Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: SL-R or HD 140

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    26

    SL-R or HD 140

    What would you choose?

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles wadsworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    577

    Buy both

    Quote Originally Posted by fiddubrx View Post
    What would you choose?

    Thanks!
    They are two different bikes. Think about what kind of riding you do and what you may want to do. I think you should buy one of each
    milesW

  3. #3
    flow where ever you go
    Reputation: noshortcuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,516
    I chose SL-R because I've been using Mojo for everything for years and can't break it and keep loving it. I'll never be the king of jumping and downhills, though I still aspire. Most of my time is XC/AM with lots of steep climbing involved. Maybe I should have demoed a HD before deciding? But since the SLR is lighter and stiffer and has the same dw-link and fit as the Mojo I've been riding, I know for sure the SLR won't disappoint.

    "I must not be crazy because I'm seriously questioning my sanity"

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    174
    xc races only = sl-r

    everything else = hd140 better geometry, more stable at speed

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by burpp View Post
    xc races only = sl-r

    everything else = hd140 better geometry, more stable at speed
    Not sure id go that far. Since almost no one has ridden an sl-r, were all just speculating. But assuming it is just a lighter stiffer better handling version of the originals, i would pick the sl-r for anything involving longer trail rides or racing through all but the most Technical super-d's. Even at the hood river super d last week, most of the faster pros and cat 1's were going with a lighter 5 inch bike like blur lts and trances rather than nomads and reigns. I would pick the hd 140 if you want something more purpose built for descending and navigating larger obstacles.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    223
    I haven't been on an SLR on the trail, but I have thrown some strokes on one and it felt great like every other Ibis product. We all know what to "generally" expect here.

    Both bikes are going to rip just fine. Look at the 80% Pareto Analysis mark and buy for what 80% of your riding will entail.

    -An ideal SLR will most likely be surrounded by light parts so you don't negate the frame's weight savings. If 80% of your riding is done in terrain that doesn't eat lightweight parts for a living this makes a lot of sense.

    -An ideal HD 140 build makes a lot of sense being a little bit burlier. You're not going to be careless about weight, but keeping your bike on the trails and out of the shop is worth a little weight penalty. 80% of your riding is done in terrain that can eat bike parts so build accordingly.

    Granted there are always exceptions and reasons where someone might want to do a bit burlier SLR build or lighter HD140 build, but I think you'd "know" and not need to ask for feedback if this was the case.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bones2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    281
    I'm in the same boat, and throw in I am also considering a blur ltc. I spoke with someone who has ridden both. His advice was the 140 if I ever see myself dropping 500 on a rear shock and going to a lift access resort. He would only get the slr if I was going to race ( I am not). Or would never ever want more travel. I would probably get a 150 fork either way. The big advantage of the 140 is the versatility with a negative of a weight penalty. I am hopping to demo an ibis shortly to at least narrow btw blur and mojo. I you will be happy with either

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    223
    I rode a Blur LT2 for two full seasons before my Mojo, and I prefer the slightly rearward axle path of the HD over the S axle path of VPP for technical climbs. Both bikes will be great, I just find the HD suits my tech climbing needs better.

    The true difference for me is customer support. I had to deal with Santa Cruz for warranty/customer support a couple times and as of last year their response time was awful. It took Willie weeks to call or email me back BOTH times, and that's just the emails and voicemails he did return - plenty he never called back. I was calling daily once because I had a huge trip and nobody would call me back. It was awful.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    26
    Thanks for all the great replies.

    I am coming from an 2008 Turner RFX I do most of my riding in Marin County ( china camp, tamarancho, mt tam, etc..) and in the summer I'll hit up North Star a few times. I was hoping to get a lighter bike than my RFX which weighed 30lbs. I have the option of getting the HD140 or SL-R at the same price...the only difference is ABOUT an extra pound on the HD140 and the SL-R won't come until early August and the HD140 can be here by the end of June.

    My buddy is riding a Santa Cruz Blur LTC, which Mojo (SL-R or HD140) would be at the same playing field as the Blur LTC?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,048
    Anyone have enough time on both the SL and SL-R to say how they really feel comparatively (or even all 3 if you include the HD140). The HD140 I've ridden was super stiff, but also had a 160 Lyric up front and the rear shock was 10-20% oversprung for my weight. The SL I road was closer to proper air pressures and much steeper with a 140 Revelation up front, but didn't have that snap from the pedals.

