Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 81
  1. #26
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,952
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    Except it is priced about $4,000 too expensive for what it is!
    Well, if you want light weight and carbon with top of the line components, you've got to pony up the paycheck. Not sure what all the sizes of the 2012 model weighs, but the large came in at 25 and change. It comes specced with tubes and some heavier meat tires (Purgatory and Ground Control mix), so taking the tubes out and running the carbon wheels tubeless is a simple swap - as is lighter tires if one is so inclined. Either way, you gotta pay to get a 130 front and rear full suspension bike specced at that kind of weight. Same kind of cash investment required if you want to build one that light - be it the mythical carbon RIP or an actual existing carbon fully frame!!!

    The top of the line race models in all the Specialized line (the S-Works) bump way up there in price (ditto for Scott, Trek, etc....). $7500 - $10K is standard for those top end units.

    Bike Radar
    said this...

    The S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon is available with 26in wheels and 140mm of travel, or 29in wheels and 130mm. We took a ride on the 29er version. This top-of-the-line, break-the-bank bike rides as a machine nearing the US$10,000 mark should – extremely well. It's light, and the components have been well thought out – 720mm wide low-rise bar, Specialized Command Post BlackLite dropper seatpost, Fox Racing Shox Kashima suspension (with Brain inertia AutoSag damper for the rear) and new Roval Control Trail SL carbon wheels with 28mm OD rims.

    This is all icing on the cake, as the bike’s well sorted geometry (69˚ head tube angle, 450mm chainstays, 338mm bottom bracket height/34mm drop) was the star of our brief test ride, during which it handled beautifully. While the S-Works bike is attention grabbing, there are few who can afford to drop that type of cash on a mountain bike, which is where the M5 alloy models come in – these start in the mid-$2,000 range. Carbon bikes with a decent but more subdued spec start at around $4,000.


    Drop the carbon wheels. Go down a few notches in the brand components. And the price drops quickly.

    For example, you can still do the carbon Stumpjumper FSR frame in 29"er and get the whole bike for $4100 if you get the Comp model....

    Stumpjumper Comp - $4100

    Difference being you'll be up around 28-29 pounds or so (depending on size) for the less expensive model.

    Or you can get the S-Works frame/seatpost combo from the earlier one I posted for $4400 and build from there.

    Going back to the prospects of a carbon RIP 9. If there ever is/was one, and one wanted to build it out as a light weight speed machine - it's going to be north in price for the full build for sure. Especially with the all-mountain carbon wheels (Roval, Enve, Easton, etc....) costing what they do.
    Last edited by BruceBrown; 01-30-2012 at 06:56 AM.

  2. #27
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,952
    Quote Originally Posted by pablo_goral View Post
    Hey Muzzaic,

    What works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone.

    I'm selling my Jet 9 RDO on ebay asap.
    Not to worry, Muzz will have his RDO for sale soon based on his prior record of not being able to keep a bike for more than a few months.

  3. #28
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,952
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I will be 1 of the 1st in line to buy a Rip9 carbon when & if they come out. ( Hoping for more of a WFO carbon type spec myself ).

    But there are so many people out there that think they need more travel & they just aren't using what thay have.

    There will always be some bikes that just don't suit some people for what ever reason, But sometimes they haven't haven't looked at all the setup options to help them, Then sometimes they have tryed & the bike just isn't them.

    Not tring to pick on your build that for the most part is awesome, But If i was to run narrow Arch rims & the 2.25 Ardents on my RDO I'm sure I would be in for a big crash as well.

    I tryed the Arch's & also the 2.25 Ardent on my Rip9 & the bike just didn't do the goods at all, I found that with Flows & the 2.4 Ardent up front at 18 PSI the front had so much more grip & I could just push so much harder on fast down hill & I could trust the grip to be there.

    With the 2.25 Ardent on the front the bike just felt like it was looking for somewere to crash.

