Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    169

    Any Clydes riding a RIP?

    I have a Pivot Mach429 right now, and that's a long story how I ended up with a 2012 frame but I did. Anyway, Pivot changed the frame and now I can't run the 29X2.35 tires I have grown to love. I see that the RIP9 will take this tire with ease and I'm wondering:

    I'm 6 ft and 245 lbs

    • Flex? How flexy is the frame?
    • Fork 120mm or 140mm?
    • Durability? How's your RIP holding up? Do you ride a lot (>100 miles / month)
    • What do you ride? Lots of big rocks and techy stuff or XC?


    I'm going to demo a RIP this weekend in AZ and if I like the bike I may buy one, but I want to be as sure as I can and this is part of what I think is a good process.

    Thanks in advance for any and all replies,..

  2. #2
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,039
    The Rip9 will be fine for you, Nice & stiff.

    There is plenty of 300 Ib plus riders on Rip9.

    2.35 tyres fit fine.

    I liked mine with 140mm fork.

    Quote Originally Posted by 29erBob View Post
    I have a Pivot Mach429 right now, and that's a long story how I ended up with a 2012 frame but I did. Anyway, Pivot changed the frame and now I can't run the 29X2.35 tires I have grown to love. I see that the RIP9 will take this tire with ease and I'm wondering:

    I'm 6 ft and 245 lbs

    • Flex? How flexy is the frame?
    • Fork 120mm or 140mm?
    • Durability? How's your RIP holding up? Do you ride a lot (>100 miles / month)
    • What do you ride? Lots of big rocks and techy stuff or XC?


    I'm going to demo a RIP this weekend in AZ and if I like the bike I may buy one, but I want to be as sure as I can and this is part of what I think is a good process.

    Thanks in advance for any and all replies,..

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,939
    Well, this 325lb'er didn't fare so well on a RIP9. For that reason, if I were a clyde, I'd also look at the WFO.

    Broken Niner RIP9

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    87
    I weigh 235 with gear; been on mine a little over a month and have zero issues with flex. The Rip is stiffer than the alloy Jet I had been riding. Running a Revelation fork at 120mm with a 20mm through-axle which makes a huge difference vs a standard QR. I ride in Austin, lots of rocks and ledges.

    Can't personally speak to long term durability, but the Rip has a good reputation in the forums. The 325lb guy who broke his was given a new one, no questions asked.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    169
    Well, I'm nowhere near 325lbs, that's a whole different ball game. The WFO uses the same links and pins as the RIP which leads me to believe that the only difference would be the travel, which doesn't concern me as much as the rigidity and how much rubber I can put under it. I'm sure if I break it in the first 24 months Niner will replace it free and quietly. I need to be able to pedal HARD! and know that nothing weird is going to happen like what's going on with my Pivot right now. I guess the only way to know is to ride one and see.

  6. #6
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,109
    For Clydes the frame to go for is the WFO.

    It is a VERY similar frame to the RIP, most of the geo differences are due to a specced longer fork.

    The weight difference is about 1lb.

    you get a lot for that negligible 1lb.

    The frame is stiffer and stronger, and you get to mount a good shock.

    On the RIP you are stuck with a single can shock, this limits damping oil capacity.
    You will get less adjustments and more likely to overheat.

    As you are a non standard guy, you want as much tunability of the shock as possible.

    Try to ignore the marketing info, these bikes are not far off the same, just one is stronger and comes with a better shock.

    I use my WFO for everything and classify it as the most fun bike I have ridden.
    I have a few sets of wheels for each use too.

    The wheels that get the most looks are the road wheels.

    The WFO pedals so well (better than RIP due to better shock) that I take it on road rides with a biking club. I used to have a road bike, but gave away as the WFO is faster. The extra weight of the WFO did not matter compared to the extra pedal efficiency due to stiff frame.

    I looked at the RIP RDO, but ruled it out as although probably as stiff as the WFO (carbon), it was limited on shock choice.
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  7. #7
    Total Goober
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    845
    I second the WFO (I weigh 200lbs + gear). I felt the flex in my RIP rear end, but I had the QR. 12X142 on WFO feels much better, but the TA on the RIP might have helped a lot too...

