Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 95

Thread: Ripley V3

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: simenf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    579

    Ripley V3

    Competitive Cyclist: https://www.competitivecyclist.com/i...NT_ID=IB21553#

    Name:  SI.jpg
Views: 1444
Size:  31.4 KB

    Same main frame, new beefier swing arm with room for 2.6".
    Last edited by simenf; 1 Week Ago at 10:57 AM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pitworkz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    99

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    519

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,365
    2018 Ibis Ripley LS first ride - Mtbr.com

    Told you it wouldn't be a 29/27.5+ bike.

    Man really love the Vitamin P
    OG Ripley v2
    Mojo 3- For Sale
    Carver 420 TI

  5. #5
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,842
    How is 5.9lbs acceptable for a medium carbon trail bike frame? My customers want to know why their 10 year old $3000 bike is pounds lighter than their brand new $6000 bike and "dropper post" isn't enough of an answer. Why is Scott the only company that cares about weight anymore? I work at an Ibis/Santa Cruz dealer and just paid retail for a Scott Spark RC. I haven't paid retail for a bike in 20 years.
    Keep the Country country.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    519
    Enduro bro!!!!
    I have to agree, but at the same time I am willing to add weight for stiffness. You can really feel the difference going from a tallboy 1 to a tallboy 3. For XC racing give we light weight, but for my normal riding stiffness maters most.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,146
    I'm disappointed in the length. A M Switchblade has longer reach than a XL Ripley.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    39
    I understand wanting lighter weight, but with lighter weight comes compromises. I have had 3 Scott frames fail (2 road bikes and 1 MTB). They make great bikes but in my experience they have had some durability issues. MTBs 10 years ago weren't running droppers, through axles, had 32mm forks, and generally had less travel. Arguably all these improvements make modern MTBs better (and unfortunately heavier), more capable machines. Generally a new MTB frame is going to be stiffer and more durable, especially true as weight increases. I like the new Scott Sparks and was considering one for XC racing, but my Gen 1 Ripley is fun to ride and I can get it within 2 lbs of a new Spark.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: expatrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    How is 5.9lbs acceptable for a medium carbon trail bike frame? My customers want to know why their 10 year old $3000 bike is pounds lighter than their brand new $6000 bike and "dropper post" isn't enough of an answer. Why is Scott the only company that cares about weight anymore? I work at an Ibis/Santa Cruz dealer and just paid retail for a Scott Spark RC. I haven't paid retail for a bike in 20 years.
    I'm also wondering why these frames are on the heavy side of the spectrum. My large LS frame weighs 6.2 lbs. Yes it is "stiff", but so are plenty of other similar frames at much lower weights, eg., Trek Fuel EX, so not sure that is a valid reason.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    How is 5.9lbs acceptable for a medium carbon trail bike frame? My customers want to know why their 10 year old $3000 bike is pounds lighter than their brand new $6000 bike and "dropper post" isn't enough of an answer. Why is Scott the only company that cares about weight anymore? I work at an Ibis/Santa Cruz dealer and just paid retail for a Scott Spark RC. I haven't paid retail for a bike in 20 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by expatrider View Post
    I'm also wondering why these frames are on the heavy side of the spectrum. My large LS frame weighs 6.2 lbs. Yes it is "stiff", but so are plenty of other similar frames at much lower weights, eg., Trek Fuel EX, so not sure that is a valid reason.
    Fuel EX in a 17.5 is 5.56 lbs. Considering everything I've read about Trek sizing is that a 17.5 is really a 16.5 so looks like the weights are in line with each other.
    Devinci Django is 6.75lbs for a medium.
    Evil Following 6.2lbs
    Intense ACV 5.3 lbs
    OG Ripley v2
    Mojo 3- For Sale
    Carver 420 TI

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    575
    This bike is exactly what I was asking for!!!

    Slightly more HT slackness
    even bigger tyres.

    Calling LBS now to drop $10K on this newer better bike...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,365
    Quote Originally Posted by klasse View Post
    This bike is exactly what I was asking for!!!

    Slightly more HT slackness
    even bigger tyres.

