Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 178

Thread: Ripley V3

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: simenf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    622

    Ripley V3

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

    Name:  SI.jpg
Views: 2735
Size:  31.4 KB

    Same main frame, new beefier swing arm with room for 2.6".
    Last edited by simenf; 04-19-2017 at 10:57 AM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pitworkz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    104

  3. #3
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,422

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,866
    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
    Carver 420 TI

  5. #5
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,964
    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
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,422
    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
    3,229
    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
    45
    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
    1,105
    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
    6,866
    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
    Carver 420 TI

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    642
    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
    6,866
    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
    Carver 420 TI

  13. #13
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,422
    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
    1,167
    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
    440
    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
    3,229
    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
    622
    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
    205
    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
    1,167
    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
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,422
    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
    642
    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
    135
    They should have made it to at least 140 rear travel.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,141
    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
    604
    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
    2,726
    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; 04-21-2017 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
    979
    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
    604
    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
    1,987
    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
    1,987
    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
    979
    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
    1,275
    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
    401
    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
    6,514
    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
    497
    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
    6,866
    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
    Carver 420 TI

  39. #39
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,514
    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
    55
    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
    413
    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
    604

    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
    1,275
    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
    55
    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
    1,275
    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
    39

    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
    1,110
    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
    35
    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
    135
    how about a longer travel ripley?

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: VonFalkenhausen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    401
    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.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by stripes View Post
    Sure but for sea otter, people expect bigger announcements than incremental changes.
    Incremental changes are Ibis's MO. They release a model and then tweak it on a regular basis for years. Think about the time period spanned by the Mojo and Mojo SL (which had the same geo) or the HD and the HD-R (minor swingarm changes to accommodate 650B). This is a testament to how good their bikes are.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Incremental changes are Ibis's MO. They release a model and then tweak it on a regular basis for years. Think about the time period spanned by the Mojo and Mojo SL (which had the same geo) or the HD and the HD-R (minor swingarm changes to accommodate 650B). This is a testament to how good their bikes are.

    That's true. Every year, a tiny little change to make a newer-better bike.

    Stiffer Swingarm in 2017 for the new model. Recall back in 2013, the HDR650 also boasted a "stiffer swingarm" due to the radial bearings in lower link.

    This year's model has an even stiffer swingarm though

    #IncrementalChanges
    #Newer
    #Better

  53. #53
    steel is real...heavy
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    199
    I love Ibis and have a steel mojo, M3, and a Rip LS. But one thing they do well is marketing. Evey year they will "discover" something more rad than the last year. This is the MTB industry now.

    Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
    South Central PA

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SoCal-Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    476

    Ripley V3

    Quote Originally Posted by jvp108 View Post
    This is the MTB industry now.
    The MTB industry is kinda shooting themselves in the foot with all these changes. Not specifically Ibis, but the industry as a whole. You can no longer buy just a new frame and transfer over all your old parts. Now you need new Boost wheels and Boost cranks and Boost fork. So instead of $3k for a frame I'd be looking more at $5k+. Just too hard to swallow...especially when you know next year it'll be outdated.

    Nothing new we all haven't realized. Just felt like venting. I really like the new vitamin-P LS. But it'll have to wait.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCal-Rider View Post
    The MTB industry is kinda shooting themselves in the foot with all these changes. Not specifically Ibis, but the industry as a whole. You can no longer buy just a new frame and transfer over all your old parts. Now you need new Boost wheels and Boost cranks and Boost fork. So instead of $3k for a frame I'd be looking more at $5k+. Just too hard to swallow...especially when you know next year it'll be outdated.

    Nothing new we all haven't realized. Just felt like venting. I really like the new vitamin-P LS. But it'll have to wait.
    There are $30 methods to run a 142 wheel in a boost frame. You don't have to get a boost fork, so you can buy just a frame if you really want to.
    OG Ripley v2
    Carver 420 TI

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SoCal-Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    There are $30 methods to run a 142 wheel in a boost frame. You don't have to get a boost fork, so you can buy just a frame if you really want to.
    Haven't seen them yet for DT Swiss centerlock hubs.

