but they will be reasonably priced."

    I'm assuming Ibis has not only run the calculations but beat on a handful of test mules to prove out the durability of these bushings and links. Calculations are great, but can't replace a real-world beating.

    Right?
    that was my thought too. they say that they were secretively riding the proof of concept prototype, but that probably doesn't have the same bearing system in it. I wonder how many miles are on the new pivot material (and in a place where it gets muddy). Geometry debates aside, this is the most dubious part imo. "we made a whole new way to run the pivots on, and we did durability "calculations" on it that say it'll be good and the people we buy them from agreed".
    almost as easy to trust that as somebody who refers to basic geometry as physics ; ) i'd love to see the measurements that were taken "for ten years" that is going to refute blaster's claims.
    I run different width tires on my bikes all the time depending on where i'm riding. the geometry does not change, certainly not enough to tell any difference.
    here we go again

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    I have a feeling that you and I would really love the same kind of ride in a bike!

    I don't view ~80mm of mechanical trail as very XC, most riders wouldn't. That number is usually associated with bikes on the more aggressive side of things. Also, this bike was designed around a 44mm offset fork, not a 51mm, so that's going to make a big difference compared to each other (more mechanical trail/ more aggressive ride for a a shorter offset.) I'm not sure that a lot of riders would want to go slacker, but it's a possibility with an angleset, I think.. Who knows, maybe it will change for production, it's not impossible.

    All in all though, I am really confident that Ibis knows their customers and what they want. They seem to have nailed it with the Mojo series.

    I thought people were going all GAGA about the Santa Cruz tallboy and it's 445 chainstays? This bike is shorter than that, so as long as people are down with the length being shorter than what's obviously one of the best bikes in the segment then I think it will be OK.
    Dave,

    First off, job well done! I cannot wait to throw a leg over one, provided the TT sizing is consistent with other models (at 5'7", the standover and handlebar height is problematic relative to the TT length with most 29ers- vs. 26ers). Seems to me that the 130gm weight loss on the linkage is huge, as we all push for reduced frame weights. So a 6% reduction in frame weight is significant. Regarding the chainstay length, 445 mm = 17.52", so the Ripley is at
    17.5" (444.5mm). Not sure a half a millimeter in chainstay length qualifies as "shorter than that" - the SC Tallboy as stated above. Looking at say the Fisher Superfly 100 (451- 17.75") and Salsa 29er (454 - 17.9", Niner Bikes 17.9") geometry, all claiming short chainstays for example, the Ripley seems to be one of the shortest at 17.5". Shorter has always been regarded as better in the XC 26"er world, I would think the same applys to big wheels?. By contrast, the chainstays on the Ibis Mojo HD are 17.2", so maybe 17.5 is a good happy medium?
    Last edited by buggymancan; 09-02-2011 at 04:17 PM.

  78. #78
    kabouterclan member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    491
    going from 120 to 140 on the Niner Rip: 1 deg difference
    going from 120 to 140 on the Ibis Ripley: 1,5 deg difference

    That 's not very logical... I gather it's a rounding difference? I real life, the HA of these two bikes can't be very far off... ?
    Sent from my HAL 9000

  79. #79
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by reamer41 View Post
    "We did some durability calculations and we predict that the eccentrics will outlast the bearings in our linkages considerably. We designed them with extra load capacity which provides increased life. The system is sheltered from direct spray by the design of the frame and also fully sealed. When you do go to replace the bearing material it is easier than pressing bearings out and less wasteful and expensive than replacing the entire link. It’s just the cone shaped bushing material that needs to be replaced. Not that you’ll need them in your lifetime, but they will be reasonably priced."

    I'm assuming Ibis has not only run the calculations but beat on a handful of test mules to prove out the durability of these bushings and links. Calculations are great, but can't replace a real-world beating.

    Right?
    The linkage system including the eccentrics and bushings has gone through over 2 years of real world testing, machine testing, analysis, and refinement by Colin and the guys at Ibis. In my opinion, it is more "real world durability tested" than almost any other bike I've been a part of bringing to market.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  80. #80
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by de lars cuevas View Post
    going from 120 to 140 on the Niner Rip: 1 deg difference
    going from 120 to 140 on the Ibis Ripley: 1,5 deg difference

    That 's not very logical... I gather it's a rounding difference? I real life, the HA of these two bikes can't be very far off... ?
    I was waiting for someone to bring this up. It would seem that the guys at Ibis (and other bike makers) would be better at geometry than that....or maybe it's the marketing guys figuring the angles.
    Anyway, if we are getting into the tenths of a degree, the HA change depends on the wheelbase and HA starting point so each size would change a different amount . When adding 20mm to the A-C, the change in HA is usually around 1 degree.