    Calling LBS now to drop $10K on this newer better bike...
    The sad part is you think you're being cleaver, the reality is far from it. I feel for you.
    OG Ripley v2
    Mojo 3- For Sale
    Carver 420 TI

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    519
    My 2008 blur XC carbon with 105mm travel weights 4.3LB in medium without paint. It was "the stiffest bike santa cruz made". Paint adds about .5lb so a painted one is just about 4.8lb. The new tallboy in med yellow is 5.85lb. I can tell you that that 1lb is totally worth the increase in structural rigidity. Same goes for a fox 32 vs a 34. Ahhhh man my new fork is heaver then my old one. Something needs to be done about this.
    The spark is amazing for its intended purpose. The Ripley is too.
    Now they just need to make an XXL and an XXXL to fit taller riders as there sizing is way off.

  14. #14
    Kaj
    Kaj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks View Post
    A M Switchblade has longer reach than a XL Ripley.
    Not sure your math is right.

    XL Ripley 3.0 has a reach of 448mm
    Med Switchblade has a reach of 439mm
    Med Hightower has a reach of 430mm
    Med Ripley has reach of 411.

    If you want 430 reach on a Ripley that's the large, which is recommended for riders down to 5'9". So it's just about choosing the right size for the fit you want.

    On stiffness, there is no such thing as a 5 lb frame that is as stiff and durable as the Ripley at 5.9 lbs. 5 lb frames are for XC racing only not trail riding.
    Kona Wo for Fat Biking, Ibis HD3 for Trail Shredding, Merckx Road bike for collecting dust

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phattruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    425
    Not impressed Ibis. You might take a look at Yeti for sizing comparison.
    The Truth will set you free.

    ....but it might offend you first!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,146
    I stand corrected I wonder if I can't read or CC changed the #s on their website. Looks like M Switchblade 17.32 inches and XL Ripley 17.6. So I'd say if I were taller than 6'1" or so they don't make a Ripley with enough reach. If you were 6'4" or so you'd need a road bike stem from 1990.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: simenf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    579
    It's clear this is just a rear end update of the LS, not a brand new bike. That one is still in the works, obviously.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SikeMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    139
    In all honesty, the LS hasn't been out that long. New molds, etc cost lots of money. I wasn't expecting a completely new bike until sometime next year.

  19. #19
    Kaj
    Kaj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,149
    The Ripley has a 1.5cm or so shorter reach on average than the pivot/santa cruz/yeti of the same size/travel. Plus a 0.25 degree steeper head angle. Taken together mean the Ripley has a 2cm shorter wheelbase than the competition.

    Net effect is the Ripley is more playful. It pops off of rocks better and is more fun to toss around on the trail.

    It's the bike Ibis wanted to design, not a copycat of the santacruz/yeti/pivot bikes. Demo them and make your choice.

    To me, even though I seek out the steepest rowdiest trails in Colorado, I prefer the more playful bike. Fun wins.
    Kona Wo for Fat Biking, Ibis HD3 for Trail Shredding, Merckx Road bike for collecting dust

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    200
    Im unimpressed too. About as unimpressed as I was when they called the HDR a "new" bike. They merely put a little lipstick on the Ripley and called it a new version. Lame. If I were in the market for a 29er id be looking towards Evil. Im not tho. So I dont know why i care. I guess I just get excited about new cool bikes, and this isnt new or cool. Peace!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaj View Post
    The Ripley has a 1.5cm or so shorter reach on average than the pivot/santa cruz/yeti of the same size/travel. Plus a 0.25 degree steeper head angle. Taken together mean the Ripley has a 2cm shorter wheelbase than the competition.

    Net effect is the Ripley is more playful. It pops off of rocks better and is more fun to toss around on the trail.

    It's the bike Ibis wanted to design, not a copycat of the santacruz/yeti/pivot bikes. Demo them and make your choice.

    To me, even though I seek out the steepest rowdiest trails in Colorado, I prefer the more playful bike. Fun wins.
    They are great bikes, but I'm 6'4" so I would need a 105mm stem to get the reach I like. This bike was designed around a 40 to 60mm stem. Their sizing is on the small side unless they expect people to run a 70mm plus stem.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    575
    Fun to read the threads from 2015-16 re "V3" and what everyone predicted. Turns out I was the only one to predict the very slightly slacker HT, even bigger tyres.

    Feeling good Headed out to ride!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    132
    They should have made it to at least 140 rear travel.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    997
    Agree with all the disappointment expressed re: reach on the XL.

