Results 1 to 44 of 44
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,590

    IBIS MOJO Oh my god I need this!

    Maybe the page has been up for a while but I noticed it today. After the Interbike presentation here it is: a jewel in carbon with DW suspension ... my horst-5-spot might have to go!
    http://www.ibiscycles.com/mountain/
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212
    All buy your 5 Spot.

    You can have the carbon thing.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by All Mountain
    All buy your 5 Spot.
    .
    Oh, I know, and thanks to the Turner forum it will sell well, while all the rest of the world move forward

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212
    please, please, please... if I don't get a HL 5-Spot the world will end .

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Oh, I know, and thanks to the Turner forum it will sell well, while all the rest of the world move forward

  5. #5
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,787

    looks are growing

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Maybe the page has been up for a while but I noticed it today. After the Interbike presentation here it is: a jewel in carbon with DW suspension ... my horst-5-spot might have to go!
    http://www.ibiscycles.com/mountain/
    The looks didn't appeal to me at first. I like triangles on bikes. I didn't like the looks of my Tracer's seat tower at first either. But otherwise the Intense design engineering metal work was was a step or three above all others at the high end, and it was the best performer I've ridden until the last couple years for trail bikes.

    One thing I hate about this design is cables above the TT. Mostly because it's uncomfortable to sit on while resting. They scratch the finish easily. And are simply ugly (unless you've got a cable fetish). The strut design in the middle of the frame prevents a clean cable route under the TT. I'd prefer if they ran the cables along both sides of the TT. if I get one I'll clean that problem up myself and remove the cable stops off the TT.

    It's this bike or the 6.6 that will likely be my next bike. This much lighter bike and steeper geometry angles makes more sense for 99% of my riding requirements where much climbing is required. And the DW-Link is the best.

    - ray

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    The looks didn't appeal to me at first. I like triangles on bikes. I didn't like the looks of my Tracer's seat tower at first either. But otherwise the Intense design engineering metal work was was a step or three above all others at the high end, and it was the best performer I've ridden until the last couple years for trail bikes.

    One thing I hate about this design is cables above the TT. Mostly because it's uncomfortable to sit on while resting. They scratch the finish easily. And are simply ugly (unless you've got a cable fetish). The strut design in the middle of the frame prevents a clean cable route under the TT. I'd prefer if they ran the cables along both sides of the TT. if I get one I'll clean that problem up myself and remove the cable stops off the TT.

    It's this bike or the 6.6 that will likely be my next bike. This much lighter bike and steeper geometry angles makes more sense for 99% of my riding requirements where much climbing is required. And the DW-Link is the best.

    - ray
    Same here, I could never really warm up to interrupted seat tube, I am even more conservative: I don't like the asymmetrical Blur rear triangle.

    It is too bad that a bit of lazyness prevents internal routing: I still miss my GT STS (that is sleeping in Italy right now) because of cable routing.
    The over the TT cable routing is indeed not very nice, but I kind of get used to it because the 5-spot (and my Kona hardtail) has it too. Cable rub is not much of an issue since I have no steel cable on the TT (I use IRD, which are full-housed, and disc) ... and I guess you do develop a bit of cable fetish: in my case I enclose the housing in a shiny mylar tube that gives the cables a sort of costum (ops custom, costums are for carnival, remember Davide) look ... very nerdy.

    For the IBIS routing to the sides of the FT might also be an option.

    But damn ... I really wanted to keep Spotty for 10 years ... and now

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212
    All in all it does't look that bad. There are far worse abominations of style.

    This Ibis is very different to the Ibis of the last few years. Has ownership changed at Ibis?

    The geometry is long travel XC. In fact with it's shortish chainstays, 70 degrees HA, reasonably low BB, it all leads to fast single track and good climbs.

    The trend these days is to use 69 HA for all mountain bikes to get a 150mm fork. What fork can the Mojo run?

    DW Link does the job. Intense 6.6 is a performer, and a bit of a different breed to the Mojo. Derby, you've got some deciding to do if you are choosing between these. Which personality is best for you?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by All Mountain
    All in all it does't look that bad. There are far worse abominations of style.

    This Ibis is very different to the Ibis of the last few years. Has ownership changed at Ibis?

    The geometry is long travel XC. In fact with it's shortish chainstays, 70 degrees HA, reasonably low BB, it all leads to fast single track and good climbs.

