Ripmo vs. Jeffsy?

PB Forum :: Ibis
Ripmo vs. Jeffsy?
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Message
Posted: Jul 31, 2019 at 8:35 Quote
Any Ripmo owners have experience on the YT Jeffsy? I am currently on a 2018 Jeffsy and very interested in the Ripmo.
Mostly curious how it compares in climbing ability, geo is fairly similar to the 2019 Jeffsy also. I am going to demo a Ripmo in the next couple weeks but would like to hear any input if it’s out there.

Thanks

Posted: Sep 19, 2019 at 15:41 Quote
Did you get some feedback?

Posted: Sep 19, 2019 at 16:19 Quote
davidholliday wrote:
Did you get some feedback?

Nope, haven’t found any comparisons or rider experience. Hopefully will get a Ripmo out for a demo soon but now the Ripmo AF has made this decision a little harder.

Posted: Sep 22, 2019 at 20:17 Quote
Got out on a demo today on a GX build of the Ripmo. Currently ride a YT Jeffsy AL in XL and demo’d a Ripmo in XL. I am 6 foot 2, 170lb.

I did weigh the bikes and the Ripmo came in at 29.2lb and Jeffsy at 32.

Took it on a fairly mild 10 mile loop that I ride a few times a week to get a good comparison to my 2018 Jeffsy.

One thing to note is the gearing on the Ripmo was a 50t cog in the rear w/ 32t chainring, which is lower gearing than my Jeffsy that runs Shimano 51t cog and I run a 30t up front as trails here are very steep, and long long climbs.

Anyways, the Ripmo climbs fantastic. I would say it’s clearly a more efficient climber than my Jeffsy. With the shock open, there was little to no bob or loss of power while climbing. Even when I would smash on the pedals to get up a short punchy climb, the bike accelerated at an alarmingly high rate and felt very stable. Jeffsy is a great climber but I typically opt for the climb switch as it will take more input from the pedals on hard pedaling but overall a great climber also.
The Ripmo also seemed to hold traction in lose steep climbs better, seated climbing position felt much more comfortable and seemed to distribute weight more appropriately whereas on my Jeffsy I usually have to intentionally shift my weight forward on the same climbs.

Wheelbase on the Ripmo is a couple inches longer than my Jeffsy, honestly never noticed it except for when I loaded up the bike rack and had to move the wheel latch. Bike did not feel large or long in any way.
Top tube is about an inch shorter than the Jeffsy, and honestly felt more appropriate. I catch myself on the Jeffsy lazily leaning on the bars as the reach seems a bit much on long climbs but the Ripmo has a better seated geo in my opinion.
Once you point the front end down, you realize what this bike is really made for. There’s only 20mm more travel on the front of this bike over the Jeffsy but it feels like much more. I found myself picking more difficult lines and the bike never blinked. I wouldn’t give the Ripmo a huge edge descending over the Jeffsy, it clearly has more “plowability” with the extra front travel and was a little more stable at high speeds but honestly felt very similar.

Overall the Ripmo is a rad bike, does everything well and is just gorgeously built. It was not head and shoulder better in any department but the linkage design does seem better and if you can get 20mm more front end travel with similar climbing ability, why wouldn’t you?

I missed my PR on a continuous 35 minute climb by only 15 seconds on the Ripmo. I was struggling pretty hard on some over the very steep and extended sections. Had the bike been geared the same as the Jeffsy I believe I would have beat my PR for the climb fairly substantially.
I didn’t go all out on the descent as I was worried about not being 100% comfortable on the bike. That being said I still beat a PR through a 40 second, shelfy rock garden and missed the overall PR on the 4 minute descent by 5 seconds, so not bad for the first ride.

Now I need to decide wether to pick up a Ripmo or Ripmo AF.

Posted: Sep 22, 2019 at 20:20 Quote
I have the same Jeffsy and i upgraded the rear shock to a dpx2 and i never lock it out anymore. Doesnt bob at all.