    Good luck with your next build & hope you get better soon.
    Underutilizing your suspension, perhaps?

    Craigsj said it well in post #35 of this thread:

    But, of course, a suspension fork will always have a tire connected to it, fat or not, that "rules" for all the small high frequency stuff. A fat tire is not needed for small bumps; for bigger ones a device designed for the purpose works better and the combination of suspension and smaller tire doesn't suffer the awful rolling resistance or absurd rotating weight.

  4. #29
    29ers Only.
    Reputation: Niner Bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by five5 View Post
    Niner will never say.... if they are working on something, they'll let us all know when its done being built, tested, and ready to go.
    This post is fairly accurate. Though it would be fun to share the projects we have cooking, there is a long list of reasons we keep our product development on the down-low. That does not mean that we aren't constantly working on new projects.

    We are listening, we do hear your requests and we definitely take our community's input seriously here and on Facebook. It is not unheard of for an MTBr thread to be the topic of conversation in the office. We love reading conversations like this - they contain many good ideas, some of which will make it onto our next models...

    Cheers,
    Carla
    .........

    Passion. Commitment. 29ers only.

    Follow all things Niner Bikes on Facebook!www.ninerbikes.com

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: david8613's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    I'm curious, I understand carbon using carbon saves but how much could save on a w.f.o. 9 carbon?

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by david8613 View Post
    I'm curious, I understand carbon using carbon saves but how much could save on a w.f.o. 9 carbon?
    It's not only about weight savings. Well made carbon frames are a lot stiffer than frames made out of aluminium alloys. I feel that comparing Niner Jet 9 RDO with Pivot Mach 5.

  7. #32
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,210
    Quote Originally Posted by david8613 View Post
    I'm curious, I understand carbon using carbon saves but how much could save on a w.f.o. 9 carbon?
    Only about 2 Ib but would be even stiffer.

    Mmmm WFO carbon with Enve AM wheels, You might need a Arms Licence because of the damage you could do with that.

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,135
    I know everybody is screaming for carbon bikes, but I just can't buy into it. I'd think Niner would be better served with a AM hardtail like the Canfield, Transition, Banshee and Kona bikes that are cropping up.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  9. #34
    NMBP
    Reputation: gfs69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,144
    Quote Originally Posted by OldHouseMan View Post
    I know everybody is screaming for carbon bikes, but I just can't buy into it. I'd think Niner would be better served with a AM hardtail like the Canfield, Transition, Banshee and Kona bikes that are cropping up.
    I don't know, I think carbon is the new aluminum, for better or worse. They do seem to be getting better all the time though. The AM hardtail really seems like a niche bike to me. They do look fun, and I would not mind riding one, but I have never seen one on the trail.

    Now if Niner made a Fat bike... FAT9!

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    240
    I had no knowledge, I was just wondering if the Carbon RIP was in the works, or a WFO. I would be interested in jumping into the 9r thing. I am riding a mojo HD and I really like it....but cant help to wonder what the Ripley/Carbon RIP would be like.

    I was a bit hesitant on carbon but its lighter stiffer and makes you cooler!! Well its lighter And stiffer anyways.

    Those complecated bends and tubes trying to maniplulate aluminum sure would be eaiser and better looking in carbon...Just saying

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davidcopperfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,713
    Quote Originally Posted by gfs69 View Post
    Now if Niner made a Fat bike... FAT9!
    FS FAT9 29er with the outer diameter of a 32er.

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    39
    Air9 Carbon RDO is here. RIP9 Carbon RDO is next? :-)

  13. #38
    COTA member
    Reputation: Dry Side's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    920
    With Santa Cruz announcing Tallboy LT Carbon and Ibis Ripley on the way, can't be long before Niner has a carbon trail bike. Not my cup of tea, but there must be demand.

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    Just carbon up the wheels.

    Size XL weighs 26.91 lbs as pictured (triple old Shimano XT crank with Hollowtech BB, and Avid BB7's)....