    Shorter folks can potentially up-size if they want longer, but us 6'3" and taller folks don't have that option. And most of us, especially if we're long in torso, are unhappy w/ a 448mm reach. I'm running a 90mm stem on my LS, and it still feels a little cramped. Ibis may have designed the Ripley to be shorter so it would be more playful, but they also designed its handling around a 60mm stem.

    So if you're not going to give us a longer geo across the board, at least give us an XXL.

    All that said, apparently less than 4% of the US population is 6'3" or taller, so any accountant would probably argue against any XXL . . .

  25. #25
    always licking the glass
    Reputation: stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by InertiaMan View Post
    Agree with all the disappointment expressed re: reach on the XL.

    Shorter folks can potentially up-size if they want longer, but us 6'3" and taller folks don't have that option. And most of us, especially if we're long in torso, are unhappy w/ a 448mm reach. I'm running a 90mm stem on my LS, and it still feels a little cramped. Ibis may have designed the Ripley to be shorter so it would be more playful, but they also designed its handling around a 60mm stem.

    So if you're not going to give us a longer geo across the board, at least give us an XXL.

    All that said, apparently less than 4% of the US population is 6'3" or taller, so any accountant would probably argue against any XXL . . .
    Kinda. I didn't fit the medium LS before, and they don't make a small. I wouldn't fit a medium now, so this unfortunately doesn't mean much to me as far as options are concerned.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    How is 5.9lbs acceptable for a medium carbon trail bike frame? My customers want to know why their 10 year old $3000 bike is pounds lighter than their brand new $6000 bike and "dropper post" isn't enough of an answer. Why is Scott the only company that cares about weight anymore? I work at an Ibis/Santa Cruz dealer and just paid retail for a Scott Spark RC. I haven't paid retail for a bike in 20 years.
    It is unavoidable, bigger is better, right? 29 frame is bigger, a medium is now what used to be a size large (but your stem is shorter so ...), boost, 130-140 fork travel, needs to beef it up because 1% of riders actually go nuts on these and you have a seven year warranty ... so ... can't have the cake and eat it too ...

    But it is a bit unfortunate. I wanted a light short travel mountain bike and I was "forced" to get a Norco Revolver. Painted the $1750 carbon frame with shock is 4.8 and with press fit BB and IS head set seats at 5.0 pounds.

    That is what I would like to see a "Mojo FST": 4.5 pounds (unpainted) 100-110 travel frame, for 120-130 fork.

    Unfortunately they will never build it and I am "stuck" with the Norco that as all Horsts only works with the shock in trail mode! It is very rigid however, it does rocket up the hill, and it is surprisingly capable downhill.

    It can be done with a sub-5 frame!
    Last edited by Davide; 5 Days Ago at 01:27 PM.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    22
    Been on a Ripley now for 18 months. My bike was bought and built with my local trails in mind - as I'd imagine the vast majority of us do. Mine is a V2, but I ride the "OG" frame as opposed to the LS. Following some of the trends from the previous year - which fit my needs very well - we installed a 1-degree angled headset. Using a 130mm Pike, this put the HA within +/-0.5 degrees of the new LS, but in a shorter wheelbase. Older tight singletrack and typical east coast trails, this was the ticket! Anyway, I ride the Ibis rims; a wide 35mm internal. Using 2.3-2.4" tires, I've enjoyed the traction and handling a ton.

    I gave up on the narrower tires years ago, as many have unless they're dedicated XC riders. Better or worse - your choice! Someone here mentioned the fun factor and the Ripley has it. While not a new bike, the prospect of taking advantage of the current trend in wider and potentially weight-improved tires is attractive. It's an option. That's all. For me, I'd much rather have the option of tire widths than tire diameters, but that's just me. No right or wrong. Just preference.

    When the OG goes away - and it is - and it's time to replace my trusty steed, the LS will remain on my list of bikes to try. The DW link is a blast in these parts and the 120mm may not sound like much, but I'd love to try it with a larger tire along with the Vorsprung Corset I have. Traction for days! At the speed I ride, I'll likely benefit little, BUT that fun factor....

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    895
    Every other manufacturer puts out incremental changes to their already good (or crappy) bikes. Why not Ibis. I think this is a totally reasonably "new" version. Rocky Mtn hasn't noticeably changed their line-up in years and years and years.

    If I really wanted light, I'd go for an XC frame. That is not this bike

  29. #29
    always licking the glass
    Reputation: stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodstockMTB View Post
    Every other manufacturer puts out incremental changes to their already good (or crappy) bikes. Why not Ibis. I think this is a totally reasonably "new" version. Rocky Mtn hasn't noticeably changed their line-up in years and years and years.

