Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: 2010 RIP vs WFO

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,373

    2010 RIP vs WFO

    After looking at the geometry for the RIP and the WFO (I was looking at the large specs) on the Niner website and trying to guess what a 140mm fork would do to the RIP's numbers it appears that they are almost identical (assuming both were running a fork with the same a2c). Other than the WFO being a bit beefier and having an inch more travel is there any difference in the geometry between the two frames?

    What is the weight difference between the 2 frames (large size)?
    What is the BB height of each with a 140mm travel fork?

  2. #2
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,111
    The WFO can take a resevoir shock.

    If you had asked me two weeks ago I would also say the WFO was plusher, the rip a better pedler.

    After a nice chat to mojo, CVA (aka vpp) does not do anything for pedaling efficiency it is all done by the shock. They say this is a VERY good thing, let the frame do it's job, and the shock do the compression damping.

    Anyway, either frame can be tuned to ride like you want.
    My WFO now sprints as efficiently as my old XC race bike, but is strong enough that I can abuse it without fear of something breaking.

    My WFO is so much more fun now the shock is tuned.
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: david8613's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    some time ago there was a guy who had pics of the rip and a wfo side by side, i dont remember who though?

  4. #4
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by david8613
    some time ago there was a guy who had pics of the rip and a wfo side by side, i dont remember who though?
    2melow posted a photo like that to show the difference between the straight downtube of the RIP9 and the belly in the WFO downtube for piggyback shock clearance. Is that the one you're remembering? That one doesn't address any of the OP's questions, though. I'm not sure any side-by-side would show much in the way of minor differences in geometry.
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  5. #5
    Flaccid Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,039
    The WFO also has the ISG tabs for running a Hammerschmidt crank set, and a special front derailleur mount if you choose to go with multiple ring gears up front.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    31
    I love my RIP.. But if I had it all to do over again id probably opt for the WFO. Having ISG tabs would be really sweet.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveGiant
    The WFO can take a resevoir shock.

    If you had asked me two weeks ago I would also say the WFO was plusher, the rip a better pedler.

    After a nice chat to mojo, CVA (aka vpp) does not do anything for pedaling efficiency it is all done by the shock. They say this is a VERY good thing, let the frame do it's job, and the shock do the compression damping.
    .....
    I think CVA is a mini link bike like (or a copy of) DW link bikes. My understanding is that VPP bikes have links that rotate in opposite directions while DW link style frame have the links rotate in the same direction? I barely remember that part but am certain CVA isn't like VPP. You could feel VPP pedal feedback in the granny, I've never felt that on my Rip. I also don't think they rely on damping for efficiency.

    In regards to which bike I think you are on the right track. The geos with 140mm forks are darn similar. I have a Marz 44 on my Rip and wish I had gone all the way and gotten a WFO.
    2 wheels

  8. #8
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,111
    My info was from one of the suspension guys at Mojo, he described it as a short link virtual pivot with a regressive stroke.
    Once he tuned my WFO it went from a divey, easy to bottom out, lousy pedaller to a bike that pedals as well as my old XC race bike.

    The results from his tune suggest he knew what he was talking about?

    He was exceptionally complimentary on the suspension design, but he thinks that no bikes frame designs add pedal efficiency, it is just marketing BS.

    He is an expert, and demonstrated his skill, so assuming there is some truth to it.
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  9. #9
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,268
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveGiant
    My info was from one of the suspension guys at Mojo, he described it as a short link virtual pivot with a regressive stroke.
    Once he tuned my WFO it went from a divey, easy to bottom out, lousy pedaller to a bike that pedals as well as my old XC race bike.

    The results from his tune suggest he knew what he was talking about?

    He was exceptionally complimentary on the suspension design, but he thinks that no bikes frame designs add pedal efficiency, it is just marketing BS.

    He is an expert, and demonstrated his skill, so assuming there is some truth to it.
    Sounds to me like he has very little idea what he is talking about,Not trying to pick on him but to make a statment like that he is full of BS

  10. #10
    BMJ
    BMJ is online now
    "42 lbs and climbing!"
    Reputation: BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,004
    Do the WFO, more to offer for less! ISCG tabs, direct mount front deraillier, piggyback shock ready, 1" more travel, 150mm rear option, more stable geometry.... oh, and it's almost $300- cheaper the the Rip blowout.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveGiant
    My info was from one of the suspension guys at Mojo, he described it as a short link virtual pivot with a regressive stroke.
    Once he tuned my WFO it went from a divey, easy to bottom out, lousy pedaller to a bike that pedals as well as my old XC race bike.

    The results from his tune suggest he knew what he was talking about?

    He was exceptionally complimentary on the suspension design, but he thinks that no bikes frame designs add pedal efficiency, it is just marketing BS.

    He is an expert, and demonstrated his skill, so assuming there is some truth to it.
    First, it's nice that neither of us are going overboard with this, after all it is the internet.

    I am not an expert and have poor memory but the answer is on this board if you want to search. Of course it's a challenge that one can't search 'CVA' because it's only 3 letters.

    What did he do to tune your shock? I assume he took it apart or are we only talking air pressure and external dial changes?
    2 wheels

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: david8613's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    i had a jet 9, skipped the rip, jumped on the wfo 9 very happy, alot of bike for the buck!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    I have taken a pavement spin on a large WFO with a 140mm fork and the bottom bracket seemed pretty low. With the chunk around my area I really would prefer something in the neighborhood of 14". Anyone got the BB height measurement?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: david8613's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    make sure the shock is pumped up for your wieght, when i first built mine up i felt the samething, after some adjustments all was good!

