Ibis Mojo 3 - Review

Feb 22, 2016
by Mike Levy  




The new 130mm travel Mojo 3 is the latest trail bike from Ibis, and it's their first model that's designed with 27.5+ tires in mind. Riders aren't locked into high-volume rubber, though, with the company saying that the bike's 2.8" wide kicks are just 0.15” taller than a 2.3'' tire, meaning that you could run either size without upsetting its geometry. The 27 pound bike employs the latest iteration of Dave Weagle's dw-link suspension design, and Ibis says that the Boost rear end allows it to feature a short, 425mm chainstay length but without sacrificing the ability to run two chain rings and a front derailleur.
Mojo 3 X01 Werx Details

• Intended use: trail
• Rear wheel travel: 130mm
• Fork travel: 140mm
• Wheel size: 27.5''
• Compatible with 2.8" wide 27.5+ tires
• Compatible w/ single or double chain rings
• Updated dw-link suspension
• Boost 148mm hub spacing
• Frame weight: 5.5lb w/ shock
• Weight: 27.05 lb
• Frame only MSRP: $2,999 USD
• MSRP as shown: $7,599 USD

The high-end X01 Werx test bike reviewed below retails for $7,599 USD, but Ibis will offer a range of complete bikes that start with the $3,999 USD Mojo 3 with their Special Blend build kit, as well as a frame-only option at $2,999 USD.


Frame Details

With its familiar lines, anyone acquainted with Ibis is going to recognize that the Mojo 3 is part of the family from a mile away, and you'd also be forgiven for assuming that it's a heavier hitting HD3 at first glance. But while the angles are in the same ballpark despite the twenty-plus millimeter difference in travel between the two, the 5.5 pound Mojo 3 frame is an entirely new creation that's shorter on travel and about half pound lighter on the scale. And just like the HD3, the bike sports cable entry and exit ports that can be opened up to make maintenance easier (although it doesn't feature full-length internal guides), as well as room for a large-sized water bottle inside of the front triangle. No mandatory backpack required when on the Mojo 3, thankfully.
Geometry

The bottom bracket shell is threaded to make things easier when it's time to give the bike some TLC, and splines on its outer face allow an ISCG 05 chain guide to be installed if need be, while a bolt-on guard protects both the underside of the down tube and the rear brake line that's routed beneath it. The rear derailleur and dropper post lines dip inside the frame through ports that are just behind the head tube.


Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore
The very HD3-esque shock yoke, along with dimples on the swingarm, create a ton of tire clearance for 2.8'' wide rubber.
Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore
Cable entry and exit points can be opened with a 3mm hex key.


Yes, it features a Boost rear end without any choice of running a standard, 142mm spaced axle, an option Ibis offers with their shorter travel Ripley. I suspect that your flaming arrows are lit and your catapults are loaded, but let me give you two numbers before you attack: 425mm and 2.8". The first number is how long the Mojo 3's chainstays are, which is pretty damn short, and the second number is the width of the bike's Schwalbe Nobby Nic tires, which easily clear the swingarm. Look past the two different units of measurement, and you'll realize that Ibis has given the Mojo 3 an impressively stubby chainstay length, one that's more in line with what we used to see from bikes with 26'' wheels, let alone 27.5'' wheels with 2.8'' wide tires. And, as much as Boost has been shit on by us and everyone else, it also allows Mojo 3 owners to go with two chain rings and a front derailleur if they'd prefer.


Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore
  The bike's 130mm of rear wheel travel comes via a dw-link design, and Boost hub spacing allows for a 425mm chainstay length with 2.8'' wide tires and front derailleur compatibility.


The Mojo 3 is pictured here with 2.8'' wide tires from Schwalbe, and that's also the configuration that I spent most of my time on, but Ibis' Scot Nicol does stress that the new bike is far from being a plus-only machine. ''We’ve found that the [width] numbers printed on tire sidewalls mean very little when it comes to their height,'' Nicol explained after experimenting with just how much of a difference there is in diameter between plus and standard 27.5'' tires. ''The Schwalbe and Maxxis 2.8s are only 0.15” taller in section height than a 2.3'' tire, whereas 3.0'' tires are 0.4” taller.

''That means with the 2.8s you get the added traction but without bounce and vagueness in corners. They also allow for those short 425mm chainstays which would not be possible if we tried to fit tires bigger than 2.8 inches.''

