Results 1 to 25 of 72
Thread: Ibis Mojo
11-14-2006, 04:34 PM #1
Should I get one next year?
My LBS guy and I were chatting - I've been looking to ditch my Santa Cruz Superlight for a while, but haven't taken the plunge. He suggested the Ibis Mojo. Said he built one up - an XL - will all XTR components and it weighed in at 24 pounds. 5 1/2 " of travel. That's 2 pounds lighter than my size medium Superlight. I'd be moving to a size small frame (since that's the whole reason I'm ready for a new bike next year - the medium's always been a bit big for me).
I know it's bank, but he suggested some less pricey components to build it up with that would keep the price a bit lower. Did a quick search, and it looks like the couple of reviews I can find are good.
Carbon fiber frame. To me that seems crazy, but he said they've taken a sledge hammer to the thing and all it does is chip the paint. CRAZY!
Thoughts?“Within this furnace of fear, my passion for life burns fiercely. I have consumed all evil. I have overcome my doubt. I am the fire.”
11-14-2006, 04:38 PM #2
You'll be paying a lot more money for something that's only marginally lighter and significantly less durable.
Your tumble down 2nd divide would render that frame useless. You can dent aluminum and it still works. Score carbon fiber and you get cracks.STRAVA: Enabling dorks everywhere to get trails shut down........ all for the sake of a race on the internet.
11-14-2006, 05:41 PM #3
BUT... Carbon fails in a nice way, aluminum has the fatigue life of a snowball in hell. I have a Superlight now that I love, but Ibis has always had that je ne sais pas... I'd love to own a Ibis or a Moots someday. How do you have your SL specced? I think my medium is close to 25 lbs...Kansas - First Of The Rectangle States
My first MMA fight: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rJENfvmToD8
11-14-2006, 05:48 PM #4
That mojo is a sweet looking bike, its a dw link (think iron horse) so the ride will be good, but like kidwoo said...durability is def. a factor. Full carbon mtn bike frames scare me.
And Theodore, theres nothing nice about a blinging carbon frame failing."It's too bad that a lot of people have never experienced the feeling of rollerblading in the cool air of a summer evening"
11-14-2006, 06:10 PM #5
But yes, I admit those frames look badass and probably ride great. Unfortunately I sometimes crash. I like to be able to ride afterwards without my bike turning into splinters.
("je ne sais quois" btw )STRAVA: Enabling dorks everywhere to get trails shut down........ all for the sake of a race on the internet.
11-14-2006, 06:31 PM #6
keep your SL and buy bling bling wheels. will make it lighter and ride WAY lighter
stans rims, with white ind hub is durable/light
or AM classic
11-14-2006, 06:33 PM #7
If designed and built correctly, carbon might well be stronger and have a long fatigue life. But chip/gouge it, and it's too dangerous to use, IMHO.
11-15-2006, 08:47 AM #8“Within this furnace of fear, my passion for life burns fiercely. I have consumed all evil. I have overcome my doubt. I am the fire.”
11-15-2006, 08:58 AM #9
For me, carbon has no place on a mountain bike unless you're racing.
Go with something a little more durable.
Ive ridden on TWO cracked aluminum frames without realizing it and been fine after I figured out it was a crack. ie, I had plenty of time to figure that out.
Whoever said carbon has a much higher fatigue life than aluminum, which has a basically non-existent, fatigue life\endurance limit is correct. But the fact of the matter is, that aluminum bikes, especially at weld joints, to produce an easily manufacturable weld, is so beefy that its really damned strong.
Carbon on the other hand, isnt very tolerant to cracks or chips, especially when we're talking about unidirectional reinforcement.
For reference, whenever you get a major dent or put a hole in aluminum, you multiply the streeses the tube sees by 3 to get a rough value of whats going on. In unidirectional anisotropic compsites (any), this stress concentration factor is now 9. Even if the top layer of carbon is a 0/90 ply, and it gets nicked, the stress concentration within that lamina is somewhere around 5 IIRC. sorry for the uberdork enginerd speak.
