Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 361

Thread: $4K Trail Bike

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,893
    Quote Originally Posted by schuss View Post
    Here, just get a ripmo, they're in stock https://www.jensonusa.com/Ibis-Ripmo-AF-SLX-Bike-2022
    Thanks, just ordered an XL in white. Been lurking a bit here and decided to pounce. Thanks for the thread and discussion.

    FKNA.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Great Falls
    Posts
    84
    I just went through a pretty similar search. I was looking for an aggressive trail bike in the $4k range with an alloy frame. The Privateer 141 caught my eye, they're the DTC sister brand of Hunt Wheels. GX build with a Pike Ultimate and Float X performance elite clocked in at $4200.

    https://us.privateerbikes.com/collec...37597247013014

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Imaginationland
    Posts
    4,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    Thanks, just ordered an XL in white. Been lurking a bit here and decided to pounce. Thanks for the thread and discussion.

    FKNA.
    Nice

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Funland
    Posts
    1,570
    If they ever come back in stock...

    YT Jeffsy Core 2 29er.

    you'll appreciate the smoother rolling of a 29er more than the "jibby-ness" of a 27.5
    NX groupset is fine.
    150mm travel, 130 for riding and 20 for the roller that was a little steeper than your anticipiated.

    also, they're $3000.

    Only downside is having to bring a bike that can only be purchased online into to a bike shop to have them assemble it for you.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,156
    Foggy, I reckon you want to be clear on what you want to ride and then figure out what the right bike for that terrain is.

    These 150/160 rear travel bikes on page 3 (spectral/Jeffsy etc) are very different than the 130ish bikes you were talking about on page 1.

    YMMV but unless I was hitting the gnar alot I wouldn’t want to pedal a big bike all the time - I’d rather be a little underbiked occaisionally and enjoy the majority of my rides a lot more on a lighter more efficient shorter travel bike. The reviewers who say a 160 bike pedals well are like the guys who say a Cochise boot tours well

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,156

    $4K Trail Bike

    Quote Originally Posted by tBatt View Post
    Only downside is having to bring a bike that can only be purchased online into to a bike shop to have them assemble it for you.
    Seriously?
    A YT arrives 99% assembled. If putting on a handlebar, attaching a pre-adjusted derailleur and installing the wheels with the included tools is beyond your mechanical aptitude then yeah direct to consumer is not for you - hate to think what you do about trailside repair if you need a bike shop to do that.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by dcpnz View Post
    The reviewers who say a 160 bike pedals well are like the guys who say a Cochise boot tours well
    This is TGR. Everybody skis 118-waist skis that are 190+ long. Same holds for bikes. Longer travel is just more fun in the good stuff

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,161
    Ripmos are pretty sweet. A buddy has one. I picked up a used Evil Following MB a few years ago for less than $4K (XO). So - 140/150 vs 120/130.

    He had advantage on drops and rocky parts; I felt like I had advantage climbing, buffed ST, jumps, and berms. Following’s travel feels bigger than 120.

    All these choices depends where and how you ride.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    7,283
    Foggy, I reckon you want to be clear on what you want to ride and then figure out what the right bike for that terrain is
    That's a good reminder. I recon the shorter travel side of things is what would be best. I wouldn't consider the trails around Winter Park to be gnarly but what do I know? I also think of the Koko Loops, 18rd, and most of the lunch loops to be pretty chill. Even if it is pretty technical, I'll have more of a smooth old guy steeze than a sender.

    I mean a kid on the chair lift the other day asked me how long I'd been skiing, I said "I just go here" he said, "no, in your life!". So yeah, thats me.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by dcpnz View Post
    YMMV but unless I was hitting the gnar alot I wouldn’t want to pedal a big bike all the time - I’d rather be a little underbiked occaisionally and enjoy the majority of my rides a lot more on a lighter more efficient shorter travel bike. The reviewers who say a 160 bike pedals well are like the guys who say a Cochise boot tours well
    Meh. A spectral or a jeffsy is like a Zero G, which actually does tour pretty well. A Cochise is like a Capra - it can go up, but it's all about the down, and no one here is recommending that.