    If you compare the geo's in CAD they are much closer then you think. We are talking a mm here and there in the front triangle, and ~1/2deg at the head angle. If you notice, measurements are done using different forks and even different headsets I believe. As you lengthen the fork the horizontal TT length gets longer, every angle slackens, and the BB rises.

    I could get an SL and swap everything I have over, which would be nice (I'd run a 160 Lyric) but I'm curious how much I'd lose to the SL-R in feel. I've never seen the stiffness difference between the HD and SL in a number, so it's hard to say what 80% of the HD really means in the SL-R when comparing it to the SL.

  11. #11
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,027
    Quote Originally Posted by hypokondriak View Post
    I haven't been on an SLR on the trail, but I have thrown some strokes on one and it felt great like every other Ibis product. We all know what to "generally" expect here.

    Both bikes are going to rip just fine. Look at the 80% Pareto Analysis mark and buy for what 80% of your riding will entail.

    -An ideal SLR will most likely be surrounded by light parts so you don't negate the frame's weight savings. If 80% of your riding is done in terrain that doesn't eat lightweight parts for a living this makes a lot of sense.

    -An ideal HD 140 build makes a lot of sense being a little bit burlier. You're not going to be careless about weight, but keeping your bike on the trails and out of the shop is worth a little weight penalty. 80% of your riding is done in terrain that can eat bike parts so build accordingly.

    Granted there are always exceptions and reasons where someone might want to do a bit burlier SLR build or lighter HD140 build, but I think you'd "know" and not need to ask for feedback if this was the case.
    Im in the same boat as others and your comment really hits home for me. Im a ~210 lbs rider in AZ where all the trails are very rocky and can be extremely technical. Nothings is ever flat, you are either climbing or decending. It definitly appears the HD 140 would be the better choice due to the terrian but I do pride myself on climbing being my strong point. How is the HD 140 in this department? I know its a give and take.
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Douger-1 View Post
    Im in the same boat as others and your comment really hits home for me. Im a ~210 lbs rider in AZ where all the trails are very rocky and can be extremely technical. Nothings is ever flat, you are either climbing or decending. It definitly appears the HD 140 would be the better choice due to the terrian but I do pride myself on climbing being my strong point. How is the HD 140 in this department? I know its a give and take.
    The HD 140 is a 140mm bike made by Ibis with DW link. It climbs. I don't even run mine at 140 anymore (I've got SL shock / limbo chips) because the thing is insane at 160. I live in CO front range so like all typical front range stuff you're climbing the first half, descending the second. Similar terrains.

  13. #13
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,027
    Quote Originally Posted by hypokondriak View Post
    The HD 140 is a 140mm bike made by Ibis with DW link. It climbs. I don't even run mine at 140 anymore (I've got SL shock / limbo chips) because the thing is insane at 160. I live in CO front range so like all typical front range stuff you're climbing the first half, descending the second. Similar terrains.
    So you run it at 160mm and have no issue with climbing?
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Douger-1 View Post
    So you run it at 160mm and have no issue with climbing?
    None. You won't either! Give one a demo it may change a lot of the perceptions you have about 160mm bikes.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    170

    +1 for 160

    Quote Originally Posted by hypokondriak View Post
    None. You won't either! Give one a demo it may change a lot of the perceptions you have about 160mm bikes.
    I agree. I'm in process of selling my RP23 from the 140mm setup because 160mm setup is 99% as good for climbing and noticeably more fun on descents... +1 for 160.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bones2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    281
    I cant wait to demo a Mojo SL and HD next month. I feel like people here are saying that a HD 140 is almost as easy to peddle up a long hill as a an SL and that all Mojos peddle so efficiently that they are almost as effcient as other peoples 120mm bikes (I currently have a 2007 Stumpjumer with 120 in front and back).