11-15-2006, 09:06 AM #10
Last edited by kidwoo; 11-15-2006 at 09:11 AM.STRAVA: Enabling dorks everywhere to get trails shut down........ all for the sake of a race on the internet.
11-15-2006, 09:07 AM #11
besides the whole carbon factor (completely agree with Kidwoo here), i'd be apprehensive buying a bike from a recently resurrected company with unknown staying power. I don't know what their balance sheet looks like, but Ibis just came back from the dead and they are going to have to sell a heck of a lot of bikes to keep the company going long-term.
For that price, I'd be more comfortable with an established company that can provide excellent customer service over the long-haul.
but how fun to be buying a new bike!Let me lock in the system at Warp 2
Push it on into systematic overdrive
You know what to do
11-15-2006, 09:19 AM #12
IIRC = if I remember\recall correctly
11-15-2006, 04:32 PM #13Prrrrrrr....
11-15-2006, 04:54 PM #14
stik with the SL.
If you really want to go carbon I would go for a Scott. Stupidly light and amazingly strong. They are also a lot more established. You can gt a full carbon FS rig or a carbon/AL version.
But i would still stick with the SL. Or get the new one that is a bit lighter without the CNC plates.Recently overheard: "Hey Ralph, what were you drinking that time that you set your face on fire?"
11-15-2006, 05:07 PM #15
GT was on the right track a while ago with the thermoplastic. If you have to own CF, get a Kestrel. Carbon fiber is still way sketchy, but they seem to be the only ones who have consistently managed to get it right most of the time.
As much as I love Ibis, I still wouldn't even take a carbon one for a spin in the parking lot.
11-15-2006, 05:22 PM #16
I have had a few Carbon NRS's for three years now...no problems, nasty crashes, the thing is actually holding up better than a lot of the aluminum ones. Granted, it is a pure XC machine, no huck-monkeying over Three feet or so. I have been impressed, and personally would ride a carbon Ibis in a heartbeat. I just wouldn't keep it for more than a few seasons...
11-15-2006, 05:44 PM #17
i can attest to scott carbon...they are masters at it.
carbon is a LOT stronger than most of you are giving it credit for. i've crushed a couple parts/bikes in a vice in the past couple months; the strength is insane. i've also seen some carbon bikes scratched and gouged to shit, but still going strong. companies that have a couple years in carbon have overcome the horrendous catastrophic failures with different weaves. i'm not advocating carbon use in all applications, but for most it IS the future.Live To Ski!
11-15-2006, 06:39 PM #18
There are starting to be a lot of Carbon Ransom's in pieces...dunno what that means, but it's happening.
11-15-2006, 07:25 PM #19Who Dares Wins
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Wasatch Front
Hey WSD, why do you want to move on from SL anyway? That's a pretty nice bike - although I guess maybe it might not fit your style of riding?
11-16-2006, 08:11 AM #20Not a skibum
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
Not that I'm any expert of CF, but I'd shy away from it...
I was just reading about this over at MTBR: Scott Ransom 20 frame fails 3 times
11-16-2006, 10:06 AM #21i'm not advocating carbon use in all applications
.Live To Ski!
11-16-2006, 12:51 PM #22Ein Berg ohne Absturzgefahr ist nur noch Attrappe. (Reinhold Messner)
11-16-2006, 04:21 PM #23
11-16-2006, 04:35 PM #24
Little help for the Spanish impaired here, please?
11-16-2006, 04:51 PM #25
translation: karbun fiber sux
By Squatch in forum Gear Swap (List View)Replies: 4Last Post: 10-08-2006, 11:15 PM
By bossass in forum Gear Swap (List View)Replies: 13Last Post: 01-25-2006, 08:41 PM
By Toby in forum Tech TalkReplies: 23Last Post: 01-20-2006, 06:16 AM
By snwbdrhoon in forum Gear Swap (List View)Replies: 3Last Post: 11-12-2005, 12:32 PM
By Salto in forum Gear Swap (List View)Replies: 2Last Post: 11-04-2005, 06:39 PM