    The 120-130 mm travel bikes are more like the ~1000g touring boots. Some of them descend pretty damn good, but they're built with a lot of climbing in mind, and they'll never descend quite as well as their bigger counterparts. The reviewers who say those bikes descend just as well as the bigger bikes are the guys who say a 95mm ski is just as good on a pow day.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    14,901
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    The reviewers who say those bikes descend just as well as the bigger bikes are the guys
    .... who also say the bigger bikes climb as well as the shorter travel bikes. It's all relative these days.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    It's all relative these days.
    Indeed.

    At the end of the day, it's a pretty safe assumption that less travel = better climbing, and more travel = better descending. Any exceptions to that rule are pretty minor. It's all a trade off.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    18,797
    Thats a lotta bike for 4200.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NorCal coast
    Posts
    1,289
    I'd do the Ripmo AF SLX. Solid build, climbs very well, geometry that's enough to be very confident without excessively long/slack, and enough suspension that you can ride anything but not so much that it will feel super wallow-y on mellower trails.

    I seem to recall that reviews of the Privateers indicates that they have a huge amount of anti-squat and progression, making them very efficient (albeit very heavy), but that makes them a bit harsh over repeated hits. But their build kits do look solid too for the money.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Andeh View Post
    I'd do the Ripmo AF SLX. Solid build, climbs very well, geometry that's enough to be very confident without excessively long/slack, and enough suspension that you can ride anything but not so much that it will feel super wallow-y on mellower trails.
    Agreed. Good bang for the buck, and a nice middle ground kind of bike.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Montrose, CO
    Posts
    3,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Andeh View Post
    I'd do the Ripmo AF SLX. Solid build, climbs very well, geometry that's enough to be very confident without excessively long/slack, and enough suspension that you can ride anything but not so much that it will feel super wallow-y on mellower trails.

    I seem to recall that reviews of the Privateers indicates that they have a huge amount of anti-squat and progression, making them very efficient (albeit very heavy), but that makes them a bit harsh over repeated hits. But their build kits do look solid too for the money.
    Had there been availability when I picked up my trance x, I probably would have went this way. My buddy loves his.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Agreed. Good bang for the buck, and a nice middle ground kind of bike.
    Add me to the agree list. Love my Ripmo. 4 of us in my extended group are on ripmos, one on the AF. The AF rider is probably the most aggressive rider, he got his with a coil shock and has been shredding hard.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    28,439
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    The 120-130 mm travel bikes are more like the ~1000g touring boots. Some of them descend pretty damn good, but they're built with a lot of climbing in mind, and they'll never descend quite as well as their bigger counterparts. The reviewers who say those bikes descend just as well as the bigger bikes are the guys who say a 95mm ski is just as good on a pow day.
    I'm reading this thread with interest because I hope to buy a bike in the next 6-9 months, and I've decided that the 120-130 type is where I land. I also ski a 98 underfoot ski as my everything, including powder. And it slays, for me and how I ski. I had a significantly fatter ski, but every time I took it out I wished I had the other boards. It floated better, sure, but was heavier, harder to turn, and just not as fun for me. I finally sold it.

    That's not to say that there isn't a bigger ski that I would like more in powder. It's just to say that there's more to making a ski great in powder for a particular individual than width under foot. I imagine the same is true when talking about travel on a bike.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "I'd eat a bag of Dicks and wash it down with a Coke any day." - iceman

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    7,692
    The Ripmo seems like an awesome bike (I have a buddy that loves his), but it's probably not the right one for Foggy or Danno and the trails they usually ride. The Ripley seems like it would be much better suited. Appears Jenson has aluminum Ripleys in stock, though.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Danno View Post
    I'm reading this thread with interest because I hope to buy a bike in the next 6-9 months, and I've decided that the 120-130 type is where I land. I also ski a 98 underfoot ski as my everything, including powder. And it slays, for me and how I ski. I had a significantly fatter ski, but every time I took it out I wished I had the other boards. It floated better, sure, but was heavier, harder to turn, and just not as fun for me. I finally sold it.

    That's not to say that there isn't a bigger ski that I would like more in powder. It's just to say that there's more to making a ski great in powder for a particular individual than width under foot. I imagine the same is true when talking about travel on a bike.
    Sure - there are the guys that are perfectly happy skiing a 95mm ski in every condition. There are also the guys that ski a 118mm ski year round. It's all just personal preference.

    The point is more that the 95mm ski isn't built with powder as the primary objective, and the 118mm ski isn't built with trenching groomers as the primary objective. Which is the same as comparing bikes; most modern 120-130mm bikes are plenty fun on descents, but absolutely laying waste to a rough descent isn't their primary objective. And plenty of 170mm bikes climb just fine, but they're built with a focus on going really fast down really rough stuff, and climbing is a secondary consideration. Lots of people will prefer one or the other for various personal reasons, but that doesn't change the objective fact of the design intentions of the bike or ski.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    27,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Danno View Post
    I'm reading this thread with interest because I hope to buy a bike in the next 6-9 months, and I've decided that the 120-130 type is where I land. I also ski a 98 underfoot ski as my everything, including powder. And it slays, for me and how I ski. I had a significantly fatter ski, but every time I took it out I wished I had the other boards. It floated better, sure, but was heavier, harder to turn, and just not as fun for me. I finally sold it.

    That's not to say that there isn't a bigger ski that I would like more in powder. It's just to say that there's more to making a ski great in powder for a particular individual than width under foot. I imagine the same is true when talking about travel on a bike.
    kinda/ sorta ^^ IME

    the suspension on the Yeti 5.5 was so good I wasnt really using it to the nth degree where I ride so had often wondered if I could have gone with less bike/ carry less weight up cuz everything locally is up ?

    then I blew the ACL, while the ACL free riding experiance hurt a bit I could actulay still ride OK while I waited for a free ACL from the canuckian HC system but then post op the knee/ leg just wasn' t really strong enough so I thot about giving up

    instead I some how ended up with a Bullit which compared to the 5.5 is longer has more suspension/ more brakes/ more battery/ more engine ... more more, a lot more fun eh !

    I managed to get out on the lotus 120 last week and that ski still does it for me
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV-426
    Posts
    19,414
    I don't think the skis: bike travel analogy really works that well.

    I'm watching this thread too for ideas, as Mrs C needs an update to her original Ripley. The Ripley AF seems to me to be an excellent choice for her, but she's picky as hell (without being able to define what she likes on a bike or why) and I'm not going to drop $$$$ just to find out. So I need to find a medium for her to demo somewhere somehow.
    Quote Originally Posted by powder11 View Post
    if you have to resort to taking advice from the nitwits on this forum, then you're doomed.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    The Ripmo seems like an awesome bike (I have a buddy that loves his), but it's probably not the right one for Foggy or Danno and the trails they usually ride. The Ripley seems like it would be much better suited. Appears Jenson has aluminum Ripleys in stock, though.
    Can’t argue with that. Got one friend on a Ripley and it does climb a bit better. It doesn’t seem like he gives up much on a technical descent either.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    none
    Posts
    7,847
    I got a Ripmo AF with the coil and Spank wheels upgrades, from my LBS in June of 20. I really liked the bike, but my rear hub exploded in September. It took Pat over a month to get a new rear wheel from Spank.
    Jenson’s selling those bikes at list price. I’d look for a LBS that has them in stock.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,269
    Bike shops are selling Ibis at list also. Wife just bought a Hakka last week. No discount. Margins on bikes are gone.

Posting Permissions

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