  57. #57
    Kaj
    Kaj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by FishMan473 View Post
    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've seen a Ripley at 19lbs, so yes you can lighten them up. No dropper, fast rubber (600 gram tires), 1600 gram wheels, light saddle, light bars and grips, and bam you are easy under 24 lbs.
    Kona Wo for Fat Biking, Ibis HD3 for Trail Shredding, Merckx Road bike for collecting dust

  58. #58
    Kaj
    Kaj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCal-Rider View Post
    Haven't seen them yet for DT Swiss centerlock hubs.
    That's just because you need to space the rotor over 3mm, which won't work with center lock. just buy a center lock to 6 bolt convertor and the $30 kit. All done, ride bikes, smile.

    https://www.backcountry.com/shimano-...B&gclsrc=aw.ds
    Kona Wo for Fat Biking, Ibis HD3 for Trail Shredding, Merckx Road bike for collecting dust

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaj View Post
    That's just because you need to space the rotor over 3mm, which won't work with center lock. just buy a center lock to 6 bolt convertor and the $30 kit. All done, ride bikes, smile.

    https://www.backcountry.com/shimano-...B&gclsrc=aw.ds
    Gonna need a lockring that's long enough, else it might not have enough threads engaged after losing 3mm to the spacer.

  60. #60
    Kaj
    Kaj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,167
    The 3mm spacer would go on the outside of the center to 6 bolt converter, so just use the lockring from the converter
    Kona Wo for Fat Biking, Ibis HD3 for Trail Shredding, Merckx Road bike for collecting dust

  61. #61
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaj View Post
    I've seen a Ripley at 19lbs, so yes you can lighten them up. No dropper, fast rubber (600 gram tires), 1600 gram wheels, light saddle, light bars and grips, and bam you are easy under 24 lbs.
    I'd like to see a 19-lbs build.

    Mine's 24.3 or so with 1460g wheels, real tires (no point in neutering the bike with crap tires; may as well buy a less-capable frame), XTR/XX1 cassette, XT brakes (could lose 1/4 lbs here), ENVE flat bars, SYntace 99g stem, MAsterpiece post, 140g saddle, XTR pedals, bottle cage.

    Maybe a 19-lbs V1 Ripley with all XC parts and no pedals - maybe. Even then I'd be super-skeptical. It's REALLY hard to get a carbon HT to 19 lbs, much less a 5.5-6.1 lbs frame. Giving away 4 lbs right there...
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaj View Post
    The 3mm spacer would go on the outside of the center to 6 bolt converter, so just use the lockring from the converter
    You ever use a CL adapter? Doesn't work that way. The lockring's flange is fairly large and contacts parts of the rotor.

    In his case, he'd be better off trying to space the caliper inboard, somehow... IS can pull it off, but I'm imagining something like a 160-203 style adapter to do it for PM, as 3mm is no small distance. That our try to space out both to their limits.

  63. #63
    Kaj
    Kaj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    I'd like to see a 19-lbs build.

    .
    It was a bit, or actually way over the top. Half the parts had to be sourced from Germany because they didn't have importers. For example it had a seatpost/saddle combo that was 150 grams TOTAL. The brakes were some prototype that didn't use dot or mineral oil, I think it was some lighter fluid. Tires were 400-ish grams etc.

    It can be done, but I wouldn't ride it.
    Kona Wo for Fat Biking, Ibis HD3 for Trail Shredding, Merckx Road bike for collecting dust

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    325
    With the design of the eccentrics, I believe the maximum travel is 120mm.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCal-Rider View Post
    The MTB industry is kinda shooting themselves in the foot with all these changes. Not specifically Ibis, but the industry as a whole. You can no longer buy just a new frame and transfer over all your old parts. Now you need new Boost wheels and Boost cranks and Boost fork. So instead of $3k for a frame I'd be looking more at $5k+. Just too hard to swallow...especially when you know next year it'll be outdated.

    Nothing new we all haven't realized. Just felt like venting. I really like the new vitamin-P LS. But it'll have to wait.
    Exactly my thoughts.

    Someone else mentioned they'd rather see actual numbers comparing stiffness of V3 to prior models as opposed to merely saying it's stiffer. How much stiffer?

    My HDR650 was stiff enough in 2014 and it's still stiff enough for me.

    #HappyCamper

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCal-Rider View Post
    The MTB industry is kinda shooting themselves in the foot with all these changes. Not specifically Ibis, but the industry as a whole. You can no longer buy just a new frame and transfer over all your old parts. Now you need new Boost wheels and Boost cranks and Boost fork. So instead of $3k for a frame I'd be looking more at $5k+. Just too hard to swallow...especially when you know next year it'll be outdated.