  15. #15
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: 2melow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,589
    Quote Originally Posted by artnshel
    I think CVA is a mini link bike like (or a copy of) DW link bikes. My understanding is that VPP bikes have links that rotate in opposite directions while DW link style frame have the links rotate in the same direction? I barely remember that part but am certain CVA isn't like VPP. You could feel VPP pedal feedback in the granny, I've never felt that on my Rip. I also don't think they rely on damping for efficiency.
    CVA is far from "a copy of DW link bikes" as stated above. They work differently, and the instant center is pretty far from how DW and VPP designs work.

    Probably the best example I've seen of all the different mini link suspension designed doing their thing is in this post. Turner Aqcuiring Use of DWL
    Niner Bikes employee. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Niner-...3652275?ref=ts
    Front Range Forum Moderator

  16. #16
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,111
    Quote Originally Posted by artnshel
    First, it's nice that neither of us are going overboard with this, after all it is the internet.

    I am not an expert and have poor memory but the answer is on this board if you want to search. Of course it's a challenge that one can't search 'CVA' because it's only 3 letters.

    What did he do to tune your shock? I assume he took it apart or are we only talking air pressure and external dial changes?
    rebuilt and re-shimmed damper, also advised reducing the air volume by part filling the the XV1 can (Which I admitted I had already done).

    I I cannot stress how much this affected the ride of the bike.
    So what he says about pedalling efficiency seems implausible, but hey, can't argue with results. Just to stress he said the CVA was a great design, but the efficiency should be done with the shock.

    It feels good and all settings on shock are now useful.
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    457
    Hey CG, you should get rid of the RP23 and upgrade to the DHX air. I have had no complaints in 4 months of thrasing on it and it mirrors the Dorado in "plushness". All I did was set the air to my weight plus my pack and it was a done deal.

    As far a Niners CVA is concerned, I feel it is nothing like DW or VPP because it has the lower link is going under the BB and no other suspension design (that I know of) does this.
    It works different and definately feels more plush than the other two without affecting pedaling performance as far as I can tell. BTW I owned a blur lt and demoed a DW link bike for a week.

  18. #18
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,111
    It was recommended by Niner that I try the DHX, but I have read too many reviews on here to consider it.

    Thankfully since the mod the RP23 seems perfect, I am yet to try it for heavy DH, which was my plan for this weekend (before the person I was going with inconsiderately got a kidney infection) so have to get back to you on that.
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  19. #19
    Flaccid Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,039
    I'd say if you ride out of the norm, or weigh out of the norm for the bike you are on, by all means, see a professional suspension tuner, to get the most out of your bike. The average rider won't notice it, a skilled rider at the advanced intermediate to above levels will notice the difference instantly. It has a huge effect on your ride.

    They didn't have WFO's when I bought my RIP, but there are serious deals to be had out there right now on either models right now.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by noosa2
    I have taken a pavement spin on a large WFO with a 140mm fork and the bottom bracket seemed pretty low. With the chunk around my area I really would prefer something in the neighborhood of 14". Anyone got the BB height measurement?

    Bump - anyone got the BB height of a WFO (and RIP) with a 140 mm reba (or similar) and the weight of each frame in the large size?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy
    They didn't have WFO's when I bought my RIP, but there are serious deals to be had out there right now on either models right now.
    bikebling is one, have you found any other online that you can link?

    and a noob question, but I couldn't verify it somewhere. is the shock for the WFO 200/50?

  22. #22
    Laker and a Trail Blazer
    Reputation: Broncstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    735
    I started riding 1.5 years ago on a 04 giant FS NRS3. I bought it used and it is a large. I'm 6'4" 210, and lrg is way to small. So I'm looking at these two. I keep going back and forth between these bikes. What's the difference in weight?

  23. #23
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Broncstad
    I started riding 1.5 years ago on a 04 giant FS NRS3. I bought it used and it is a large. I'm 6'4" 210, and lrg is way to small. So I'm looking at these two. I keep going back and forth between these bikes. What's the difference in weight?
    Hi not a big amount in frame weight really, not enough to take ithe WFO off the shoping list,its more that the people that build the WFO up put heaver parts on them.

    I have always told people if you have to ask the question wfo or rip9 you are a rip9 rider they can handle heaps.

    I think of a wfo rider as being the 1 in the group that is always talking every one into doing stuff they are not sure about & a WFO rider knows they are part nutter.

    But thats just 2c so you have asked the question so Rip9 with 140mm reba it is for you Bike sorted nice & easy.

  24. #24
    Laker and a Trail Blazer
    Reputation: Broncstad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    735
    Why is RIP more money than WFO?
    Deals? I seen bike bling has wfo frame for $999.00, do these deals get better? Or am I going to be pissed that I didn't pull the trigger?

  25. #25
    BMJ
    BMJ is online now
    "42 lbs and climbing!"
    Reputation: BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,004
    They may have made more WFO's than the public is interested in or they have some significant changes coming out at InterBike in September. RIP's a bigger seller, retains it's value more I would suspect.

    After paying $1,800 for mine, I wish this deal was around 10 months ago! $999- is a no brainer!!!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •