Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006

    FS Experienced? Carbon better by how much?

    OK, I've owned 6 FS bikes so far. Giant Reign, Maverick, Giant Trance, C-dale Jekyll, Moots YBB, C-dale Super V. I know what they ride like. I know PLUSH, and I'm sure that the Mojo fits the bill for that part

    But here's my question...

    For those of you who have owned several, or at least one longer travel (4" +) FS bike before. How much of a difference does the Carbon make? I know the DW link is good (see above, I've owned good FS designs already). What I want to know is, does the carbon make the ride THAT much better that I should consider the Mojo?

  2. #2
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    I think the carbon gives the bike a fine Surgeon Scalpel like feel, meaning think of the difference cutting through something with a dull knife and a E-xacto and having the extra skill to make those precise cuts (hope that makes sense?), it just slices and dices like no other material, plain and simple

  3. #3
    Compulsive Bike Builder
    Reputation: DirtDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002

    Won't be my first carbon mtb...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gripshiftrules
    How much of a difference does the Carbon make? What I want to know is, does the carbon make the ride THAT much better that I should consider the Mojo?
    Carbon CAN be a good material for a bike, it depends on the quality of the build, like any material. It may or may not affect the ride. It is just another good material choice to consider.

    I had a Trek Y22 (yes, I admit it) with the carbon front and alloy rear, a Cannondale Raven II with a carbon lefty, and a Pro Flex 857 with a carbon trailing arm and carbon fork legs.

    In the case of the Trek, the carbon front half was definitely the better half of the frame. The rear of the first generation of that bike flexed outrageously under the pressure of V-brakes. One company even offered an aftermarket replacement for it.

    In the case of the Raven, mine had problems where the carbon and alloy BB were bonded. But the bike rode like a dream due to the damping characteristics of the carbon. The first Jekylls were really aluminum Raven IIs, if you ever rode them side by side it made a great materials comparison. And the carbon lefty steered with greater precision than most double legged forks.

    My Proflex 857 had a Crosslink fork had carbon reinforced legs and a carbon trailing arm. The trailing arm was flex free under braking. The carbon fork legs only saved 50g of weight, but Proflex was quick to point out the real benefit of the carbon was that is was designed to have less flex than the all aluminum version. I crashed once hard and bent up the linkage, but the legs were just fine. You can use carbon to achieve any number of design goals.
    Disclaimer: ComCycle USA

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    well here is some things that I figure out about carbon, because of a manufacturer could really manipulate their carbon bike design, they could make it to reduce mud build up, which is usefull if you usually ride in muddy terrain. Another reason is carbon is able to absorb high frequency vibrations which will help the rider not feeling tired in endurance event (by a small percent that is) Also a properly design carbon bike would be able to resist crashes which will make your lightweight aluminium All mountain bike dented.

  5. #5
    mojo mofo
    Reputation: talkshow-host's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    If the quality of the build determines how appropriate carbon is as a frame material, then the Mojo would definitely be the best carbon mtb. The thing was designed with carbon as the intended material, so it isn't an adaptation or a reinforced or bonded aluminum supported whatever. Certainly worlds ahead of stuff like the GT STS. Also, It's a monocoque so the loads are properly distributed through the structure, and apparently the tubes are quite beefy where it matters. I haven't cut mine in half, but I did see both sides of the head tube when assembling it and it looked 3/8" thick in there. As pastajet said, the thing is surgical in its precision, goes where you point it.

    The folks at Ibis have hinted that they will cut one in half and post photos some time. If they're waiting for a bad one to come out of the factory or a customer to yard sale one, it could be a while.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Furthermore, with carbon being able to manipulated far more then aluminium is, expect your carbon frame to be able to handle higher stress load because of the design. Im sure Mojo has a very low stress point, because by looking at the design, it looks reinforced and the carbon are carefully shaped

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    for me this is a very hard question to answer as there are so many more variables that just the carbon frame of my mojo.

    I came of a 5" single pivot bike (fisher cake DLX2) and the difference in the feel between the mojo and my cake is night and day. It actually feels the same sort of difference as when I came of a hard tail and started riding my cake.

    To give a local trail example - Sourdough (nederland end). Just after I got my mojo last year I went up and rode Sourdough as it is a ride I have done a fair bit and enjoy doing. The uphill is not worth discuss as the mojo just destroys going uphill compared to how the Cake rode.

    However the downhill feel was amazing - it felt like I was on a ninja bike as it was so quiet and smooth compared to my Cake. You know how the lose baby heads are on that trail, taking the Mojo down it at speed was awesome fun times.
    Last edited by zzsean; 06-19-2007 at 10:49 AM.

  8. #8
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Weight. The performance advantage is high strength and low flex for the amount of weight. Light weight translates in to maintaining momentum and speed though bumps and less resistance climbing.

    The Mojo could be set up to race competitively at the pro level from XC short track, DS, to Super-Downhill.

    Looks are subjective. I like that Ibis designed a frame that doesn't look like a wanna-be metal-tube frame.

    You should order yours today, because if you wait longer you will have less time to ride it.

  9. #9
    komojo dragon
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    As we searched for a bike for my wife ( fisher cake 3 ) a fine beginner bike by the way with forgiving handling etc, I started searching for a fs bike, and never intended to go carbon or spend much over $2k. You've asked about carbon fiber from the mojo folks - so you'll get answers associated not just with carbon, but a rather remarkably well executed bike period.

    Here's a cool link about the design:

    from demo'ing several bikes - aluminum, this carbon bike feels like a 'whole' bike - tight, prepared, ready, there is a lack of resonance in the frame - which is like listening to distortion free music, or a radio station perfectly tuned vs one which has static or noise from being too far out. There is less extraneous stimulation for your brain to 'filter out' while riding - like trying to listen to one conversation in a room of conversations - you can do it but it takes more effort. The stiffness and ridgidity of the frame creates a one-one ratio in handling : what you put in you get exactly that in response. Samething with the suspension - no 'boing' just smooth action of the front and rear ( depending on choices of shock and fork ).

    So it was the design excellance of this bike - how well it does what it is aked to, it has a kind of 'over engineered' feel of strength about it. And in this case for a carbon bike - pretty much a bargain. Oh, and if you care about such things it's a pretty neat piece of sculpture!

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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



VISIT US AT and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.