    The trend these days is to use 69 HA for all mountain bikes to get a 150mm fork. What fork can the Mojo run?

    DW Link does the job. Intense 6.6 is a performer, and a bit of a different breed to the Mojo. Derby, you've got some deciding to do if you are choosing between these. Which personality is best for you?
    The bike in the picture is the prototype, the production version will look alittle different than the picture above, according to Hans, co-owner of Ibis cycles. I will be receiving mine in May or June of 06 which will be the second batch of bikes made.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by All Mountain

    The geometry is long travel XC. In fact with it's shortish chainstays, 70 degrees HA, reasonably low BB, it all leads to fast single track and good climbs.

    The trend these days is to use 69 HA for all mountain bikes to get a 150mm fork. What fork can the Mojo run?
    Intense EVP 5.5 comes to mind ... I kind of assumed the Mojo to be in the 4.5-5.5" range

    At least for my style of riding I see no use for 150mm travel: I am 148 pounds, do 3 feet (real, or is it 4 for my friends?) drops and I stilll don't use all the travel of my vanilla 130mm (I actually building spacers to drop it to 126 and balance a bit more my 5-spot ...too bad I cannot get custom, or is it costum, springs). 70 vs 69 degress ... mah ... the usual suspects in Turner forum now think all bikes with a Turner label are identical, so I would not be surprised if there is much difference between 70-68 (Konas are at 68) ... of course a 69 might handle a longer fork better ...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212
    Davide

    Off topic: I'm debating to get a Fox 32 Vanilla 130 just because the price/value is so good. Could you tell me the A2C dimension of it? Also, I don't need lock-out which leads me to the R (instead of RLC). If you have the RLC do you use the compression adjustment often?

    On topic: 5.5 is agreat comparison to the Mojo. Comparing geometry I think I like the looks of the Mojo better. Mojo has a steeper SA than 5.5. Both have shortish chain stays and I think the Mojo's SA may put more weight on the front for climbs? Just my thoughts. I really like the look of the 5.5 though.

    I'm a skeptic about carbon, just as I was skeptic about Alum when cromo ruled the roost. That must mean carbon is here for good.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by All Mountain
    Davide

    Off topic: I'm debating to get a Fox 32 Vanilla 130 just because the price/value is so good. Could you tell me the A2C dimension of it? Also, I don't need lock-out which leads me to the R (instead of RLC). If you have the RLC do you use the compression adjustment often?

    On topic: 5.5 is agreat comparison to the Mojo. Comparing geometry I think I like the looks of the Mojo better. Mojo has a steeper SA than 5.5. Both have shortish chain stays and I think the Mojo's SA may put more weight on the front for climbs? Just my thoughts. I really like the look of the 5.5 though.

    I'm a skeptic about carbon, just as I was skeptic about Alum when cromo ruled the roost. That must mean carbon is here for good.
    The A2C of the 130 should be 500, the 125 is 495. I have PUSH fox Vanilla which I think is worth every penny in respect to the stock because it is so much more tunable + you get the lockout to act as a platform on/off which is very nice. With the platform on the fork is VERY stable but stil plenty sable on the trail.

    Intense vs Ibis ... man what a wonderful choice! and carbon ... I think it got a bad press for a while, it is one of the materials of the future and it is to be better then aluminum once the glitches are worked out ... as it has happened for at least a couple of years (look at Scott!)

  12. #12
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    At least you would have the option of owning your 5-spot in ten years!

    How many ten year old carbon bikes are there?
    What about chainsuck/chainslap on carbon?
    How do UV rays affect it? (thats right)
    Any concerns about the leverage exerted on those short linkage plates with bearings? Heard any horror stories from SC owners about replacing bearings every 5 rides?
    Any concerns about threads or surfaces that need to be faced and chased? or do you just skip that with carbon?
    Why isn't it lighter- I heard 6lbs from ibis. Thats not any lighter than a motolite, 5-spot, or 575 with comparable shock.
    how will the carbon exterior hold up to abrasion?
    What is it you don't like about your turner? You sound pretty disapointed in it.

    The Ibis is one bike I just don't understand the hype about. It will probably sell well at the sharper image. Personally I would never touch carbon for a frame material after seeing so many bars and other carbon things break. Most recently, a brand new trek fork at the LBS. No thanks!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    At least you would have the option of owning your 5-spot in ten years!

