Ripley AF? Could it happen?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    6

    Ripley AF? Could it happen?

    Do folks think Ibis would do a Ripley AF? Same sort of treatment as the Ripmo got, aluminum frame, tweaked suspension, slightly different geo, maybe add a 140 fork and piggy back shock.

    Personally, I would love this sort of bike so I am hoping Ibis is reading.

    Side Note: Id find it hilarious if Ibis did an aluminum Ripley frame that weighed in the same ball park as a TB4 C carbon frame.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FloImSchnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    75
    Yes, I think it is rather likely for a Ripley AF to be launched.

    However I wouldn't see any necessity for changes to geo etc.
    Simply, an affordable Ripley, to make it easier for non-dentists to buy it.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    130
    I think that could be a great bike . Always been confused by ibis's lineup, it's even more extreme now with ripmo v2.

    Dv9 - Basically pure Cross Country.
    Ripley - Short Travel, averagely progressive geo (at least compared to norco optic, TB4, etc)

    large gap

    Ripmov2/ripmo af - Quite progressive geo , long travel bikes.


    This was basically the reason I didn't get a ibis FS bike even though the (I have a Dv9). They don't have anything that is a really good one FS quiver bike for a person like me (semi aggressive, likes to ride stuff at bentonville and some other gnarly trips, but also lives in kansas... so sometimes stuff is flat lol).

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    563
    They did, it's called a Ripmo.. the Ripley looses its identity the heavier it gets.

    Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    155
    Would be cool to see, DVO do a Sapphire fork and don't they do an XC-style non-piggyback shock too? Would line up nicely alongside the Ripmo AF

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    417
    100% they should do it. Aluminum frames are probably easier to make and expand the market.

    But they should release a Mojo 4 first, and that in both carbon and aluminum.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    93
    I think it's likely after hearing Scot Nicol on this podcast https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/i...ot-nicol-ep-15. Didn't mention Ripley AF specifically, but def said positive things about additional aluminum models at some point.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    66
    Though an AF model goes against the nimble, lightweight Ethos of the Ripley, it would undoubtedly provide a lower entry pricepoint for many. Folks were clearly willing to give up a few lbs and ride a ~35# AF version of the Ripmo for a couple grand off, so i suppose the same could be said for the Ripley. Especially since the Ripley has garnered a cult like following as folks view it as a halo bike for anyone looking for the ultimate nimble, yet capable short travel bike. On the other hand. I think the reviews and praise of it might suffer though as it gains weight and falls into a weird in-between land of heavier, aggressive but not enough travel land like the new SC TallBoy 4. Riding the coattails only goes so far and folks seem to think the TB4 is the response to a question no one was asking.

    Personally i'd like to see an Ibis carbon hardtail with progressive geometry like the Ripley. The Kona Honzo has numbers like that but they want way too much for the frame. IF Ibis could make this at the same price point as the DV9, that'd be a clear winner.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    130
    Obviously it wouldn't be as light as a carbon bike, but if the frame design makes it lighter for carbon I would think it would still be lighter than other similiar bikes in aluminum.

    Your just changing variable $Carbon to variable $Aluminum, the rest of the bike could be very similar. Plenty of people would go to aluminum for -1000$ or whatever it would be.

    I would have considered it with my TB4 build, but the actual specced builds pretty much sucked (unlike the ripmo af), and if I was going to be building a 5-6k bike I'd rather buy the one I really want.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    180
    Wouldn't that be where a mojo (non-HD) fits in? Probably a 29er in this day and age...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    130
    Yeah I mean that could work. I think 130-140 27.5 travel is pretty much the same as 120-130 29er from what I understand. I know that's how alot of companies treat it at least.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    150
    I feel like a Ripley AF would just be a Ripmo. With improved pedaling efficiency (especially Ibis') and steeper seat tube angles, categorizing bikes by their travel is getting pretty antiquated. The "big bike penalty" of years past is shrinking.

    YMMV

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by NateMob View Post
    I feel like a Ripley AF would just be a Ripmo. With improved pedaling efficiency (especially Ibis') and steeper seat tube angles, categorizing bikes by their travel is getting pretty antiquated. The "big bike penalty" of years past is shrinking.

    YMMV
    Then why even make short travel bikes? By this logic shouldn't everything just be long travel?

    My understanding is it has an effect on bike handling as well.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelandk2 View Post
    Then why even make short travel bikes? By this logic shouldn't everything just be long travel?
    Dont be daft.

    But to answer you, weight is why. A shorter travel bike can utilize lighter weight components and a lighter, less heavy duty frame. By necessity, a longer travel bike frame has to be built beefier to avoid cracks, breaks, and nonstop warranty issues.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by NateMob View Post
    Dont be daft.

    But to answer you, weight is why. A shorter travel bike can utilize lighter weight components and a lighter, less heavy duty frame. By necessity, a longer travel bike frame has to be built beefier to avoid cracks, breaks, and nonstop warranty issues.

    I mean, I don't think I'm being daft. Not sure why your bringing me being daft or stupid into it instead of just having fun discussing nerdy bike stuff on a forum .

    Alchemy Arktos ST comes with a fox 36/piggy back and I dont think it has any differences other than travel/linkages and seems to be a well liked bike. Similar story for the TB4. I don't think weight is the entire story. Anyway idk, I'm not an engineer or something and don't get to demo lots of bikes so perhaps I don't understand. Whatever the reasoning, people sure seem to think bikes like the TB4/norco optic (both heavier short travel bikes), are extremely playful/maneuverable compared to their larger relatives.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelandk2 View Post
    I mean, I don't think I'm being daft. Not sure why your bringing me being daft or stupid into it instead of just having fun discussing nerdy bike stuff on a forum .