    Did the people on this forum just drink the IBIS koolaid after spending so much on a bike? Are people just not using this bike for long slow climbs and 30-40 mile trips? Or is this bike really that good, and you get what you pay for for $5,000. I am almost ready to buy without a demo as it is a pain for me to do.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Bones2 View Post
    I cant wait to demo a Mojo SL and HD next month. I feel like people here are saying that a HD 140 is almost as easy to peddle up a long hill as a an SL and that all Mojos peddle so efficiently that they are almost as effcient as other peoples 120mm bikes (I currently have a 2007 Stumpjumer with 120 in front and back).

    Did the people on this forum just drink the IBIS koolaid after spending so much on a bike? Are people just not using this bike for long slow climbs and 30-40 mile trips? Or is this bike really that good, and you get what you pay for for $5,000. I am almost ready to buy without a demo as it is a pain for me to do.
    I think you're always going to find brand loyalty in a specific MTB brand's forum, but if you comb through the pages and pages of history here you see lots of happy riders, links to positive review after positive review, interaction with the community from Scot and Hans, and very very few complaints/problems. I don't scour every forum here, but the lack of complaining/bashing itself is pretty rare - especially on the internet.

    Ibis to me is a great bike, a great company, and the community of riders tend to be great too. I don't mean anything against some of the big brands because they have good bikes too, but in my experience accidentally stumbling into an Ibis is bit harder to do. By the time you decide to add Ibis to your short list I think you're doing so for very specific reasons you're looking to address in your riding.

    Definitely give one a whirl. Hope it's as good for you as it is for us!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Bones2 View Post
    I cant wait to demo a Mojo SL and HD next month. I feel like people here are saying that a HD 140 is almost as easy to peddle up a long hill as a an SL and that all Mojos peddle so efficiently that they are almost as effcient as other peoples 120mm bikes (I currently have a 2007 Stumpjumer with 120 in front and back).

    Did the people on this forum just drink the IBIS koolaid after spending so much on a bike? Are people just not using this bike for long slow climbs and 30-40 mile trips? Or is this bike really that good, and you get what you pay for for $5,000. I am almost ready to buy without a demo as it is a pain for me to do.
    I second hypo's sentiments completely. I've owned both the 1st gen Mojo and the Mojo SL before my HD I now have. After my SL I changed to a SC Blur LTc and was disappointed a little after coming off the dw on my SL before but it's a preference thing.
    The one criticism I used to have of the original Mojo and SL was the flexy back end. It didn't hamper the ride quality overall and they were still truly superb bikes but for me, IMHO, this stopped the bike being more than a long-legged trail bike. The HD however has been literally transformed in terms of stiffness throughout and after ripping it over plenty of gnarly trails can say it's a proper AM-rig now, railing just the lines you ask it to.
    I appreciate the SL-R is meant to 'inherit' ~80% of the stiffness but barely anyone can verify this out on the trails yet.
    The deciding factor for me between the two would be versatility... Looking at the Ibis website, you can't change the rear travel on the SL-R like you can with the HD between 140 and 160. This was a good reason to buy for me as I run my HD occasionally for marathon rides and go 140-140 setup which brings her in at ~25lbs (w/dropper post etc). But 90% of time I can then run it in 160-160/180 mode which makes quite a different bike which makes it ~29lbs with a full AM 'heavy-duty' full coil build. Versatility you won't have with the SL-R as I understand it. So if it were me, I'd go HD everyday, 1lb in weight makes chuff-all difference at the end of the day...!
    Hypo's comments about Ibis themselves are well founded also, I had a warranty issue with 1st Mojo and it was seamless customer service from Ibis.
    To remain objective though, do test-ride bikes like the (dare I say it on here) Santa Cruz Nomad-c as there's many big fans of that also, likewise the BLTc, or Turner 5-spot. Wasn't my flavor but it's personal choice. $5k is a fair wedge so IMO worth the pain of test-riding.
    Hope this helps. Enjoy!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by humdinger View Post
    I second hypo's sentiments completely. I've owned both the 1st gen Mojo and the Mojo SL before my HD I now have. After my SL I changed to a SC Blur LTc and was disappointed a little after coming off the dw on my SL before but it's a preference thing.
    The one criticism I used to have of the original Mojo and SL was the flexy back end. It didn't hamper the ride quality overall and they were still truly superb bikes but for me, IMHO, this stopped the bike being more than a long-legged trail bike. The HD however has been literally transformed in terms of stiffness throughout and after ripping it over plenty of gnarly trails can say it's a proper AM-rig now, railing just the lines you ask it to.
    I appreciate the SL-R is meant to 'inherit' ~80% of the stiffness but barely anyone can verify this out on the trails yet.
    The deciding factor for me between the two would be versatility... Looking at the Ibis website, you can't change the rear travel on the SL-R like you can with the HD between 140 and 160. This was a good reason to buy for me as I run my HD occasionally for marathon rides and go 140-140 setup which brings her in at ~25lbs (w/dropper post etc). But 90% of time I can then run it in 160-160/180 mode which makes quite a different bike which makes it ~29lbs with a full AM 'heavy-duty' full coil build. Versatility you won't have with the SL-R as I understand it. So if it were me, I'd go HD everyday, 1lb in weight makes chuff-all difference at the end of the day...!
    Hypo's comments about Ibis themselves are well founded also, I had a warranty issue with 1st Mojo and it was seamless customer service from Ibis.
    To remain objective though, do test-ride bikes like the (dare I say it on here) Santa Cruz Nomad-c as there's many big fans of that also, likewise the BLTc, or Turner 5-spot. Wasn't my flavor but it's personal choice. $5k is a fair wedge so IMO worth the pain of test-riding.
    Hope this helps. Enjoy!
    Out of curiosity, did you have the latest lower link on your SL and how different were the build kits that you were running? This is great info and I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying cause I'm totally in a debate on if it makes sense to just buy an SL, step up to the HD, or wait for an SL-R (I can take the 1lb saved on an SL and run my current 160 Lyric versus a 150 Revelation and get right back to the same angles and maybe gain some front end stiffness.)