    How many ten year old carbon bikes are there?
    What about chainsuck/chainslap on carbon?
    How do UV rays affect it? (thats right)
    Any concerns about the leverage exerted on those short linkage plates with bearings? Heard any horror stories from SC owners about replacing bearings every 5 rides?
    Any concerns about threads or surfaces that need to be faced and chased? or do you just skip that with carbon?
    Why isn't it lighter- I heard 6lbs from ibis. Thats not any lighter than a motolite, 5-spot, or 575 with comparable shock.
    how will the carbon exterior hold up to abrasion?
    What is it you don't like about your turner? You sound pretty disapointed in it.

    The Ibis is one bike I just don't understand the hype about. It will probably sell well at the sharper image. Personally I would never touch carbon for a frame material after seeing so many bars and other carbon things break. Most recently, a brand new trek fork at the LBS. No thanks!
    Have you ever ridden a carbon bike? I work on old carbon Miyata's,Trek's and a TVT (pre-look) and most are at least 10 years old and still working just fine. Common sence would tell you to put clear tape or a lizard skin to prevent cable rub or chainslap.

    Aluminum will also break. You need to be a little open mined about Carbon Fiber.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    At least you would have the option of owning your 5-spot in ten years!

    How many ten year old carbon bikes are there?
    I have a 1996 Trek Y-22 (days away from 10 years old) and it is still running fine after taking a beating for many years. Have you ever owned/ridden a carbon frame? If not, I am not sure you can make such broad statements and be taken seriously by anyone.

  15. #15
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    Yeah sorry to come off as being closed minded, but I have had bad experiences with carbon. I've had carbon bars break, a long walk out. Sure that happens to alu as well, but this was on the first ride, on a XC trail. My buddy had a similar experience last year with monkey lights, 3 mile walk on a night ride. He was on a single-speed, pretty weird to watch him try and climb in his one gear with 1/2 a handlebar.

    On top of that, I have a freind who had a minor accident on her carbon road bike, didn't even knock the wheels out of true, but the frame broke. And this week my friend who works at a trek dealer had the drop-outs fall off a brand new, never ridden carbon fork that came with a modeno road bike. It was seemingly only held on by paint!

    I have carbon cranks and fork on my road bike (FSA and Look) and they have been great. However for the kind of abuse that mountainbikes see, I just don't see any reason to go carbon for a frame, especially from a manufacturer that is new to carbon. At 5.8lbs according to MBA, the ibis isn't even light compared to the titus motolite which is 5.9lbs and 5" of travel.

    I just don't see any benefit to carbon at this point.

    Just my .02c.

    Quote Originally Posted by brianthebiker
    I have a 1996 Trek Y-22 (days away from 10 years old) and it is still running fine after taking a beating for many years. Have you ever owned/ridden a carbon frame? If not, I am not sure you can make such broad statements and be taken seriously by anyone.
    Last edited by FM; 12-21-2005 at 11:30 AM.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212
    FM, you have made a good point. If you can build a AL for the same weight as carbon, why go carbon? For a 6" bike why bother saving even 200 grams? Reliability and durabililty are more important. On the other hand wouldn't a carbon frame be stiffer, which is more important for a 6" bike? Maybe that's the benefit.

  17. #17
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    Quote Originally Posted by All Mountain
    FM, you have made a good point. If you can build a AL for the same weight as carbon, why go carbon? For a 6" bike why bother saving even 200 grams? Reliability and durabililty are more important. On the other hand wouldn't a carbon frame be stiffer, which is more important for a 6" bike? Maybe that's the benefit.
    I suppose Carbon could be stiffer, but would the benefits of stiffness outweigh the weaknesses of carbon- durability, impact resistance, etc. My main concern with carbon (or alu bonded into carbon) would be any areas that involve a press fit- especially bearings which may not last long on VPP/DD links. The people I know that own SC VPP bikes here in the seattle area have complained that the bearings go pretty fast in wet conditions. Also expansion/contraction issues- how many people are going to use a torque wrench when they raise/lower their seat? If you like to drop the saddle for downhills, will an alu sleeve eventually become unbonded? This even happened to my buddies Ti bike.

    FWIW I just put money down on a titus motolite with 2006 rears- $1095, 5.9lbs, 5" travel. I'm sure I can shave of 200g with the $800 I saved!