  81. #81
    Founder: Dirty3hirties
    Reputation: ddraewwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet View Post
    I was waiting for someone to bring this up. It would seem that the guys at Ibis (and other bike makers) would be better at geometry than that....or maybe it's the marketing guys figuring the angles.
    Anyway, if we are getting into the tenths of a degree, the HA change depends on the wheelbase and HA starting point so each size would change a different amount . When adding 20mm to the A-C, the change in HA is usually around 1 degree.

    You're assuming that adding 20mm in travel=20 mm in A-C. To be more clear, Ibis should post the A-C measurement they're using for those calculations. Tires also will change things but it's ridiculous to try to account for all the different tire heights and how each will affect the HA.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    The linkage system including the eccentrics and bushings has gone through over 2 years of real world testing, machine testing, analysis, and refinement by Colin and the guys at Ibis. In my opinion, it is more "real world durability tested" than almost any other bike I've been a part of bringing to market.
    I had kind of assumed that it had to be well tested. Thanks for the reply!
    Last edited by reamer41; 09-02-2011 at 11:30 AM.

  83. #83
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,612
    Quote Originally Posted by ddraewwg View Post
    You're assuming that adding 20mm in travel=20 mm in A-C. To be more clear, Ibis should post the A-C measurement they're using for those calculations. Tires also will change things but it's ridiculous to try to account for all the different tire heights and how each will affect the HA.
    Yes, I am assuming that and usually that's how it works.
    Also, companies usually use the same tire front and back so that doesn't come into play, but your right - both are assumptions that may not be correct.

  84. #84
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232

    Good job! Right

    Quote Originally Posted by reamer41 View Post
    [I]I'm assuming Ibis has not only run the calculations but beat on a handful of test mules to prove out the durability of these bushings and links. Calculations are great, but can't replace a real-world beating.

    Right?
    I don't know Hans at all, but I know Scot. Scot would not ship a product that has not had the crap beaten out of it via actual riding by actual riders who are way the hell better then 95% of the population.

    Ibis makes bikes that are intended for riding on dirt, not on Bimmer rooftops, despite what many peeps thinks.
    - -benja- -

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pagasarrimendi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    17
    Interesting debate. But if the system has many advantages, why not also been placed in the SL-A newly designed?

  86. #86
    _dw
    _dw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by pagasarrimendi View Post
    Interesting debate. But if the system has many advantages, why not also been placed in the SL-A newly designed?
    Because the SL-R is still a Mojo, a refinement of the SL, whereas the Ripley is an all-new platform.
    dw★link
    Split Pivot
    @daveweagle -Twitter

  87. #87
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    109
    I suppose one could also use an external lower headset cup, coupled with a 140mm fork to achieve a slackish head angle (- ~1.75*). That might make for a higher than desired BB though. It's all relatively moot though, since Ibis' HA numbers don't jibe with each other, so it's hard to say what the accurate starting point is.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    Because the SL-R is still a Mojo, a refinement of the SL, whereas the Ripley is an all-new platform.
    So if this came too late for the Mojo SL-R, will this be available in other Ibis bikes (whether they're called Mojo or not)?
    Correct number of bikes: n+1 bikes
    Correct body weight: m-10 pounds

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,024
    Not sure the new DW Eccentrics came too late for the Mojo HD. More like a case of two different platforms, the 29er requiring a more compact linkage due to the 29er larger wheel size and space constraints. The Ripley eccentric link, I believe should be viewed as on par with the Mojo DW link and not necessarly superior. Possibly a little lighter though, jury still out on the actual weight savings given the rest of the frame layup requirements. It will be nice to learn the actual weights on the Ripley frames along with the Ripley geometry(particularly the small frame TT). Maybe from Interbike in a week or so, as there seems to be little info. coming out of Euro Bike.
    Last edited by buggymancan; 09-03-2011 at 06:40 PM.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,477
    Will Ibis have demos available to ride at the Interbike Dirt Demo days?

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: raganwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by benja55 View Post
    But is this big wheeler UCI legal for cyclocross???
    Without consulting the rulebook (which has been known to change the morning of an event, just ask The Flying Scotsman), i'd say no, because:
    1. Suspension is illegal
    2. Tyres must be no more than 34mm wide
    3. Water bottles are illegal
    4. Bars must be dropped


    For practical purposes, Ridley beats Ripley. Cyclocross races allow bike switching, so bikes don't need to be as durable as they are in XC. The UCI minimum weight for CX is around 15 pounds, and there are plenty of bikes available in the 15-17 pound range. The Ripley doesn't look like it's going to be a seventeen pounder under any circumstances, much less under sixteen.

    But that being said, most citizen races don't enforce UCI rules and most citizen racers are lucky if they have a spare pair of heels in the pits, much less a spare bike. I bet it would be fun to race a Ripley!