    I'm coming off an older Giant Reign X which I've been riding with ridiculously light wheels/tires to make it more of a trail bike. I could just swap parts to the SL frame, but the other two bikes will pretty much demand new build kits due to rear axle, FD, and headset. The Reign is still a great bike, but I feel like it's way overkill for most of how I use it now that I've got a lighter big bike that I can pedal anywhere when I want to.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brankulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,121
    i am in the search for new bike. during this spring i demoed few different bikes. i come from fuji brand bike so you cant really speak of ibis brand loyalty. HD came on the top of my list after all the demos. on ibis demo i had friend with me who demoed SL and so we were trying both bikes on same trail sections. i liked HD so much, liked it over SL.
    what humdinger says its true, it is very versatile. SL was noticeably lighter and i liked it, but that was about it.
    other bikes i demoed: 575, blur, nomad, enduro, stompjumper, reign

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bones2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    281
    So to those who have demoed both, is there a noticible difference peddaling up a long hill on a 140 vs an SL?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brankulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,121
    i was on 160 HD. i pedals better than my current 150 bike, mainly technical climbs were where i felt a lot of difference. climbs better over tech stuff than SL in my opinion. on long uphills, i think it depends on your endurance, strength and terrain. as you encounter different sections of uphill, i would think that on techy sections HD would be better, on smooth climbs SL would be easier to pedal as it is lighter.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    908
    Wow, there is a lot of great advice on this thread. I agree with everyone that the HD is a tremendous climber. For any kind of trail ride, even the really long ones, you won't notice much difference between an HD and an SL when climbing. In some circumstances you might even feel that the HD is better--Scot told me at MBO last year that the HD is more efficient. The place you will notice the climbing is if you are racing (super-d or xc) because the SL's lighter weight build won't wear you out as quick when you are really trying to sprint up a hill. But if you are just going at a normal trail pace, ther won't be a whole lot of difference.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by brankulo View Post
    i was on 160 HD. climbs better over tech stuff than SL in my opinion. on long uphills, i think it depends on your endurance, strength and terrain. as you encounter different sections of uphill, i would think that on techy sections HD would be better, on smooth climbs SL would be easier to pedal as it is lighter.
    Is this just because the higher BB gives more clearance or is something else at play?

    Leverage ratio on 160 is actually higher then on all the 140 models and that could also account for it's climbing prowess, since it would feel naturally more stiffly damped unless the shocks are valved way different.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,902
    FWIW I did a review on the SL v the HD140, if you search for it

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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