  18. #18
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    excellent- at that rate it should continue to bring you many more years of happiness!



    Quote Originally Posted by STS
    FM, my carbon GT-STS is still in perfect condition after 8 year of really abuse
    The only scratchs are in the aluminum parts

  19. #19
    STS
    STS is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: STS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    524
    FM, my carbon GT-STS is still in perfect condition after 8 year of really abuse
    The only scratchs are in the aluminum parts

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212
    Congratulations. Titus ML is one sweet ride. You are going to one happy FM.

    Personally, all take an AL frame anyday. I'm rough as guts on my bikes, and I don't own a torque wrench.

    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    I suppose Carbon could be stiffer, but would the benefits of stiffness outweigh the weaknesses of carbon- durability, impact resistance, etc. My main concern with carbon (or alu bonded into carbon) would be any areas that involve a press fit- especially bearings which may not last long on VPP/DD links. The people I know that own SC VPP bikes here in the seattle area have complained that the bearings go pretty fast in wet conditions. Also expansion/contraction issues- how many people are going to use a torque wrench when they raise/lower their seat? If you like to drop the saddle for downhills, will an alu sleeve eventually become unbonded? This even happened to my buddies Ti bike.

    FWIW I just put money down on a titus motolite with 2006 rears- $1095, 5.9lbs, 5" travel. I'm sure I can shave of 200g with the $800 I saved!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Yeah sorry to come off as being closed minded, but I have had bad experiences with carbon. I've had carbon bars break, a long walk out. Sure that happens to alu as well, but this was on the first ride, on a XC trail. My buddy had a similar experience last year with monkey lights, 3 mile walk on a night ride. He was on a single-speed, pretty weird to watch him try and climb in his one gear with 1/2 a handlebar.

    On top of that, I have a freind who had a minor accident on her carbon road bike, didn't even knock the wheels out of true, but the frame broke. And this week my friend who works at a trek dealer had the drop-outs fall off a brand new, never ridden carbon fork that came with a modeno road bike. It was seemingly only held on by paint!

    I have carbon cranks and fork on my road bike (FSA and Look) and they have been great. However for the kind of abuse that mountainbikes see, I just don't see any reason to go carbon for a frame, especially from a manufacturer that is new to carbon. At 5.8lbs according to MBA, the ibis isn't even light compared to the titus motolite which is 5.9lbs and 5" of travel.

    I just don't see any benefit to carbon at this point.

    Just my .02c.
    FWIW, I am semi-retiring my Y-22 becuase I love it and really do not want it to break.....this past Oct I bought a Gary Fisher Marlin.

    And another FWIW, carbon handlebars are one thing I myself would definitely not get.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    419

    where are the carbon Ibis' made?

    who's making those? Let me guess...

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtails Are Better's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,294
    Same here!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by funkenstein
    who's making those? Let me guess...
    Do anyone know who is actually making the Mojo? That is a good question. My guess is Giant since they are the masters of Carbon.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,590
    I think you are a bit too hard on carbon: it is a wonderful material. A bunch of short answers are below.
    But also look at http://ibiscycles.com/tech_faqs/technology/ and http://www.calfeedesign.com/

    How many ten year old carbon bikes are there?
    ============> My GT STS is 10 years old in February. It is in pristine - like-new - shape with th eexception of the rear (aluminum) triangle that looks beat up
    What about chainsuck/chainslap on carbon?
    ============> just add a chainstay protector, and make BB area with a tougher outer skin: you can buil litterallu bulletproof composite areas
    How do UV rays affect it? (thats right)
    ============> It does not
    Any concerns about the leverage exerted on those short linkage plates with bearings?
    ============> nothing to do with carbon
    Heard any horror stories from SC owners about replacing bearings every 5 rides?
    ============> same
    Any concerns about threads or surfaces that need to be faced and chased? or do you just skip that with carbon?
    ============> BB and Headset are aluminum and can be faced as usual.
    Why isn't it lighter- I heard 6lbs from ibis. Thats not any lighter than a motolite, 5-spot, or 575 with comparable shock.
    ============> Carbon is not necessarily lighter than aluminum, it all depends how you build it. But it can be built stiffer and stronger for the same weight. Look at the Scott hardtail (2 pounds!) or their Full-suss.
    how will the carbon exterior hold up to abrasion?
    ===============> You can make it tougher than aluminum if you want to. There are all industries that have moved to carbon/composites years go and never looked back (e.g. windsurf). A composite, non thermoplastic, by the way, can be repaired easier than a metal frame.
    What is it you don't like about your turner? You sound pretty disapointed in it.
    =====================> hoi ... let's not go there. Mostly I am sick of brand-mania going on in the Turner forum and I am afraid the annoiance is spilling over to Spotty. The 5-spot works fine (once you invest in state of the art shocks, PUSH in my case), it is just not anything special ... besides ... it is now out of production ...
    Last edited by Davide; 12-23-2005 at 01:20 AM.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    26

