Ripmo AF Thread

PB Forum :: Ibis
Ripmo AF Thread
Author Message
Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 14:31 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
mammal,

Exactly! Put the money where it matters: tires, suspension, brakes, and contact points. A carbon frame doesn't make a person much faster or happier, but great traction, comfortable and controlled suspension, stop-on-a-dime brakes, and happy hands and butt all make a real difference.

You guys aren't making my decision any easier! haha. The thing with these ibis builds (which is awesome) is that many of those things are exactly the same up and down the range. The only thing is the breaks that would be compromised in any sense. Carbon frame is 2 lbs lighters... but then how much lighter is SLX compared to NX? omg some real 1st world problems here..

Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 14:32 Quote
The bigger question is how much the weight actually matters.

Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 15:03 Quote
kookseverywhere wrote:
R-M-R wrote:
mammal,

Exactly! Put the money where it matters: tires, suspension, brakes, and contact points. A carbon frame doesn't make a person much faster or happier, but great traction, comfortable and controlled suspension, stop-on-a-dime brakes, and happy hands and butt all make a real difference.

You guys aren't making my decision any easier! haha. The thing with these ibis builds (which is awesome) is that many of those things are exactly the same up and down the range. The only thing is the breaks that would be compromised in any sense. Carbon frame is 2 lbs lighters... but then how much lighter is SLX compared to NX? omg some real 1st world problems here..

2lbs on the frame is - for anyone not fighting for seconds - negligible. If anything, stiffness should be the top priority for going carbon.
As many others have pointed out, it's better to invest in contact points and if you want to save weight, go for unsprung/rotating mass because that's where a little goes a long way in making a bike feel lively. So wheels, tires, cassette.
However there is a trade off when dropping weight and that is reliability, at least if you have to watch your budget. The joy of losing a pound or two will quickly fade if you break things every other ride. Most bikes in this category are within a pound or two of each other and they're built sturdy because they have to take a beating.

fwiw i rode the Fox DPX2 and 36 Rhythm on my last bike and they performed very well indeed.

Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 15:03 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
The bigger question is how much the weight actually matters.

I would say 2lbs is a noticeable difference. As an ex-XC weight weenie I might notice a few extra pounds on a bike more than the next guy.

Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 18:30 Quote
I'm not saying it has I'm not saying it has zero effect, but I am saying it has zero point five (percent) effect! And only part of the time. Dropping mass on the frame also hurts the sprung:unsprung mass ratio.

Many people claim to notice the slightest weight difference, but the same people often don't notice the presence or absence of a water bottle. I've done blind testing with a few riders and none could reliably tell me if the bottle was full or empty.

Even if you're one of the few who could tell, the physics of the situation favour spending your money on almost anything other that reduced frame weight.

Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 19:49 Quote
Just got my cheap Amazon fish scale so here we go. Current weight: 35.9lbs

Mods from stock Large SLX Coil build

DHR2 Exo+ 2.4WT 3C rear tire
Plastic Zee cage
PNW Range bars
Truvativ Descendant 40mm stem
OneUp plastic pedals
WTB Volt chromoly saddle
OneUp chain guide/bash guard

Carbon bar should help a bit but I’ll be adding that weight back on with Huck Norris in the rear tire. Weight is what it is!


Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 19:49 Quote
Also that is a regular Exo casing Assegai up front, not Exo+

Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 21:08 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
As I always ask people who are considering carbon: What does the carbon frame actually do that the aluminum doesn't? We can't be sure there's any difference in stiffness and the difference in "vibration damping" is typically nonsense, so it's likely just weight. So, again, what does 1% in total weight do for you? It's about 0.5% more speed, only on the climbing portions of the ride.

There are usually options for spending your money that offer higher return on investment.

Where does the 1% weight come from? I am on v1 Ripmo full build at under 30lb. So that’s a nearly 20% lighter bike, which is quite noticeable. I agree weight isn’t everything but it does count for something.

Posted: Apr 9, 2020 at 21:25 Quote
Just a random thought regarding all the talks involving WEIGHT...

Does anyone else thing the whole weight thing is a little ironic as it seems to go full circle as the years pass? Back in the day when Camelbacks first came out it was all about getting weight off your bike and onto your body. The logic was you paid top dollar for a light bike, so why strap a bunch of crap onto it.

Now the past few years everything has reverted to strapping tubes, pumps and H2O bottles back to bikes. Which is kind of nice to not have it on your back, but equally amusing to load a couple pounds of stuff to a bike when you may be paying more money to specifically make it lighter.

I enjoy talking about all this and seeing others' bike builds and weights, as I'm sure many of you do as well. However, for the minority that seem truly concerned about weight, I think you're looking at the wrong bike if you want a light bike. The RAF is a pig no matter what kind of lipstick you put on it. It will never be a "light" bike. However, it seems pretty obvious it wasn't designed to win any weight contests and that it was meant to kick ass descending while also doing a pretty amazing job pedaling as well.

Posted: Apr 10, 2020 at 0:56 Quote
Branmuffin wrote:
Where does the 1% weight come from? I am on v1 Ripmo full build at under 30lb. So that’s a nearly 20% lighter bike, which is quite noticeable. I agree weight isn’t everything but it does count for something.