    Ran the fork at 140 on both.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuglio View Post
    You guys suck im all bummed now

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    169
    You guys make a good case for the WFO. I'd considered that bike as more than I want but if the shock is that good then and the weight is only slightly greater that may be the best for long term durability. I do tend to hit things hard (bumps, jumps, etc.) from time to time

  9. #9
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,109
    "that bike is more than I want" - that perception is from advertising. They are similar bikes.

    The long term reliability is not the main change. You are getting a bike that is stiffer, so will be able to take the power your body can provide and not flex.

    If you get something that flexes you will waste a lot of energy bending the frame each time you crank.
    Trust me, I was faster on this bike than my road bike as with this all my power went in to pushing me forwards. My road bike flexed, therefore wasted a lot of energy.

    If you want a fast bike, get this frame but build it light. Static weight might not make a difference to a big guy, but rotating weight is as important as ever! Get fast wheels and this bike will fly.
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    169
    I went to my LBS in hopes of looking a bit closer at the WFO before riding one this weekend. They sold the one they had I worry a bit about the factory wheelset but that's not a deep concern as I have two other wheelsets I've been riding for a while now that will be a perfect fit.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    169
    I rode the WFO today. I was impressed how well the bike pedaled. And even more at how it holds momentum. It is heavy though, but in a solid way. I felt invincilble on it over rocks and even the slightest downhill made the bike want to fly. I managed to get about 17 miles on it over all types of terrain and even some steep climbing. The 36 in the rear made a difference but I'm not sure it's enough to make me want to buy one. I didn't get to ride the RIP at all and I want to ride that bike before I can make a distinction between the two or make a choice.

  12. #12
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,109
    Am glad you like it!

    Don't forget the WFO will normally be built heavier than the RIP.
    So although you can build a WFO within 1lb of a RIP, the demo bike will not be built up that way.

    With good parts you could build a WFO lighter than the RIP demo bike.

    Most of my build is light with one exception, the fork. The dorado weighs a TON but nothing else performed like it!
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  13. #13
    Flaccid Member
    Reputation: Boyonadyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,806
    245 pounds here, 6'5". I've owned 2 RIPS and 1 WFO... I am certain there are folks at Niner that are glad I went with the WFO... the additional weight is a very small price to pay for a frame I have ridden the crap out of, and it's a Timex, takes a licking, keeps on ticking. For this reason alone, and your weight and application, I would suggest the WFO. There have been very, very few reports of broken WFO frames. That's worth something of a premium at our size and strength on the pedals.

    To be fair, my WFO is a means to an end... gotta get it uphill to blast the downs... gotta earn your turns. I've had my WFO all over AZ and Moab, UT, and AZ is one of the best markets for the WFO with all the chunky love and rocks that abound there. Just keep your rear shock pumped up to proper sag pressure and don't bottom it out, and the seat post area will be fine.

    The extra travel in the rear on the WFO will surely be appreciated in the rocky areas of AZ/
    Last edited by Boyonadyke; 11-18-2012 at 02:42 PM.
    "i'll brazilian when YOU do boy, right around the ol' rusty star. Actually, whole fruit bowl. Get on it!" NicoleB

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dry Cownty Brewer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    624
    I am born & raised in PHX area, spent a lot of time since 2009 on two different RIP 9's (V1.2 and a 2011). I am 6'1" and go anywhere from 215-235 before gear. I never felt the frame was flexy, and never was interested in the WFO. I've raced it, I took it to MOAB, taken up and down National a number of times, and really love the RIP for what it can handle - damn near everything. If you want to be faster, go with the RIP, if you want to seek out rock gardens and really pushing the technical limits on a 29er, go WFO.
    Making Milk by Day, Beer by Night

  15. #15
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Pynis McDermott View Post
    I am born & raised in PHX area, spent a lot of time since 2009 on two different RIP 9's (V1.2 and a 2011). I am 6'1" and go anywhere from 215-235 before gear. I never felt the frame was flexy, and never was interested in the WFO. I've raced it, I took it to MOAB, taken up and down National a number of times, and really love the RIP for what it can handle - damn near everything. If you want to be faster, go with the RIP, if you want to seek out rock gardens and really pushing the technical limits on a 29er, go WFO.
    Have you ever ridden a WFO?
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveGiant View Post
    For Clydes the frame to go for is the WFO.