    what the......

    Can you give me one good reason why Giant are the masters of carbon?

    Their road bikes are flexy, and nothing they do is revolutionary!!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by half arsed
    Can you give me one good reason why Giant are the masters of carbon?

    Their road bikes are flexy, and nothing they do is revolutionary!!
    because they own many carbon bicycle producing factories in asia...so a lot of bicycle companies, instead of dropping the capital on a new carbon fiber factory, simply provide specs to the giant and then most likely order either different finishes or have the frames finished in a different factory...something like the xangdu (spelling) titanium factory in xi'an and titanium frames...

  28. #28
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    I'm glad you brought up Calfee- I used to work for a Calfed dealer and boy did we see some total crap from them before finally dropiing the line. BB shells in upside down (fine if you put the L side of the BB in the R side of the frame), screwed up water-bottle mounts, things falling apart inside new frames, etc.

    As for UV rays, the carbon bars I broke on their first ride were affected by UV rays. (I will leave the brand un-named, but you reference the company below). How do I know this? I know because I got them for free from the rep, through the same shop that employed me. The company had released the bars with a life-time guarantee since they found them to be virtually indestructable during indoor lab testing. Once the bars were released to market, many of them broke immediately and they were recalled. I spoke with the rep about this and he stated that they had found that UV rays were causing the epoxy to break down, something that had not been considered during lab testing.

    Finally as for hype; our beliefs are not so different. You feel that Turner may not be anything special and you are turned off by the hype. Well, I feel the same way about carbon. I worked in shops for 8 years, shops that carried Calfree, Trek, Kestrel and easton. I have seen many reasons to avoid carbon and very few reasons to use it, at least for MTB frames. My impression is that people want to like it because it looks cool and it gets a lot of marketing focus.

    I am not trying to bash on carbon or your taste in bikes; just presenting my perspective in hopes that people will be a little more pragmatic about their acceptance of new matierals and not get bamboozled by aesthetics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    I think you are a bit too hard on carbon: it is a wonderful material. A bunch of short answers are below.
    But also look at http://ibiscycles.com/tech_faqs/technology/ and http://www.calfeedesign.com/

    How many ten year old carbon bikes are there?
    ============> My GT STS is 10 years old in February. It is in pristine - like-new - shape with th eexception of the rear (aluminum) triangle that looks beat up
    What about chainsuck/chainslap on carbon?
    ============> just add a chainstay protector, and make BB area with a tougher outer skin: you can buil litterallu bulletproof composite areas
    How do UV rays affect it? (thats right)
    ============> It does not
    Any concerns about the leverage exerted on those short linkage plates with bearings?
    ============> nothing to do with carbon
    Heard any horror stories from SC owners about replacing bearings every 5 rides?
    ============> same
    Any concerns about threads or surfaces that need to be faced and chased? or do you just skip that with carbon?
    ============> BB and Headset are aluminum and can be faced as usual.
    Why isn't it lighter- I heard 6lbs from ibis. Thats not any lighter than a motolite, 5-spot, or 575 with comparable shock.
    ============> Carbon is not necessarily lighter than aluminum, it all depends how you build it. But it can be built stiffer and stronger for the same weight. Look at the Scott hardtail (2 pounds!) or their Full-suss.
    how will the carbon exterior hold up to abrasion?
    ===============> You can make it tougher than aluminum if you want to. There are all industries that have moved to carbon/composites years go and never looked back (e.g. windsurf). A composite, non thermoplastic, by the way, can be repaired easier than a metal frame.
    What is it you don't like about your turner? You sound pretty disapointed in it.
    =====================> hoi ... let's not go there. Mostly I am sick of brand-mania going on in the Turner forum and I am afraid the annoiance is spilling over to Spotty. The 5-spot works fine (once you invest in state of the art shocks, PUSH in my case), it is just not anything special ... besides ... it is now out of production ...