The 1% is total weight of bike plus rider. You have to lift all of it up the hill. It's not like a 50% lighter bike climbs 50% faster; if we could look at one component in isolation, then 100% lighter grips - i.e. no grips - would make you infinitely fast. You have to count all of it, so 2 lbs. is about 1% of total weight, and weight is not the only thing slowing you down, so a 1% total weight reduction isn't even 1% faster - not even on the climbs.

Sure, it counts for something, but not much. I'm not saying it "feels like" 1%, I'm saying the laws of physics dictate that a 1% weight reduction gives an upper limit of 1% for the maximum possible increase in speed, assuming the system is linear with respect to speed, which is a pretty good approximation. Factoring in air resistance, tire casing hysteresis, tire-ground slip rate, drivetrain friction, etc., weight is roughly half of what's holding you back in most pedaling situations.

2 lbs. is a significant difference between bikes, yet it amounts to almost nothing.


PNWbike wrote:
Does anyone else thing the whole weight thing is a little ironic as it seems to go full circle as the years pass? Back in the day when Camelbacks first came out it was all about getting weight off your bike and onto your body. The logic was you paid top dollar for a light bike, so why strap a bunch of crap onto it.

Now the past few years everything has reverted to strapping tubes, pumps and H2O bottles back to bikes. Which is kind of nice to not have it on your back, but equally amusing to load a couple pounds of stuff to a bike when you may be paying more money to specifically make it lighter.

I enjoy talking about all this and seeing others' bike builds and weights, as I'm sure many of you do as well. However, for the minority that seem truly concerned about weight, I think you're looking at the wrong bike if you want a light bike. The RAF is a pig no matter what kind of lipstick you put on it. It will never be a "light" bike. However, it seems pretty obvious it wasn't designed to win any weight contests and that it was meant to kick ass descending while also doing a pretty amazing job pedaling as well.

Weight is a wonderful marketing tool because it's easily quantified and, most importantly, it's tangible: a customer can pick up a cheap bike and a more expensive bike and immediately feel the difference. That doesn't tell you which bike rides better or makes you faster, but it provides a tangible justification for why one bike costs a truckload more money than another. It's especially useful when bikes are otherwise so similar. I ride a lot of road - even (partially) put myself through university as a road racer - and I'll be the first to say road bikes are damned near all the same. Take a particularly nice $2,000 road bike and put on some top-of-the-line tires and it's nearly indistinguishable from a $12,000 "superbike" while riding. The less expensive bike may weigh 50% more than the superbike, though, and the incredible feeling of picking up a 13 lb. bike is enough to convince some people.

As I said to Branmuffin, weight has to be lifted up a hill, whether on your back or on the bike. It's actually more efficient to put it on the bike because you don't have to support it with your body. Additional benefits are that your back is more efficient at shedding heat when it's not covered and your suspension works better when there's more mass on the frame to resist the motion of the bouncing wheels.

Posted: Apr 10, 2020 at 6:18 Quote
R-M-R wrote:

2 lbs. is a significant difference between bikes, yet it amounts to almost nothing.

This is a very good point. I'm looking for advice on going for the Jade X or the Topaz, I'm thinking that the 365g weight difference isn't that important (as a 200lb rider). This will be my first full suspension MTB having always ridden hardtails (including in a local DH race...) Most of my riding is steep technical climbs followed by steep technical descents. We have one trail with smooth berms & jumps but even that has a couple of rock gardens and rooty sections. This will be my one bike for everything (although I'll be keeping my 27.5+ hardtail for long flat pedalling days with the family). We have no real flow trails near me and no long downhills either (longest is about 3 minutes.)

I'm torn by the adjustability of the air shock Vs the ride advantages + ease of maintenance of the coil.

It seems that both are excellent in their own way and I really can't decide!!

Posted: Apr 10, 2020 at 7:43 Quote
My thought process - I’ll likely buy coil, as there will be more air socks in the buy/sell section than coil in that size.

Posted: Apr 10, 2020 at 8:40 Quote
Awesome thread. I am having a tough time deciding between this bike and the Kona Process 153. Both seem to have a following of people saying awesome things about them. Has anyone here tried both bikes or have opinions on this topic?\

Thanks in advance.

Posted: Apr 10, 2020 at 10:37 Quote
woody0609 wrote:
Awesome thread. I am having a tough time deciding between this bike and the Kona Process 153. Both seem to have a following of people saying awesome things about them. Has anyone here tried both bikes or have opinions on this topic?\

Thanks in advance.

Haha. I’m in the same boat. Add in the Meta 29 though. Hopefully someone has time on both the Process and AF.

Posted: Apr 10, 2020 at 12:48 Quote
Tomahawk66 wrote:
I'm thinking that the 365g weight difference isn't that important (as a 200lb rider).

It's about 0.3% of total weight. If we use the broad guideline of weight being 50% of what's slowing you down when pedaling, that's about 0.15% slower. If you spend 90 minutes per ride pedaling hard, that's about nine seconds per ride, excluding any advantage in descending speed or reduced fatigue from improved performance.


 
Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.006228
Mobile Version of Website