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by buggymancan View Post
    Not sure the new DW Eccentrics came too late for the Mojo HD. More like a case of two different platforms, the 29er requiring a more compact linkage due to the 29er larger wheel size and space constraints. The Ripley eccentric link, I believe should be viewed as on par with the Mojo DW link and not necessarly superior. Possibly a little lighter though, jury still out on the actual weight savings given the rest of the frame layup requirements. It will be nice to learn the actual weights on the Ripley frames along with the Ripley geometry(particularly the small frame TT). Maybe from Interbike in a week or so, as there seems to be little info. coming out of Euro Bike.
    I don't know about that. I think the system sounds superior. 130 grams lighter, stiffer? and the bushings are supposed to last longer than bearings. If this all turns out to be true, then RIP Mojo platform. Sign me up the Ripley HD 26 (those big wheels are silly). Nice work DW and Ibis. Stoked to be riding on an Ibis.

  93. #93
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787

    removed, wrong thread

    dumb forum software, stumped again!

  94. #94
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787

    bushing pivots

    "Norglide has a bunch of features we are looking for. It's maintenance free, strong (has a metal support structure) is durable due to its wear-resistant PTFE compound and it can also have high load capabilities. So far so good. The coefficient of friction of a composite material is not a constant. It is dictated by the material of the mating contact surfaces and by the roughness of the harder one. With combinations that have very different strength values (like ours does, aluminum and polymer) the coefficient of friction also depends on the load, speed and ambient temperature. What we found out from all of this is super good news: the coefficient of friction drops as load increases and as speed decreases. That's the exact mix of properties we were looking for in this bearing.

    Isn't this digressive rate of friction under increasing load, or "stiction", common with journal bearings (bushing type bearings)?

    Are the HD's dual row angular contact bearings in the front of the lower link similar Teflon coated bushing type pivots?

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    346
    From what I'm reading it has significant advantages: less play, less weight, longer lifetime, quicker maintenance/replacement, somewhat closed packaging (no pebbles get in the Lopes link and scratch it up). I'd say adapt the Mojo (HD) and offer it as a (higher priced ?) choice.
    Correct number of bikes: n+1 bikes
    Correct body weight: m-10 pounds

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by JimEG View Post
    I don't know about that. I think the system sounds superior. 130 grams lighter, stiffer? and the bushings are supposed to last longer than bearings. If this all turns out to be true, then RIP Mojo platform. Sign me up the Ripley HD 26 (those big wheels are silly). Nice work DW and Ibis. Stoked to be riding on an Ibis.
    Well, we will wait and see. I, personally would like to see a 650b version of the Ripley, as I too am not crazy about the big wheels. I understanfd the benefits of the big wheels and have owned several 29ers, but at the end of the day they simply are not as fun to ride as a 26er. I like being able to pump the trail and flick the bike around. For me, 650b is the happy medium. Maybe an alternate rear triangle would be all it would take, one built to account for the difference in BB height for 650b vs. 29er, paired with the 29er front triangle to reduce production costs for the small but upcoming 650b market. Or better yet, a 26er model with adaquate chainstay clearance to accommodate 650b and perhaps a different eccentric offset to account for the difference in bb height!

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by buggymancan View Post
    I understanfd the benefits of the big wheels and have owned several 29ers, but at the end of the day they simply are not as fun to ride as a 26er. [/I]to account for the difference in bb height!
    That pretty much sums it up for me too. I went through four 29ers trying find the sweet spot. Didn't happen. Not possible. The big wheels may have their advantages but they are big and the handling is "different". Went back to a Tracer and now an HD(VERY happy with HD). 26" bikes are just more playful and more fun to whip around. Maybe a 650b. I'd try one.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    427
    I think in the future we are going to see more DW bikes with a Eccentric instead of the Lower link, it makes sense. But the upper link controls the leverage ratio and gives DW freedom to do a lot of things, so that is probably going to stay in Trailbikes and AM models...

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    151
    So the Fox 34 Talas 29 comes in with two travel positions: 140mm and 110mm (if i'm not mistaken!). I would have thought that such a fork would be perfect for the Ripley, however what's going to happen HA-wise at the lower travel setting? Clearly it's going to be steeper, but i would have thought Ibis would have tested it with this fork, as i can imagine it will be a popular option..

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by Vrock View Post
    I think in the future we are going to see more DW bikes with a Eccentric instead of the Lower link, it makes sense. But the upper link controls the leverage ratio and gives DW freedom to do a lot of things, so that is probably going to stay in Trailbikes and AM models...
    Interesting comment. Can you please explain how the upper link being an eccentric limits the range of leverage ratios? The upper link doesn't drive the shock on both the Mojo and the Ripley.
    Correct number of bikes: n+1 bikes
    Correct body weight: m-10 pounds

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ibis Ripley/ Fango convert?
    By IBBW in forum Ibis
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-20-2012, 05:34 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-30-2011, 11:08 AM
  3. Ibis Ripley SPAM
    By Swami Scott in forum Ibis
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 04:50 AM
  4. castellano fango/ibis ripley owners
    By 95bonty in forum Ibis
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2004, 02:54 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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