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    I'm glad you brought up Calfee- I used to work for a Calfed dealer and boy did we see some total crap from them before finally dropiing the line. BB shells in upside down (fine if you put the L side of the BB in the R side of the frame), screwed up water-bottle mounts, things falling apart inside new frames, etc.

    As for UV rays, the carbon bars I broke on their first ride were affected by UV rays. (I will leave the brand un-named, but you reference the company below). How do I know this? I know because I got them for free from the rep, through the same shop that employed me. The company had released the bars with a life-time guarantee since they found them to be virtually indestructable during indoor lab testing. Once the bars were released to market, many of them broke immediately and they were recalled. I spoke with the rep about this and he stated that they had found that UV rays were causing the epoxy to break down, something that had not been considered during lab testing.

    Finally as for hype; our beliefs are not so different. You feel that Turner may not be anything special and you are turned off by the hype. Well, I feel the same way about carbon. I worked in shops for 8 years, shops that carried Calfree, Trek, Kestrel and easton. I have seen many reasons to avoid carbon and very few reasons to use it, at least for MTB frames. My impression is that people want to like it because it looks cool and it gets a lot of marketing focus.

    I am not trying to bash on carbon or your taste in bikes; just presenting my perspective in hopes that people will be a little more pragmatic about their acceptance of new matierals and not get bamboozled by aesthetics.
    Here is why Giant Carbon bikes are better

    http://www.magentareign.com/formula_one.html

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    26
    ummmmm.....So, Giant bikes are better because Giant says they are?????

    Have you heard of marketing?


    I read on that website that they use "finest, aerospace grade T-700 carbon fiber"

    I know a few bike manufacturers that use T-1000G carbon fibre!!!

    Both types are made by Torayca, with the T-1000G being the higher modulus carbon!!!

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by half arsed
    ummmmm.....So, Giant bikes are better because Giant says they are?????

    Have you heard of marketing?


    I read on that website that they use "finest, aerospace grade T-700 carbon fiber"

    I know a few bike manufacturers that use T-1000G carbon fibre!!!

    Both types are made by Torayca, with the T-1000G being the higher modulus carbon!!!
    Giant has there own carbon mills, they do not buy from outside sources. Everything is done inhouse. I have ridden many Carbon bikes from A to Z and the Giant had the best riding bike. I have also NEVER heard anyone EVER say that a Giant was Flexy. Maybe you were thinking of a Trek.

    What manufacturers use T-1000 grade? Also who gives a flying f**k.The proof is in the ride my friend.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by danmtchl
    Giant has there own carbon mills, they do not buy from outside sources. Everything is done inhouse. I have ridden many Carbon bikes from A to Z and the Giant had the best riding bike. I have also NEVER heard anyone EVER say that a Giant was Flexy. Maybe you were thinking of a Trek.

    What manufacturers use T-1000 grade? Also who gives a flying f**k.The proof is in the ride my friend.
    Look what I found Giant using the T-1000 grade of Carbon you mentioned. The ad is from a shop in Australia. Go and pedal your ass on over there and see what I'm talking about.

    http://www.phantomcycles.com.au/prod...cat=102&page=2

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,852
    FM,

    The bars broke immediately???????????? Boy UV rays sure work fast!

    I rode (and still do) softride beams for the last 10 plus years. Did they break? Yes, but only after years of being left out in the sun and being flexed thousands and thousands of times.

    Funny how some carbon fiber products last for more than a decade while others break "immediately".

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    As for UV rays, the carbon bars I broke on their first ride were affected by UV rays. (I will leave the brand un-named, but you reference the company below). How do I know this? I know because I got them for free from the rep, through the same shop that employed me. The company had released the bars with a life-time guarantee since they found them to be virtually indestructable during indoor lab testing. Once the bars were released to market, many of them broke immediately and they were recalled. I spoke with the rep about this and he stated that they had found that UV rays were causing the epoxy to break down, something that had not been considered during lab testing.
    I am afraid that your representative might not be too reliable.