    Silky smooth and fast.
    Wonderful photo. Got the same size and raw finish coming this week. How tall are you? I'm 6"4'.

  15. #40
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,952
    Quote Originally Posted by jesse111 View Post
    Wonderful photo. Got the same size and raw finish coming this week. How tall are you? I'm 6"4'.
    About 3/8th's of an inch shorter than you.

    I've got a pair of the "cheap" Chinese Carbon rims arriving this week which I will mate with some older American Classic disc hubs and Supercomps or equivalent spokes (the Rovals are on my JET).

    In the meantime, the bike is a blast with the 2.35 Nobby Nics...

    Nics

    The Nics will stay. A huge thumbs up on these "all-grounder" tires for the factor.

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9
    Thanks and I feel a bit more confident about my choice of size.

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    240
    Wow I was really lookin for a carbon 125mm-140mm rip9 or WFO from Niner. Looks like I may be looking at the Santa Cruz LTc..

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by motoguru2007 View Post
    Wow I was really lookin for a carbon 125mm-140mm rip9 or WFO from Niner. Looks like I may be looking at the Santa Cruz LTc..
    Me to! The yellow looks sporty! The frame has everything what is needed. The low weight is also appealing. Size M might be too big for me but i will try it for sure.

    I would like to know at least geometry of Ripley. I don't know if DW-link is worthy to wait...
    Last edited by pablo_goral; 04-05-2012 at 08:06 PM.

  19. #44
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,139

    Right on....

    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    There is a nice "sweet spot" of full suspension travel bikes in the 115-130mm area developing as a bike that could be dubbed the "do-all" or the "everything" XC/Trail 29"er fully - especially to target riders who choose to only own one bike.

    Arguments have been made where 100-110mm may not be quite enough travel, and getting over 130mm may be too much. So the developing sweet spot for front and rear is sort of in that 115mm - 130mm travel range where bikes are coming to market in the "do all" or "everything" category. I think the S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon 29"er that I pictured above meets most of that criteria. Light enough, and nimble enough to climb efficiently, but with enough squish to really make for a silky smooth fast XC/Trail bike. You could race it, do endurance on it, go for a daily ride on it, take it just about anywhere you could think of and be fine until you move into specialty disciplines that warrant perhaps a 2nd bike. I feel pretty much the same way with my RIP set up with a 120mm fork.

    I like the older 2009/2010 Rip frame for the HT angle that is slightly steeper than the new version. Coupled with a shorter A/C Fox fork (shorter than a RockShox that is) makes for quite a nice XC/Trail bike that really knifes through the turns. But that's what fits how and where I ride - not to mention, I find 120mm for a big tall guy like myself to be a proper amount of XC travel.

    Whether or not that adds or detracts to the discussion of what the RIP is - or what a carbon RIP would be remains open. I think it fits in the "everything" XC bike category quite well for 29"er fully suspension bikes. Whether it is aluminum or if it came out in carbon. If it did come out in carbon - yeah, I'd be cool with 130mm front and rear. I know I would love to demo one of those S-Works Stumpjumpers...

    BB
    BB is on target.

    In both 26" bikes and 29" bikes there are sweet spots for suspension. IMO for the "one-bike", "all-rounder" seems that 120mm of travel is about right for a 29er. It is just enough to handle rough stuff well without wallowing too much with out of the saddle pedaling. It's a bike you could xc race for fun, but also a bike you could slap on fat rubber and a dropper post and do heavy duty trail riding in comfort and let it rip.

    Travel and geometry go hand-in-hand, and the RIP has it pretty well dialed. Its not too slack up front. Remember, too slack up front and you require big, fat, grippy, slow rubber to stick the sharp turns - especially if you want to remain seated and pedaling while cornering hard.

    Travel beyond 120mm seems to be very affected by out of the saddle hammering. It also suffers from what I call the "hobby horse" effect - when steep climbing the front end extends and the rear sinks, effectively giving you the least ideal geometry for climbing.