Posted: Sep 22, 2019 at 20:36 Quote
asmtb wrote:
I have the same Jeffsy and i upgraded the rear shock to a dpx2 and i never lock it out anymore. Doesnt bob at all.

Yeah I’ve had the Dps elite, X2 and currently have a Topaz, they are great. The bob is minimal but the pedal platform just feels slightly more stable on the Ripmo.

Edit: Actually after taking my Jeffsy out last night I will revise that DWlink on the Ripmo is significantly more stable of a climbing platform wide open compared to the Horst on the Jeffsy.

Posted: Nov 8, 2019 at 5:54 Quote
Branmuffin wrote:
asmtb wrote:
I have the same Jeffsy and i upgraded the rear shock to a dpx2 and i never lock it out anymore. Doesnt bob at all.

Yeah I’ve had the Dps elite, X2 and currently have a Topaz, they are great. The bob is minimal but the pedal platform just feels slightly more stable on the Ripmo.

Edit: Actually after taking my Jeffsy out last night I will revise that DWlink on the Ripmo is significantly more stable of a climbing platform wide open compared to the Horst on the Jeffsy.

Great comparison above! I've been looking for something like this. I just got back into riding Sept '18 and also riding a 2018 Jeffsy 27.5 AL. I'm 52, broke the shit out of my leg in 2005 on a mtn bike. Anyway, I didn't demo anything, I just bought the Jeffsy on geo and price. I've also swapped the fork to an MRP Ribbon coil and Super Deluxe rear. I really don't have an complaints about the bike, but definitely wondering what I may be missing. I've thrown a leg over a few bikes in the parking lot on rides, that were either medium or XL with weird bar setups and shock pressures (I ride risers) so hard to tell much other than immediately feeling the stiffness and precision of the drivetrain and acceleration of the carbon Instinct and Slayers I've ridden. So after more than a year and a LOT of miles on the Jeffsy (2 trips to Sedona, Bentonville EPIC 30, etc.) I'm 100% addicted to riding again...and pedaling doesn't suck anymore on these bikes! I've kind of got into the mode of knocking down miles, but still having fun on downhills and sessioning techy climbs and stuff, but do to what at the time was a life changing severe injury, I'll probably never drop more than 2' or send any big airs. Definitely not interested in a full XC bike by any means, I ride flats and always will. Soooo...I too have been curious about bikes like the Ripley, Ripmo, Tallboy, etc. Something that would give me a leg up on climbs and not sacrifice much coming down. I'll probably build my next bike honestly, vs. upgrading half the components on a stock build.

Any chance you've been on a Ripley or Hightower?

Posted: Nov 8, 2019 at 7:26 Quote
But you can lock out the dpx2 and the rhythm fork so it feels like a rigid bike.

Posted: Nov 8, 2019 at 12:51 Quote
asmtb wrote:
But you can lock out the dpx2 and the rhythm fork so it feels like a rigid bike.

Not really understanding the argument here. I think the consensus between us is the Ripmo dwlink configuration on this bike feels like it’s locked out while climbing but opens up on bumps or descents and is extremely plush. It honestly seems logic breaking in my mind how good of a pedal platform it is.
Yes, you can lock out most any shock, but if you don’t need to worry about it all the better. This also translates to better pedal efficiency during descents or if you are an enduro racer it would be even more valuable I would assume.

I use to have the 34 rhythm and quickly learned a front lockout is mostly worthless and just a recipe to stick your gut into your stem when you forget it’s locked out.

Posted: Nov 8, 2019 at 13:20 Quote
Branmuffin wrote:
[ ... ] DWlink on the Ripmo is significantly more stable of a climbing platform wide open compared to the Horst on the Jeffsy.

Your observation of climbing feel is correct, but it is not due to dw vs Horst.

The Ripmo is configured to have nearly double the anti-squat of the Jeffsy. A Horst can be firmer than a twin-short-link: compare an Orbea Rallon to a Giant Reign, for example (dw is just a specific configuration of twin-short-link and not all dw bikes have the same configuration).