    Some kinds of epoxy can be effected by UV, but carbon itself is not effecteed at all. Mostly however epoxy "yellows" if exposed to direct sunlight, and indeed there are special epoxies that resist UV radiation (e.g. used in the surfing/windsurfing industry to retain a "good-look-over-time" in hulls that are not-painted).

    Even assuming that degradation from UV might compromise the integrity of a composite (and how can this be? at most the most superficial layers would be effected ...), it is certanly not something that happens "immediately" or "on the first ride" ... they make racing sailboats in naked carbon! They don't fall apart after few hours i nthe water!

    Something else was going on and I really doubt it had anything to do with sunshine ... carbon bats are no vampires
    Last edited by Davide; 12-23-2005 at 11:26 PM.

  35. #35
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    man you guys are persistent!

    Immediately= after 3 hrs of riding, first ride. They did not break at a clamping area.

    I didn't make the bars so I can't comment on any other factors that might have contributed to their demise. Again, this product was RECALLED so obviously the manufacturer found something wrong with their own design / fabrication.

    Another thing that is cracking me up, you guys talk about carbon as if it is one material that is used & fabricated the same way in multiple industries, we all know this is not true. There are hundreds of different ways to manufacture using carbon, appropriate for different appplications. The loads and impacts on a bike frame are way different that for handlebars, surfboards, airplanes or boats.

    Again, I'm not saying carbon sucks- I'm just saying that people should maybe be more pragmatic about accepting new & unproven materials.


    Quote Originally Posted by richwolf
    FM,

    The bars broke immediately???????????? Boy UV rays sure work fast!

    I rode (and still do) softride beams for the last 10 plus years. Did they break? Yes, but only after years of being left out in the sun and being flexed thousands and thousands of times.

    Funny how some carbon fiber products last for more than a decade while others break "immediately".

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    man you guys are persistent!

    Immediately= after 3 hrs of riding, first ride. They did not break at a clamping area.

    I didn't make the bars so I can't comment on any other factors that might have contributed to their demise. Again, this product was RECALLED so obviously the manufacturer found something wrong with their own design / fabrication.

    Another thing that is cracking me up, you guys talk about carbon as if it is one material that is used & fabricated the same way in multiple industries, we all know this is not true. There are hundreds of different ways to manufacture using carbon, appropriate for different appplications. The loads and impacts on a bike frame are way different that for handlebars, surfboards, airplanes or boats.

    Again, I'm not saying carbon sucks- I'm just saying that people should maybe be more pragmatic about accepting new & unproven materials.
    FM,

    My definition of immediate must be different from yours. You also said that UV was the factor that led to it's demise, something that I can't believe would happen so quickly.

    There are plenty of bike frames and components made of carbon that have stood the test of time. If it is poorly manufactured that is one thing. I really don't think that carbon is "unproven" at this point in time.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,212
    Carbon is very proven in cycling. Alum Alloy frames always seem to crack in 1 out of every 10 bikes after 5 years of solid riding. I bet carbon bikes will actually last longer due to the inherent damage welding does to aluminium (Aluminum for the yanks). Alum's design strength is reduced substantially when it is welded. I have heard numerous stories of people getting their Alum frames welded/strengthened. Pressure forming molds have helped reduce welding and provided additional strength (to minimise fatigue) to the new generation of Alum frames.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: krispy@go-ride.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,001
    The Mojo is made in China,i don't know where to be exact.

    Scott Nicol is co-owner (original ibis owner) The other guy (Hans?) begged him to come back and help him.

    6lbs means hopefully it's tough-i mean it's got travel it could be ridden hard.

    The bearings are in the links for easy removel,and lower cost of replacement if something loses it's tolerance.

    I can't go for a carbon rear on my 575,maybe when i get older i will get one of these.It must ride great.

    Geo a little quick for me,just a bit.

    The looks are growing on me. The front end could be lower.

    Trek for a while had alu chainstays on their HT's for durability.Makes sense.

    I had a y22.never gave me trouble. I wish this bike had an alu rear end. I ride like an idiot.I hope my 575 lasts a while,but i won't complain if i ruin it.I love it and i thrash it.The rear ends of my bike allways get dented and scratched.