    If I really wanted light, I'd go for an XC frame. That is not this bike
    Sure but for sea otter, people expect bigger announcements than incremental changes.

  30. #30
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    How is 5.9lbs acceptable for a medium carbon trail bike frame? My customers want to know why their 10 year old $3000 bike is pounds lighter than their brand new $6000 bike and "dropper post" isn't enough of an answer. Why is Scott the only company that cares about weight anymore? I work at an Ibis/Santa Cruz dealer and just paid retail for a Scott Spark RC. I haven't paid retail for a bike in 20 years.
    Agreed. 14 years ago I bought an ALUMINUM FS frame with 125mm travel that only weighted 5.6 pounds, the Titus Loco Moto. Not a perfect bike, and somewhat apples to todays oranges but why is it that THREE THOUSAND DOLLAR, CARBON frames, over a decade later, weigh MORE?

    I would say that in addition to Scott, Yeti and Pivot seem to be paying attention to weight.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

  31. #31
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,919
    I’m interested in this bike for endurance racing, but 27-28 pounds seems like a lot for a $6000+ bike. Is there an way to lighten this thing up? Maybe the carbon wheel set, 2.4 XC tires… anything else?
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by stripes View Post
    Sure but for sea otter, people expect bigger announcements than incremental changes.
    I hear you. Maybe this isn't their only release?

  33. #33
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by stripes View Post
    Sure but for sea otter, people expect bigger announcements than incremental changes.
    Baffled by these reactions. Is Ibis supposed to sit on a revision just because it's not likely to be viewed as "significant" by forum-dwellers who've whipped themselves up into an anticipatory frenzy?
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    385
    Not being sarcastic at all. I *think* this is exactly what I want. I was about to pull the trigger on an LS but really wanted the option to run 2.6 in back.

    Last years, I got on what I think was an OG at Sedona MTB festival. Had fun and thought that would be my bike of choice if I was still doing 100 mile races. That year, also demoed a Salsa Pony Rustler and had a blast. Couldn't get on the Mojo 3 at the time - which I was sure would be just as fun and efficient as the Pony Rustler.

    This year, I managed to ride the LS, HD3 with 2.8s, and Mojo 3 w/2.8s all back to back days in Sedona. Rode the LS last. I was REALLY torn between the HD3 on 2.8s and the LS. The LS I rode had either the 941 or 942s. HD3 was a blast, but the LS felt like I could spend ALL DAY on that bike and felt pretty damn fun -maybe the 941 or 942 wheel set helped spin up to speed quick or something...it was just fun and fast. The sensation of speed is what got me into bikes 20 years ago and keeps me coming back. The LS was the most playful sensation of speed I've ridden. But, I felt like I wanted a bit more width in the tires after spending 2 says on 2.8s on the same trails.

    Last week I made the decision I'm getting an LS with 942s...but still wanted the option to ride a wider width tire if I felt like it and not be constrained to 2.4 in the back. Thankfully, I hadn't pulled the trigger as I was waiting until this Friday to see if a new bike was getting announced at Sea Otter...and i wanted to see if my LBS will out the door price match Fanatik on a custom build but wasn't going to be able to get over there in person until Friday.

  35. #35
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,654
    At 5'9.5" and shorter legs I would want the large, but the long seat tube prevents me from using a 150mm dropper. No point in me even looking at an Ibis.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    37
    Can't ride this bike or the last one due to not having a size small. Sucks but they can't make everyone happy. I hope there is an update to the 'Lugi soon.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    488
    This bike seems in line with how Ibis improves their bikes over time.

    The weight also seems consistent with Ibis design parameters. My HD is 30lbs.

    But I did notice something else on their website. I could be wrong here, but it seems that the special blend package now has fox suspension and an NX drivetrain.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    At 5'9.5" and shorter legs I would want the large, but the long seat tube prevents me from using a 150mm dropper. No point in me even looking at an Ibis.
    Why do you need a 150 dropper? I'm not being smart. Even at 5'11'' with a 31 inseam, I have a 125mm Transfer in my Large Ripley.

    125mm gets the seat all the way down and that is plenty out of the way.
    OG Ripley v2
    Mojo 3- For Sale
    Carver 420 TI

  39. #39
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,654
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Why do you need a 150 dropper? I'm not being smart. Even at 5'11'' with a 31 inseam, I have a 125mm Transfer in my Large Ripley.