    Nothing new we all haven't realized. Just felt like venting. I really like the new vitamin-P LS. But it'll have to wait.
    I'm with you on this. I miss the old days when you will just upgrade the frame, transfer everything from the old one and the next day you can ride out and enjoy everything about it.

  67. #67
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,422
    Stiffer is almost always better and now you can run bigger rubber. They made a great bike X% better. Nothing groundbreaking, but if you're in the market for a new bike this is a solid trail bike just like V2.
    Ibis mostly sells to an older affluent crowd that appreciates the current geometry and nearly maintenance free frame. They remind me of Porsche with the 911, always tweaking but never changing the soul.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    15
    I understand that the V3 Ripley is Di2-compatible. Is this compability limited to the front derailleur or is there also a designated place for the battery? How's about internal cable routing for Di2?

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by oltenbiker View Post
    I understand that the V3 Ripley is Di2-compatible. Is this compability limited to the front derailleur or is there also a designated place for the battery? How's about internal cable routing for Di2?
    You misread it. The changes to the swingarm make so it's only DI2 or new Shimano Side Swing compatible. Normal FD will not work.

    They didn't add previsions specially for DI2
    OG Ripley v2
    Carver 420 TI

  70. #70
    17j
    17j is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    204
    The dw link is great but agree that IBIS needs to take a long hard look at the geo of these bikes, and compare the reach and BB ht to other bikes. The BB ht is way to low for anything outside of parking lots. Perhaps that works in CA but not East coast...and they reach my goodness. If you size up the stack gets too high.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,355
    Am I seeing that right that the frame weight is the same as the HD3 at 5.9 pounds?
    THE RIDESTOKE COLLECTIVE
    https://ridestoke.com

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,866
    Man seeing the video of Vernon talking to Scot really has me wanting a Vit-P Ripley.

    Hey Hans can I send in my frame this winter for a paint job
    OG Ripley v2
    Carver 420 TI

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: simenf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Man seeing the video of Vernon talking to Scot really has me wanting a Vit-P Ripley.

    Hey Hans can I send in my frame this winter for a paint job
    Link?

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by simenf View Post
    Link?
    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/shall-...ideo-2017.html

    Few times in there.
    OG Ripley v2
    Carver 420 TI

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by 17j View Post
    The dw link is great but agree that IBIS needs to take a long hard look at the geo of these bikes, and compare the reach and BB ht to other bikes. The BB ht is way to low for anything outside of parking lots. Perhaps that works in CA but not East coast...and they reach my goodness. If you size up the stack gets too high.
    I take it this is sarcasm? I just looked at the Pivot 429, 13.19... Yeti SB4.5. 13.1... Santa Cruz Hightower 13.27. I hardly call a quarter inch game changing or for out of the parking lot use.

    I think you might be comparing the Ripley with the wrong style bikes, or perhaps I just did? Or perhaps your terrain calls for a different bike all together?

    But looking at those numbers I don't see Ibis as being different than the competition.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    413
    Low or high BB height is relative to travel and general ride height. A Spec Demo has 343mm BB height with 8" of travel. That bike doesn't stay high in its travel under pedaling either, like the Ripley does-- Ripley has 120% AS, vs 100% for the SB45, M429/429T, and Hightower (Camber 329mm BB, 80% AS).

    Here I am thinking the Ripley LS has significantly more room to lower, longer, and slacker. But then again, I live and ride in Cali, and it's clear to people not living here that nothing out here causes issue for low BBs...

    I get more pedal strikes on my road-bound bike leaning the bike in corners, sometimes trying to sneak in extra pedal strokes, than I did on my Ripley OG with 130mm fork and 175mm cranks. Never had any crash due to pedal strike either, at least on the Ripley. Amusingly, when I try to corner hard on the Ripley with the cranks somewhat level, my shoes drag on the ground with my inside foot forward. I guess I had practice with a HT with 12" BB, and I'm a bit more careful/conscious when I'm aware of it...

    A Following has a similar BBH, but has 140% AS, so it stays up in travel even more. I lent it to someone who wanted to understand why I disliked it so much, while I led him on my hardtail (which I still love), and I got it back with the crankarms tips all scratched up (was a virtually new build). I even noted the sections would test pedal strike clearance before riding through. Some people just don't have any technique and have trouble adapting. He questioned me why I exaggerate my movements after I tried to bar drag through a flat turn, and I just had no words for him...