    I love Ibis and allways will.Scott Nicol is the man!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    383
    A buddy of mine hit a dog on a downhill. He had Trek carbon forks (road bike). The fork broke just below the crown--it absolutely exploded. The guy was down in a nanosecond, broken teeth, wrist, collarbone, etc., etc. I'm NOT saying that carbon is fragile or dangerous or should be avoided, so please save the flames for someone more deserving. I am saying that when carbon fails, it fails catastrophically. There's often no warning or telltale crack. It just goes, immediately and totally. Again, this is not to say that it's a bad material; it's a very cool material for building bikes. But it does have that one particular characteristic that few other materials share (aluminum does, but to a lesser degree). Food for thought when you're eyeballing that landing.

  40. #40
    Don't be a sheep
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixintogo
    A buddy of mine hit a dog on a downhill. He had Trek carbon forks (road bike). The fork broke just below the crown--it absolutely exploded. The guy was down in a nanosecond, broken teeth, wrist, collarbone, etc., etc. I'm NOT saying that carbon is fragile or dangerous or should be avoided, so please save the flames for someone more deserving. I am saying that when carbon fails, it fails catastrophically. There's often no warning or telltale crack. It just goes, immediately and totally. Again, this is not to say that it's a bad material; it's a very cool material for building bikes. But it does have that one particular characteristic that few other materials share (aluminum does, but to a lesser degree). Food for thought when you're eyeballing that landing.
    You have to take into account the buyer when deciding materials. I suspect the average buyer of that bike won't spend much time off the ground and that frame will spend very little time even close to it's failuer mode underneath the average buyer. They're will always be people who chose the wrong bike for the application and Ibis probably doesn't recommend that bike for "huckers". 5 inches travel seems to be the casual riders default travel now although I know most don't get close to using it all. I wouldn't own that frame simply because I ride in very rocky terain and don't really trust carbon when exposed to rock impacts, I do however have a carbon cyclocross and road fork that I absolutley trust.
    "Do not touch the trim"

  41. #41
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet
    I suspect the average buyer of that bike won't spend much time off the ground and that frame will spend very little time even close to it's failuer mode underneath the average buyer. They're will always be people who chose the wrong bike for the application and Ibis probably doesn't recommend that bike for "huckers". I wouldn't own that frame simply because I ride in very rocky terain and don't really trust carbon when exposed to rock impacts, I do however have a carbon cyclocross and road fork that I absolutley trust.
    Totally agreed.

    I would describe what you're saying here as reasonable skepticism.
    If carbon is proven for cycling use, why are builders avoiding it for FR/DH bikes, or even other off-road vehicles? Because it is not yet proven for these disciplines, especially as a 6" MTB frame material.

    Just cause it works great for road frames, handlebars, cranksets surfboards etc. doesn't mean it's a logical choice (yet) for a 6" FS frame.

    Again, I happily own carbon cranks on my road bike and monkeylite DH bars on my XC bike. I trust it for these applications. But where are the pictures of carbon frames surviving big hucks or testimonies of carbon bikes surviving a season of heavy FR/DH use? It's not there yet. Maybe ibis will pave the way, but I won't be laying down my $ to find out.

  42. #42
    Good for nothin'
    Reputation: Li'l Bastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    55
    Wow, this could easily degenerate into a discussion about frame materials!
    The bottom line for me: when I'm riding off road, there's no telling what might come up, terrain-wise, and there's something very reassuring about having some good ol' 4130 under your ass when the going gets weird. Cheap insurance, if you ask me.

  43. #43
    inner peace to make peace
    Reputation: TrailNut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,272

    emperor wears no clothes?

    sure, she's an eye candy, but will she shatter like super glass under tough use?
    love the old Ibis steel Mojo hardtail (and steel is for hardtails), but i'd rather have a Moots Cinco as a fancy fs.
    Last edited by TrailNut; 12-31-2005 at 12:24 AM.
    “Everyday is a good day,” from the Blue Cliff Records, Yun-men (864-949 AD).

  44. #44
    Don't be a sheep
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Li'l Bastard
    Wow, this could easily degenerate into a discussion about frame materials!
    The bottom line for me: when I'm riding off road, there's no telling what might come up, terrain-wise, and there's something very reassuring about having some good ol' 4130 under your ass when the going gets weird. Cheap insurance, if you ask me.
    Well, aluminum has a really well established reputation and for Full Suspension it's stiffness at a relativley low weight makes it a far superior product to steel. You can build a stiff steel FS frame but it'll weigh a ton. Horses for courses.
    "Do not touch the trim"

Posting Permissions

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