    125mm gets the seat all the way down and that is plenty out of the way.
    150mm is the minimum I will accept. Where I live there are some crazy descents, and I am not willing to compromise. I almost bought a HD3 2 years ago the the seat tube length killed that in the end.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    39
    Wow...my six month old LS is already discontinued. Hope they plan to support it for a long while. I suppose they have to keep plenty of spare frames and parts around given new longer warranty period.

    As for weight, there is a pretty good interview out there with Preton Sandusky from Ibis who is their carbon expert (formerly of Kestrel) and essentially he said he would take durability over super light weight any day...

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    259
    Talking to the demo guy, he was hinting at something small being introduced at Sea Otter (and many other small introductions from other brands), to someone saying they wanted a Ripley. Ibis believes in the 2.6 tires. The hottest tire brands too. The old Ripley going on sale was a possibility. I'm 2.6 curious now too. Waiting for a demo to come around again, hopefully with Maxxis or Vittoria, and not pre-addix Schwalbe.

  42. #42
    always licking the glass
    Reputation: stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    197

    Ripley V3

    Quote Originally Posted by budgie View Post
    Baffled by these reactions. Is Ibis supposed to sit on a revision just because it's not likely to be viewed as "significant" by forum-dwellers who've whipped themselves up into an anticipatory frenzy?
    Why? The bike industry does this every single year.

    It's not just Ibis- it's all the brands that usually set the stage for summer sales and such at sea otter.

    Not that I mind either way and not defending but explaining. that explains why everyone was expecting something BIG.

  43. #43
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by XterraMike View Post
    Wow...my six month old LS is already discontinued. Hope they plan to support it for a long while.
    When updated rear triangles have been released in the past, Ibis has often offered them for sale separately. (650B HD, HD3 boost, Tranny) Hopefully they'll do the same this time around. Since it's the same triangle across sizes, makes it easier to stock discontinued colors.
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    39
    Except they said the upper concentric is now wider so not sure if backward compatible?

  45. #45
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by XterraMike View Post
    Except they said the upper concentric is now wider so not sure if backward compatible?
    Yep, good point: I'd forgotten that.
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    38

    Ripley 3 size small

    Quote Originally Posted by woodthegreat View Post
    Can't ride this bike or the last one due to not having a size small. Sucks but they can't make everyone happy. I hope there is an update to the 'Lugi soon.
    According to Ibis, Ripley size small is coming. They wouldn't (perhaps couldn't because they don't know) tell me when.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by iiyoon@aol.com View Post
    According to Ibis, Ripley size small is coming. They wouldn't (perhaps couldn't because they don't know) tell me when.
    Hurry up.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    29
    I wrote to Ibis asking about backward compatibility, they said :

    "Our engineers are working on a retrofit for the V2 and OG. Stay Tuned"

    There is hope for those who want to try 2.6 with out changing to a new bike

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    132
    how about a longer travel ripley?

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: VonFalkenhausen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by afloresd View Post
    I wrote to Ibis asking about backward compatibility, they said :

    "Our engineers are working on a retrofit for the V2 and OG. Stay Tuned"

    There is hope for those who want to try 2.6 with out changing to a new bike
    It seems like they could just make a version with a thicker end for the narrow eccentric to take up the extra space, and use a longer bolt. It would be a reasonably elegant kluge and it should work without having to make a special swingarm for retrofits. They currently charge $900 for retrofit HD3 swingarms and that doesn't include a new clevis like the Ripley would require. I would think hard about that one. There really isn't a large amount of difference between a 2.35 and a 2.6 NN, and you can already run one on the front, obviously. Plus a lot of people would need a new rear hub or a boost kit. Still it would be cool of them to offer it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ripley LS... What would YOU do??
    By ChadiMac22 in forum Ibis
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 07-08-2016, 08:35 AM
  2. My new Ripley!!
    By norbyd in forum Ibis
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2016, 01:25 PM
  3. Fat Ripley
    By homey in forum Ibis
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 10:41 PM
  4. Going 1 x 10 on the ripley
    By zeppman in forum Ibis
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 12:06 PM
  5. Win a Ripley!
    By d-bug in forum Ibis
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-20-2013, 10:03 AM

Posting Permissions

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