    Basically, there's context you're missing on why and how the BB height is perfectly acceptable. Mainly how the suspension is tuned accordingly and how the rider adapts to it, seeing the positives as outweighing the demand to recognize the pedal strike risk areas and responding appropriately.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Insoc View Post
    I take it this is sarcasm? I just looked at the Pivot 429, 13.19... Yeti SB4.5. 13.1... Santa Cruz Hightower 13.27. I hardly call a quarter inch game changing or for out of the parking lot use.

    I think you might be comparing the Ripley with the wrong style bikes, or perhaps I just did? Or perhaps your terrain calls for a different bike all together?

    But looking at those numbers I don't see Ibis as being different than the competition.
    You're comparing Ibis numbers w/ 2.6" tire against competition w/ ~ 2.3" tire. The geo from Ibis w/ a normal tire (ie, the geo chart on the website until last Wednesday) has a 12.8" BB. So about .4" difference than the bikes you noted. And .4" is a significant difference in the BB domain.

    "parking lot only" is obviously hyperbole that wasn't meant literally, but I think its fair to say its lower than the norm, enough to produce noticeable increase in pedal strikes.

  78. #78
    Registered Dietitian
    Reputation: tommyrod74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,600
    Quote Originally Posted by InertiaMan View Post
    You're comparing Ibis numbers w/ 2.6" tire against competition w/ ~ 2.3" tire. The geo from Ibis w/ a normal tire (ie, the geo chart on the website until last Wednesday) has a 12.8" BB. So about .4" difference than the bikes you noted. And .4" is a significant difference in the BB domain.

    "parking lot only" is obviously hyperbole that wasn't meant literally, but I think its fair to say its lower than the norm, enough to produce noticeable increase in pedal strikes.
    After having ridden/raced the LS for a few weeks now, I'd tweak the following parameters if I could (though I'm OK with it as-is)...

    1) Steepen seat angle to 74-75% and keep same TT length (adding 10-20mm reach)

    2) Raise BB height to 13.25" or so with 2.25" tires and 130mm Fox 34.

    These changes would allow for a shorter stem (and for people in 5'10" range, like me, to ride a medium), and for the option of running a 120mm fork with a reasonable BB height - or, better yet, a 140-150mm fork with a reasonable seat angle.
    Registered Dietitian, Cycling Coach, Ascend Nutrition and Coaching

    www.ascendthepeak.com

    www.facebook.com/ascendthepeak

  79. #79
    17j
    17j is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrod74 View Post
    After having ridden/raced the LS for a few weeks now, I'd tweak the following parameters if I could (though I'm OK with it as-is)...

    1) Steepen seat angle to 74-75% and keep same TT length (adding 10-20mm reach)

    2) Raise BB height to 13.25" or so with 2.25" tires and 130mm Fox 34.

    These changes would allow for a shorter stem (and for people in 5'10" range, like me, to ride a medium), and for the option of running a 120mm fork with a reasonable BB height - or, better yet, a 140-150mm fork with a reasonable seat angle.
    Completely agree. The reach and BB ht are the issue Ibis has decided isnt a priority. as many, like you could use as a trail and racer if these changes were made in all conditions including root/rough areas. As a side note, and angle set to say 68.5 HT would help the BB ht and quicker turning but would add slack to st. Reach wouldnt change much at all. 325 bb ht is too low and 410 reach on a medium is 15mm short for the standard and more importantly what fits me.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaj View Post
    I've seen a Ripley at 19lbs, so yes you can lighten them up. No dropper, fast rubber (600 gram tires), 1600 gram wheels, light saddle, light bars and grips, and bam you are easy under 24 lbs.
    I'd like to see the specs on that. I don't think it is possible to reach 19 pounds starting from a 5.5 pounds 29" frame. Sub 24-23 seems to be the limit before you really have to start to make silly compromises. Maybe 22 but 19? Don't think so Ibis HD3 Final Configuration: 23.3 pounds

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bradwin2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    95
    Vit Pee? Has anyone on here seen the Ripley vit P bike in the flesh? Is it really the color of pee? Is it a green tone or a yellow tone? In the sea otter video it looks yellowish. Glad they did not change the geometry!