    Travel much beyond 120mm requires you to ride a bike very differently from your typical hardtail or even XC FS bike. When all around trail riding many folks still like to use a xc style of riding - especially if you are a long time rider coming from hardtails or short travel xc bikes. Longer travel bikes require a different technique.

    After maybe a dozen rides on the RIP I do think it's probably the best "all-round" bike I've owned, though I've yet to put it through all my test trails. It takes up xc duties every bit as well as my shorter travel Lenz Lev 4.0 did, and with some finesse will probably handle the rough almost as well as my Stumpy with 130mm on both ends. The Lenz was not good in the rough even with a 110mm up front and the Stumpy is not a good xc bike.

    Considering what you pay for a RIP I'd take it, and with the cash saved go for some carbon rims with my next wheel build on my King hubs. Compare that to what you'd pay for a carbon frame alone. With that said I'd love to see a carbon RIP with 120mm on each end as long as they otherwise keep the geometry the same, except shortening the stays by a half inch if possible. Something I think a lot of riders are missing out on is trying a RIP a bit on the smaller side. Niner's effective TTs are long. I'm just a hair under 6' and went with a medium RIP with a 100mm stem. Perfect! The shorter TT makes for a shorter wheelbase overall and this bike is extremely maneuverable.

    Carbon is nice because it is light. XC riders are willing to pay big money for that because weight reduction is key to a good xc bike or trail bike. It becomes less important for AM riders, so why cater to that group with a 130mm RIP? At 130mm it no longer functions well as a xc bike or even an "all-rounder".

    I don't think there is a carbon frame with 120mm at both ends out there right now, and I think many riders might save up for that "one-bike" if it were available - especially if it came with an already proven geometry and suspension like the RIP. I probably would.

  20. #45
    COTA member
    Reputation: Dry Side's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    920
    ibis Ripley promises 120mm at both ends, but as you note it's not available today. Also has XC geometry (fortunately). May hit the sweet spot between Jet 9 RDO and SC TB LTc. I can't imagine that Niner does not have a 120mm/120mm carbon bike in the works.

  21. #46
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,139
    Since my last post above I've had the chance to bang through one of my more technical, fast, chunky trails on the RIP. Two thumbs up. Probably still the best "all-rounder" I've owned yet.

    Would like to see it in a 2 pound lighter carbon version with 1/2" short stays. Probably would be the best "one-bike" going.

  22. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: stgr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    124
    Will we see something at sea otter?

  23. #48
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by stgr View Post
    Will we see something at sea otter?
    I saw some pictures of this "sea otter" the other day and they had tents and girls and bikes and grass and other "stuff", so I'm sure you're bound to see "something".

  24. #49
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,139
    Any word on a carbon RIP? I'm digging the RIP I picked up this winter so much I'd start saving for a carbon version now.

    Given the CVA suspension's resitance to pedal induced bob, I think I'd like to see the rear travel bumped up just a bit. Hope the geo wouldn't get changed too much.

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    39
    Niner has been in front for some years, however with the release of
    several very nice long travel and light carbon bikes:

    SC LTc:
    Santa Cruz Tallboy LTc: Quick Test

    Scott Genius 900:
    Scott Introduces New 900, 700 Series Genius Models

    Cube CUBE Stereo Super HPC 140 29:
    Cube Releases New 2013 29"ers

    RIP9 and WFO are indeed very good bikes, however compared to those above
    they might be a little behind.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Niner Rigid Carbon Fork or White Bros. Rock Solid???
    By riunation in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-17-2010, 08:47 AM
  2. Cheap DJ bike for a tall guy
    By dba900 in forum Urban/DJ/Park
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 06:13 PM
  3. On One Carbon Fork vs Niner on a SIR9 - A Review
    By Thor29 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 07:39 PM
  4. Any 2008 Info?
    By Fooly_CoolyOo in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 03:48 PM

Posting Permissions

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