    It is a VERY similar frame to the RIP, most of the geo differences are due to a specced longer fork.

    The weight difference is about 1lb.

    you get a lot for that negligible 1lb.

    The frame is stiffer and stronger, and you get to mount a good shock.

    On the RIP you are stuck with a single can shock, this limits damping oil capacity.
    You will get less adjustments and more likely to overheat.

    As you are a non standard guy, you want as much tunability of the shock as possible.

    Try to ignore the marketing info, these bikes are not far off the same, just one is stronger and comes with a better shock.

    I use my WFO for everything and classify it as the most fun bike I have ridden.
    I have a few sets of wheels for each use too.

    The wheels that get the most looks are the road wheels.

    The WFO pedals so well (better than RIP due to better shock) that I take it on road rides with a biking club. I used to have a road bike, but gave away as the WFO is faster. The extra weight of the WFO did not matter compared to the extra pedal efficiency due to stiff frame.

    I looked at the RIP RDO, but ruled it out as although probably as stiff as the WFO (carbon), it was limited on shock choice.
    I'd echo this (although I'm not a Clyde). I got a WFO about a year ago because it had roughly the geometry that I wanted, with the ability to run pretty much whatever shock I wanted. Also I had heard good things about the CVA suspension design. I built mine with a 140mm travel fork as a somewhat heavy trail/AM bike. I'm very happy with it, it's very solid and confidence inspiring downhill, and it pedals very well (coming from FSR bikes, that was very noticable). For what it is, it also climbs very well-it's definitely not a heavy monster that is awful to go uphill on. Overall, it's a fun bike. If I wanted to go fast uphill I'd get an XC bike, if I wanted to go any faster downhill I'd want a real DH bike and some good armour.

    I did replace the stock Monarch shock with a CCDB air a few months back because I wasn't happy with the midstroke on the stock shock, I thought it was running through it a bit quickly (though I've never felt it bottom out harshly). The CCDB air is great, I've been able to get the midstroke to be much better, while still getting good small bump and big hit performance out of it. This is probably less of an issue with the newer frames which I think come with a Monarch Plus. From talking to my Dad (who got one of these a few weeks back) and reading reviews on here the Monarch Plus is a pretty good shock. I'm going to get around to comparing the two sometime soon.

    That said, I don't think you'd be disappointed with a RIP9, all the guys I've seen with them seem to like them a lot (and the RDO looks awesome).

  17. #17
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,109
    Niner seem to spec their shocks to blow through travel, not sure why.

    Have you tried increasing the number of rubber spacers in the monarch overflow can?

    I have only had 3 rides on the monarch so too soon to tell how I should set it up, but the bands should firm up the mid stroke and bottom.

    One other shock that is amazing is the Manitou ISX6.
    The amount of adjustment on that shock is amazing.

    To clarrify how adjustable this is I should say what I did to tune my dorado.
    I'm a geek, so pens, calculators and graph paper appeared a lot in my shock tuning.
    I replaced the 2 main springs with 11, including two elastomers and an air spring.
    The damping circuit was fully reshimmed and the flat point modified. I also drilled one of the internal oil damping channels to prioritise midstroke travel. Last but most definately least, there was no oil on the market that fitted my sums, so I went and bought a few and mixed up what I wanted to get the desired product.

    To get the ISX to match this was ALL done externally with dials!!!

    The RP23 I had on the WFO first was awful, seriously bad. Even after I custom tuned it myself (couldn't get it good), I then sent it to the proffesionals (who got it better) I just gave it away.

    This is the main reason I am a WFO fan, it is basically a RIP that can take a good shock.