It's like saying vehicles with diesel engines are faster than gasoline engines because the Audi SQ5 diesel is faster than the SQ5 gas. The observation of 0 - 100 km/h time is correct, but that's not because one is a diesel and one is a gas engine, it's because of how the company and the designer chose to configure them.


Branmuffin wrote:
It honestly seems logic breaking in my mind how good of a pedal platform it is.

It's not "logic breaking". It's not even surprising.

• Your Jeffsy has among the lowest anti-squat values among modern trail bikes. The Ripmo has among the highest.
• Your Jeffsy has a slack seat-tube angle. The Ripmo has a moderately steep seat-tube angle.
• Your Jeffsy has a highly progressive leverage curve. The Ripmo is nearly linear. This means an ideal set-up for each will have a lot less sag on the Ripmo, which exaggerates the prior two differences.

You're comparing one of the least impressive climbers on the market (outgoing Jeffsy) to one of the best (Ripmo), and it's due to the configuration of the geometry and the kinematics, not some can't-be-explained-by-the-numbers properties of the different suspension systems.

Posted: Nov 8, 2019 at 14:04 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
You're comparing one of the least impressive climbers on the market (outgoing Jeffsy) to one of the best (Ripmo), and it's due to the configuration of the geometry and the kinematics, not some can't-be-explained-by-the-numbers properties of the different suspension systems.

I fully get it’s not 100% the linkage as many dwlinks bikes do not carry the same characteristics. Simply implying it is logic breaking to my hamster brain. But I do appreciate you knowledge bombs, always good stuff in there.

I would also think that the Ripmo being very linear would decrease its climbing prowess, is that incorrect thinking or is it just that the mucho anti squat numbers overpower that initial stroke?

Posted: Nov 8, 2019 at 14:32 Quote
Dave Weagle maintains tight control of the kinematic design process when using his licensed designs. The client tells him the way they want the kinematics to feel and he gives them the pivot locations. If client were to request a bike that's super plush and has minimal pedal kickback, with little concern for firm climbing, then the bike would feel quite different from a Ripmo, despite both being under dw license.

Super firm climbing is part of the Ibis brand identity and Ibis clients are on the "XC nerd" end of the spectrum for any given bike category (I mean that affectionately!), so they expect a certain ride feel, which Ibis and Weagle deliver to perfection.

An explanation of why bikes with less progressive motion ratios are better climbers, all else being equal:

For almost all bikes, pedaling anti-squat starts high at zero droop (topped out) and decreases toward bottom-out. This is as it should be, since you want to minimize pedal kickback when the rider is no longer pedaling (i.e. deep in the travel) and less anti-squat is usually needed as spring support increases (deep in the travel). To be more specific, the shape of the anti-squat curve should approximate the inverse of the wheel rate curve, then drop as rapidly as possible after the rider can be expected to not be pedaling. Weagle does an excellent job of this - best on the market.

Therefore, for a given anti-squat curve, keeping the bike high in the travel means the instantaneous anti-squat is higher.

Let's look at why some bikes stay higher in their travel:

First, assume you want to use full travel. Bottom-out events will be gentle(ish) and not too frequent. If the motion ratio is super progressive, you can't start out too firm or you'll never be able to generate enough load to bottom out, so super progressive bikes need to start quite soft. This means lots of sag. Conversely, if a linear bike starts out soft, you'll bottom out too easily (assuming the same damper set-up on each bike).

Therefore, a linear motion ratio curve needs a firmer spring rate, which produces less sag. Even more so for a falling motion ratio curve, but that's uncommon.

The reduced sag keeps the bike's linkage in the region of higher anti-squat. It also keeps the seat-tube angle from getting as slack when your weight shifts rearward during climbing, which is a huge factor in climbing efficiency.

That's not to say a linear - or even falling - motion ratio is best. It may be best for climbing, but overall performance is a complex balance of variables that also varies for every rider and every riding locale. I prefer a significantly rising motion ratio, but that's a separate discussion with much broader scope.

Previous Page | Next Page

 
Your subscriptions
no posts

Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.008061
Mobile Version of Website