    Alchemy Arktos ST comes with a fox 36/piggy back and I dont think it has any differences other than travel/linkages and seems to be a well liked bike. Similar story for the TB4. I don't think weight is the entire story. Anyway idk, I'm not an engineer or something and don't get to demo lots of bikes so perhaps I don't understand. Whatever the reasoning, people sure seem to think bikes like the TB4/norco optic (both heavier short travel bikes), are extremely playful compared to their larger relatives.
    I wouldnt say stupid, but certainly silly!

    Yeah i get what you're saying though, the Santa Cruz lineup is kinda strange since the TB4,HT, and MT are all so similar in geometry. I've seen all the reviews for the new "fun" short travel bikes and they all seem to eventually get around to the fact that its easy to outride the bike's travel in relation to it's amount of travel. A 30+pound TB4 is a very different bike compared to a current model 26 pound Ripley with the same travel. And for me and a lot of people, I'd rather have a Hightower with more travel for the same weight as a TB4. But i definitely view climbing as a way to reach the tops of blistering descents and spend quite a bit of time visiting bike parks so my biases are well established.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by NateMob View Post
    I wouldnt say stupid, but certainly silly!

    Yeah i get what you're saying though, the Santa Cruz lineup is kinda strange since the TB4,HT, and MT are all so similar in geometry. I've seen all the reviews for the new "fun" short travel bikes and they all seem to eventually get around to the fact that its easy to outride the bike's travel in relation to it's amount of travel. A 30+pound TB4 is a very different bike compared to a current model 26 pound Ripley with the same travel. And for me and a lot of people, I'd rather have a Hightower with more travel for the same weight as a TB4. But i definitely view climbing as a way to reach the tops of blistering descents and spend quite a bit of time visiting bike parks so my biases are well established.
    First let me say that I'm basically a big theory crafter so forgive my limitations ... because I'm 29 have 2 kids and live in kansas lol, so I have much more time on the internet at work or whatever than I do actually riding a bike. With that said...


    If you go watch the vital mtb short travel group review for example. The one they picked specifcally for being playful/maneuverable and "everything a short travel bike should be" was the banshee phantom... which is aluminum and likely one of the heavier bikes in the test.

    My understanding is when you have more travel, you will have more of your energy "stolen" from your movements inherently, the obvious one is climbing but it is not just climbing.

    In some situations this is good, like when you need traction over rocks it absorbs a larger % because the engineers could afford to design it like that, but when your turning or jumping, or doing a manual or whatever this should present as an increase in input necessary to do the same thing, because you need to overcome that plushness to get the bike to react in the opposite direction. It's a more responsive platform.

  18. #18
    jrm
    jrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,581
    I think it would be something that would populate a niche that their current models cant. Like a M3 AF with 130mm of travel, new geo and the ability to run 27.5 or 29" wheels. 140mm DVO fork and shock..with a price point around that of the ripmo AF...ibis could blow a hole in that mid travel niche..

  19. #19
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,497
    No. Unless it's a different bike with a different intent.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11
    Perhaps the Ripley AF will just be a replica of the current frame without the internal routing and DVO suspension. Maybe a slight suspension kinematic change but unlike the Ripmo, I cant think of Ripley owners/buyers wanting to throw a coil shock on their bike because if they did theyd have a Ripmo. I doubt Ibis wants the Ripley to become less trail/XC and would probably want their Ripley to be more affordable.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,724
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelandk2 View Post
    First let me say that I'm basically a big theory crafter so forgive my limitations ... because I'm 29 have 2 kids and live in kansas lol, so I have much more time on the internet at work or whatever than I do actually riding a bike. With that said...


    If you go watch the vital mtb short travel group review for example. The one they picked specifcally for being playful/maneuverable and "everything a short travel bike should be" was the banshee phantom... which is aluminum and likely one of the heavier bikes in the test.

    My understanding is when you have more travel, you will have more of your energy "stolen" from your movements inherently, the obvious one is climbing but it is not just climbing.

    In some situations this is good, like when you need traction over rocks it absorbs a larger % because the engineers could afford to design it like that, but when your turning or jumping, or doing a manual or whatever this should present as an increase in input necessary to do the same thing, because you need to overcome that plushness to get the bike to react in the opposite direction. It's a more responsive platform.
    That Ripley will do pretty much anything you want it to. It's all up to the rider. One of the guys in our group, who is 59, has the V4 Ripley and rides nearly everything on that bike. He has a 170 travel YT with a coil for "big" days but based on how I've seen him haul a$$ on the Ripley on some double black stuff, I'm sure it will slay Bentonville and most stuff in Kansas.
    Carpe Diem!!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    52
    I think there would definitely be a Market for a Ripley AF. I currently ride a Ripmo AF, and even though I ride some steep rocky terrain, it still feels a little overkill for long pedally rides. I think a Ripley AF would satisfy a huge gap in the market, short/mid travel bike with aggressive geo for less than $3k from a super reputable brand? i'd be all over it, and i can't be alone. TB4 is an option, but the AL D has Shite components, and the AL R is $3500 with worse components than my ripmo AF...

Similar Threads

  1. Riding the Ripley V and Ripmo AF
    By trailbrain in forum Ibis
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-07-2020, 06:22 PM
  2. Stop trying to make 27.5 happen! It's NOT going to happen!
    By msrothwe in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-16-2017, 06:57 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-23-2014, 07:07 AM
  4. This is why you wear your pads, you never know what could happen
    By airmiller44 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 07:12 AM
  5. What could possible happen that 4 engineers could not handle?
    By CycleMainiac in forum Women's Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-30-2006, 10:47 AM

Members who have read this thread: 199

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.