Mind officially blow. It kills my current ride, a Reign X. I took an XL with a Lyrik and X9 build out for a demo ride yesterday. Took it on a solid 16 mile ride through the red rocks of Sedona. I can't believe how well it climbs tech stuff and slick rock. Spots where I know my current bike would have bobbed and spun the wheel, the Mojo just felt stuck to the ground. I'm really digging the Conti 2.2 TrailKings that were on it also. Really fun on fast flowy singletrack too. Didn't get much of a chance to huck it, but the few 1-1.5 drops I got to take it off it felt really plush, and then pedaled away like a hardtail. I knew I wanted one, now I HAVE to have one. I do have a question for other owners though. I already have a DH bike, so this one won't be a "do it all" bike for me. Mostly trail riding with some chunk, descents and a few drops and jumps from time to time. I should also mention I live in Phoenix, Lots of rocky trails. Is the HD overkill for what I want to do with it? Should I save some weight and a few bucks and go with an SL? I have looked into the geometry and travel differences between the two, but I've heard the HD has a burlier carbon layup in some spots on the frame. Any info/opinions would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Matt
I had an SL for about 3 years and went to an HD last March. I'm happier with the HD as my one do-it-all bike. It comes alive when things get chunky or jump lines appear. I do miss the superb climbing geometry of the SL on extended ascents and sometimes on flat, swoopy singletrack. But there is very little that I can't do on the HD that the SL could handle. Holbert Trail is one of my favorite trails anywhere, and the HD would have handled it better than my SL - and climbed back up for another run. :thumbsup:
I've got a DH bike for Holbert/Geronimo style trails. Would you be confident with your SL on the rest of Somo? That is probably the gnarliest I'll get with it.
The SL is a great bike, no doubt, very few bikes come close with this travel, and does save a pound in frame weight below the HD, and is more ideal for an ultra light build with light XC wheels. There's an SL-R version too which is between the SL and HD in stiffness, even a few grams lighter than the SL and more ideal for hard XC race use.
The HD is most versatile. At 140 travel it handles XC uses just fine. With a light wheel build it's lighter than most 4 inch travel aluminum XC bikes. And at 160 travel, is much better than the SL for the rocky canyonlands, deserts, and high mountain rough trail and anywhere with many bigger hits.
For Sedona the SL with a solid wheel build is plenty. But the stiffer more solid and slacker handling HD at the same 140mm travel gives more confidence when adding jumps and steeper drops in the mix. I've owned both and it feels like the HD climbs rocky trail better, there's more feel of the traction limits.
Great info, thanks. I just stumbled on the SL-R. Looks like it might be a good fit for what I'm wanting to do. Gotta sell my old bike first, so I've got time to decide.
You may want to try the SL if you already have a DH bike and will do mostly climbing and trails - very capable frame - ironically I'm selling mine (Mojo XL, and 2 DH/FR IronHorses) as I have an HD that will become my do it all 1 bike (I do need to take it on bike parks before selling my DH though).
You may want to try the SL if you already have a DH bike and will do mostly climbing and trails - very capable frame - ironically I'm selling mine (Mojo XL, and 2 DH/FR IronHorses) as I have an HD that will become my do it all 1 bike (I do need to take it on bike parks before selling my DH though).
Definitely want to climb and hit the fast flowy single track, but I will run into tech stuff, chunk and jumps along the way. I love having my DH bike so I can just bulldoze stuff lol.
Actually, I retract that statement. After further investigation, I believe the HT angle on the SL-R may be a little to steep for my style of riding. Also, the press fit bottom bracket on the SL-R really removes any options for a chainguide/bashgard which is a must have for me on these rocky trails. Maybe an HD 140 would be more in line.
HD pedals better, leverage curve was tweaked so there is a little more rearward motion in the travel making it plusher too. I have come off a Classic and I wouldn't swap my HD for an SL/SLR.
On the SLR I am not keen on the pressfit BB. It's prob fine and the Ibis guys will have tested it thoroughly but it would play in my head.
If you like the HD, stick with the HD. Better IMO in all areas apart from weight.
Thanks for all that, tough to find that kind of info on the manufacturers website. I like the idea of the HD 140 just because its a tad less slack than the regular HD and I can run a 150mm Float 32 as opposed to a 160mm Float 36 and save almost a pound that way. Plus, if I ever decide I want to go 160 it's just a matter of swapping the limbo chips and shock/fork.
if you were riding an hd you probably would've made that last drop. thing descends so nice... especially with a 180mm fork on the front brings it down to a 66* HA. Love the HD!
I have an AnthemX and a Mojo HD with 180 fork. I'm not much faster on the Anthem. If I was going to get rid of one it would be the Anthem and I would keep the MojoHD.
I had a Reign before the MojoHD and if you're coming off a ReignX then you will love the HD. Remember the 36 Floats Lock out.
So I sold my Reign X today, getting ready to order my new frame. I'm still debating between the the standard HD and the HD140.
Option 1. Standard HD with a Fox Float 36, 160mm. 20mm axle
Option 2. HD 140 with a Fox Float 32, 150mm. 15mm axle. About 1.5 pounds lighter in this config.
I'm going to get an XL frame either way, trying to keep the build sub 30lbs. Planning on running 1x10 with the Shimano XTR shadow derailleur.
This will not be a do-it-all bike for me, I have a dedicated DH bike already. The Mojo will be mostly for trail riding with some spirited descents and maybe some small jumps. The HD 140 would end up being about one degree less slack than the standard HD, a little better for pedaling. Just wondering if the extra travel and beef of the 36 stanchions are worth the weight penalty for what I'll be riding. Any input would be appreciated.
I would go 160.
Not a lot in it in weight, bit better pedal clearance. I ran my bike in 140 mode with 160's up front and it wasn't quite as balanced esp on climbs. I don't think there's a lot in 150/160 in terms of axle to crown height. Personally happy with 160/160, having spent 3 years on a classic with 140/160.
You can always get the limbo chips and a s/h 2" stroke shock to play with down the line
Buy the HD 160 and don't look back. I had mine built to 27 lbs with a dropper post and 29 is easy to achieve with non exotic parts. SL-R is a CC bike where the HD is an AM bike. The HD climbs awesome and is a lot more fun going downhill.
BTW you can always space down the 160 if necessary.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
15.4M posts
515.2K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!