    ISX6 = perfect
    Monarch = new, but showing promise
    CCDB Air = very good, but a bit fast in mid stroke (second hand knowledge)
    RP23 = Pants, not a good match for CVA
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  18. #18
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,109
    I should add with shock tuning, the CVA has progressive rate through the first half of travel, then goes regressive for the second half. This makes tuning a shock for it VERY hard as the shock needs to change character half was through stroke. If you have a hydraulic bottom out circuit, you can tune that to ramp the shock up in time with the rate change. Conveniently this is option "3" on the red dial on ISX6. So the hydraulic compression ramp lines up with the CVA drop leaving the rest of the shock to be tuned as if a standard progressive rate frame.
    Why would I care about 150g of bike weight, I just ate 400g of cookies while reading this?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dry Cownty Brewer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveGiant View Post
    Have you ever ridden a WFO?
    No I haven't, but I never really wanted more bike than the RIP. Any more beyond the terrain the RIP could handle for me, and I would be riding GNAR I don't really care to crash on. The RIP ate up all of Porcupine Rim just fine.

    Also, I run a REBA 120mm fork with 20mm TA. The TA was absolutely the way to go. It takes out the flex in your turns.
    Making Milk by Day, Beer by Night

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveGiant View Post
    Am glad you like it!

    Don't forget the WFO will normally be built heavier than the RIP.
    So although you can build a WFO within 1lb of a RIP, the demo bike will not be built up that way.

    With good parts you could build a WFO lighter than the RIP demo bike.

    Most of my build is light with one exception, the fork. The dorado weighs a TON but nothing else performed like it!
    The Demo bike was built pretty nicely. Sun Charger Pro wheelset (very bling), shorty stem that I liked a lot and contributed to it's great handling in tight stuff. The only think I noticed was the QR rear end (not a fan) but that wouldn't find it's way on my bike. I was able to use my saddle and seatpost. I think the wheels made the bike feel lighter than most other wheels on the market and the fact that it had my favorite tires didn't hurt one little bit, adding lots of confidence hammering it into fast turns. I liked the bike a lot, but I'm a little leery of the weight, even with how well it handles and even climbs. Oh, and this bike had the Fox Talas 34 FIT on it w/ 15QR. I was impressed at how much stronger this fork was than my 32 Talas Terralogic 15QR. I don't need a full DH fork so that's a nice compromise. I ran it hard into several corners with large braking bumps and stutter bumps only to find it compliant and keeping the tire on the ground, even leaned over and on the brakes with the rear in the air! Very impressive fork!

    I don't know that I'd find a lighter wheelset, but the good news is that this set is fairly inexpensive as wheelsets go, and seemed strong as heck!

    In the end, heavy frame and fork + light wheels + some good geometry = tons of fun.

  21. #21
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,202
    250lb Clyde here, Alloy RIP9, 20mm Maxle Fork, 142 maxle rear. It's a gr8 big boy bike, I'd recommend the WFO if you plan to do sizable drops, otherwise the RIP9 is plent of bike IMO.

    OP, what 2.35 tire do you run? I have 2.35 nobby nics, the rear does not have a lot of clearance, it clears, but tight on RIP9.

    I aslo think the cva suspension is better for clydes than DW. I run much lower air pressure on my RIP9 rear shock versus a Pivot Firebird. I'm overwhelming the air shock on my firebird, not the case on RIP9.
    beaver hunt

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    169
    Snow -- My favorite tire is the Hans Dampf 29X2.35 trail star. It's a tank of a tire and light enough to be used everywhere.

  23. #23
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,039
    Quote Originally Posted by 29erBob View Post
    Snow -- My favorite tire is the Hans Dampf 29X2.35 trail star. It's a tank of a tire and light enough to be used everywhere.
    We have the same tast in tyres, Used mine in the wet on the weekend & it was great.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    146
    I am 6" 1" and with gear i am @ 240lb. I have a rip 9 alloy for almost one year, I do not have any complains with this bike besides I do no t ride as much as I wish. I ride demo forest with this bike (some jumps) and so far I am really happy with it.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic View Post
    We have the same tast in tyres, Used mine in the wet on the weekend & it was great.
    FWIW this tire is very nice in the desert too. It rolls easy, can be driven into corners hard and grabs rocks pretty well. I have yet to run it in the wet, although I'd like to try

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
  •