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coolhand80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by bradwin2 View Post
    Vit Pee? Has anyone on here seen the Ripley vit P bike in the flesh? Is it really the color of pee? Is it a green tone or a yellow tone? In the sea otter video it looks yellowish. Glad they did not change the geometry!
    https://www.ibiscycles.com/bikes/ripley_ls/
    The gallery photos show a nice clean picture of the color vitamin P


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  83. #83
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,422
    its yellow

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by bradwin2 View Post
    Vit Pee? Has anyone on here seen the Ripley vit P bike in the flesh? Is it really the color of pee? Is it a green tone or a yellow tone? In the sea otter video it looks yellowish. Glad they did not change the geometry!
    Yellow with a light green tone. In bright sun, it's more like a light/pale/faded yellow. Under indoor lighting, the greenish-tint is more noticable. Under shade, I guess it's like the color of piss when you're dehydrated. It doesn't match up with many other yellows, like Mavic's yellow-orange nor flo yellow/green (ex. Fox Head gear). I want to compare it to Yeti's "lime" (yellow with green tint too), now that you've brought it up, but I expect the Yeti to be brighter and "yellower" (seems to more closely match up with flo yellow).

    I guess I can see why you are glad the geo hasn't changed. If all other brands went longer, lower, and slacker, this would stand out even more. Not everyone has steep terrain that calls for a steep SA, slack HA, and longer wheelbase and front center. Not everyone can get up to the speeds where that extreme LS geo comes alive either. The Ripley's geo would be more fun at slower speeds and flatter terrain, in comparison.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bradwin2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    95
    Agreed. And I am glad they didn't change the chain stay length and bottom bracket height. A low bottom bracket allows for a good stack height without requiring a long headtube length.This gives the feeling of sitting in the bike rather than on it. Also makes it great for low speed technical terrain where it's difficult to maintain momentum. Trails where I ride have lots of slow and very technical sections where high bottom bracket bikes are a disaster because they are harder to keep balanced. Same is true for chain stay length; if the CS is too short it's difficult to maintain balance on steep steep climbs.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by FishMan473 View Post
    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?
    All this talk about dropping weight or frame being too heavy yet when I'm on the trails we all strap tubes, pumps, multi tools, fenders, and water bottles to our bikes. And if a bike doesn't have water bottle mounts we complain about that too. Companies are making all sorts of stealth/swat/ninja doodads and frame bags to strap to our bikes too. So does everyone want a lighter bike to counter balance the extra weight we strap to our bikes?

    What gives? It seems like this topic pops up every a new frame comes out? Yet everyone is strapping stuff to their bikes.

    If adding weight to the frame meant a better ride quality why wouldn't you want it? It's all about the ride, right?

  87. #87
    climbing optimized
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    232
    You're going to ride with all that stuff no matter how much the bike weighs. Half a pound off the frame is still half a pound less to drag up hill. That's small in the general scheme of things (a pound is approximatly 8 seconds per thousand feet gained) but it's not nothing.

    It's up to the individual if the gains from that half pound are worth it. Myself, being fairly light and not hitting obstacles really hard, I dont' feel the need for extra stiffness over my LS.

  88. #88
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,987
    So, my current hardtail has a BB height of 310mm, that's without sag. I have not problem with pedal strikes, well, the bottom end of my 10-year-old cranks might attest otherwise, but it doesn't effect my riding at all. I assume the 325 measurement on the Ripley is unweighted as well.... is there any reason to think that a Ripley would drop the bb considerably lower than my hardtail when on the bike?
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

  89. #89
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad Ninja View Post
    All this talk about dropping weight or frame being too heavy yet when I'm on the trails we all strap tubes, pumps, multi tools, fenders, and water bottles to our bikes. And if a bike doesn't have water bottle mounts we complain about that too. Companies are making all sorts of stealth/swat/ninja doodads and frame bags to strap to our bikes too. So does everyone want a lighter bike to counter balance the extra weight we strap to our bikes?
    I don't really see your point. I've been carrying essentially the same repair/accessory gear on my bike for 25 years now. Multitool, pump, tube, and if the day calls for it, water. That really hasn't changed. 28 pounds is kinda heavy for an xc/trail bike, that's what we're talking about, accessories are irrelevant.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by FishMan473 View Post
    I don't really see your point. I've been carrying essentially the same repair/accessory gear on my bike for 25 years now. Multitool, pump, tube, and if the day calls for it, water. That really hasn't changed. 28 pounds is kinda heavy for an xc/trail bike, that's what we're talking about, accessories are irrelevant.
    So since you ride with all that stuff strapped to your bike it's now 29-30lbs right? So why is it such a big deal 28lbs in the first place then?

  91. #91
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by 17j View Post
    As a side note, and angle set to say 68.5 HT would help the BB ht and quicker turning but would add slack to st. Reach wouldnt change much at all. 325 bb ht is too low and 410 reach on a medium is 15mm short for the standard and more importantly what fits me.
    Can you explain this a bit? An AngleSet isn't an option I considered before. The ripley looks about what I'm looking for, but the HT angles is going to be too slack for the twisty riding around here, I figured a 1-degree angleset would get it in around 68.5 which would probably be the sweet spot for me. I was under the impression that it wouldn't effect the geometry/measurements of the rest of the bike much.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

  92. #92
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad Ninja View Post
    So since you ride with all that stuff strapped to your bike it's now 29-30lbs right? So why is it such a big deal 28lbs in the first place then?
    Because my current bike's weight is 22 pounds. That's a big difference.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: c-wal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    367
    Anyone know when the XL frames will be available?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

  94. #94
    MSH
    MSH is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by FishMan473 View Post
    he ripley looks about what I'm looking for, but the HT angles is going to be too slack for the twisty riding around here, I figured a 1-degree angleset would get it in around 68.5 which would probably be the sweet spot for me. I was under the impression that it wouldn't effect the geometry/measurements of the rest of the bike much.
    If you can find one in your size an OG Ripley with a -1 Works Angleset would get you close to there (assuming a 130mm Pike) and would be cheaper since most retailers are discounting the OG Rip frame since it's discontinued -->https://www.backcountry.com/ibis-rip...ike-frame-2016
    This is what I'm running on my OG Ripley and it gets me at a little over 68° HA. If you are ok with running a 120mm Pike then you are pretty much at 68.5°
    The set-up I currently have is the perfect bike for me here on the Front Range in Colorado. I'm faster on the DH on this bike than my HD3 on 90%-95% of the trails I ride and faster climbing on pretty much everything vs the HD3

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bradwin2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    95
    New video gives a great look at it now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRoHdRDWGVc

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by FishMan473 View Post
    Because my current bike's weight is 22 pounds. That's a big difference.
    That's an abnormally light full suspension bike (especially if its a Ripley) by most people's standards and wallets. To get a Ripley below 24lbs, I estimate at least $7000 and no dropper which I won't do.

    And the LS doesn't seem like the bike that is meant to get to 22lbs. Even 24 for the matter.

    *That said I am thinking about an LS as a second bike and turning my Ripley into a distance machine and would shoot for sub 24lbs without going stupid light on parts and crazy $$$

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by FishMan473 View Post
    Because my current bike's weight is 22 pounds. That's a big difference.
    What's your current bike?
    OG Ripley v2
    Carver 420 TI

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    45
    I can get my XL OG Ripley down to 24 lbs, but that is running a 120mm SID (which they don't make in 120mm anymore - at least not the new SIDs), I have to run a lighter shock than the DB Inline, running 1450 gram carbon wheels and light tires (Schwalbe Rocket Ron Evos). I would also have to go to lighter grips than the anatomic ones I'm using and drop my Selle SMP saddle for a lighter one. I currently run XX1 for everything except XTR brakes. I use an Enve flat bar, stem and seatpost. That includes everything to make the bike rideable though, 2 bottle cages and Time Atac Carbon Ti pedals. Definitely not cheap though.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,690
    You definitely need thick skin if you're going to design and sell bikes.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  100. #100
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    What's your current bike?
    A custom steel Soulcraft. And actually, I can get it down to pretty close to 21 pounds with racy tires. Obviously a very different bike, I'd be happy to get a FS build down to a 24lbs 'race weight'.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

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, 02:25 PM
  3. Fat Ripley
    By homey in forum Ibis
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 11:41 PM
  4. Going 1 x 10 on the ripley
    By zeppman in forum Ibis
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 01:06 PM
  5. Win a Ripley!
    By d-bug in forum Ibis
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-20-2013, 10:03 AM

Members who have read this thread: 488

Posting Permissions

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