In other words, Nicol is saying that the minimal, 0.15'' difference in tire height between a 2.8'' tire and a 2.3'' tire means that the bike should ride well when rolling on either. Making the Mojo 3 compatible with 29" wheels is another story, however, as you can read below.
Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore
After a lot of testing, Ibis' Scot Nicol and his team found that 2.8'' wide tires make a lot more sense than anything larger.




3 Questions With Ibis' Scot Nicol


Mike Levy: The 130mm travel bracket is a bit ambiguous and could be considered not ideal for any specific use but ideal for many, many riders. So what type of rider is the Mojo 3 made for?

Scot Nicol: I think you hit the nail on the head: ideal for many, many riders. Not everyone needs the full capabilities of a bike like the HD3. Yes, our EWS team works the HD3 to the limit. Most people, however, don't. The 130mm travel bracket is the best selling of all the trail bike brackets, though, so this is an appealing segment. It's the best bike for the most people.

I look at this bike as it being a rule breaker. Mine is just under 26lbs ready to ride, with 2.8'' tires. It's playful yet capable. Our Strava-enabled testers have been matching their HD3 times on this bike going downhill and beating them on the climbs. Switch from 2.3'' to 2.8'' tires depending on terrain, with no compromises.


Levy: The Mojo 3 is roomier than past models, but Ibis hasn't embraced the super-long geo as fully as some other brands have. Why is that?

Nicol: We're constantly making our bikes longer up front and shorter in the rear (thank you, Boost), but we're not compelled to push the outer limits of reach. A super long reach is an advantage on the super steeps, but a disadvantage nearly everywhere else.

It's hard to get enough weight on the front wheel. Not everybody wants to ride that aggressively all the time, so we try to strike a balance.
Ibis Bicycles
Ibis' Scot Nicol


Levy: What is the reasoning for not making the Mojo 3 29er-compatible by way of a small "flip chip" or geometry adjustment that would compensate for the change in overall wheel diameter? It seems like it would open the bike up to more consumers, wouldn't it?

Nicol: We were looking at making the Ripley both a 29er and 27.5+ bike because plus tires were supposed to be about the same size as 29er tires. That's not what actually happened when we got out our giant calipers and started measuring the tires that we were sent. We found that all of the tires measured smaller than what the tire companies said they would. And when we rode a bunch of the plus tires, all the ones we liked were the shorter ones. Another thing that's not talked about much is that tires have their own sag, which is a real number at our preferred 15 - 18 psi pressures. When you measure the static bottom bracket height, it's slightly higher with the 2.8'' plus tires. When you measure bottom bracket height with your weight on the bike, it's the same as with 2.3" wide 27.5 tires.

When we realized this real-world scenario, we decided not to convert the Ripley and looked at the Mojo 3 frame instead. It works really well with "regular" 27.5 tires, which means you can choose different tire sizes with the same wheelset and no frame or fork modifications. Note that the 2.8'' tires are an inch shorter than the 29er tires. In order to fit 29er tires, the chainstays would have to get longer. So the bottom line is that it's a better 27.5+ bike because it's not also a 29er.

We also think that while it sounds nice, in actuality not many people are going purchase two wheel and fork setups. If you had the wheels and fork lying around, that would be one thing. Since the modern bikes are switching to Boost now, most people are not likely to have a spare Boost anything lying around.


Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore
  Schwalbe's 2.8'' wide Nobby Nic on the left, and a standard 2.3'' wide tire on the right.





Specifications
Specifications
Release Date 2016
Price $3999

Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore








Climbing

It doesn't make any sense to keep shouting about how a plus bike is basically the offspring of a mountain goat and an American Ninja Warrior winner. We get it, they offer a ton more climbing traction than a standard bike and its now anorexic-looking 2.3" wide tires. Yeah, you're going to get up things you might not have cleaned in the past. And yeah, they make a lot of stuff easier. The bar has been shifted, so the only fitting thing to do is judge them against each other, mano a mano. So let's do exactly that. I spent a bunch of time on Specialized's 6Fattie not too long ago, and now I've put in a ton of miles on Ibis' new Mojo 3, two bikes of similar travel (135mm for the Specialized, 130mm for the Ibis) and intentions, but that each go about things in a different manner.

Much like the 6Fattie, the Mojo 3 handles like a regular mountain bike - there's no awkwardness or strange gyroscopic effect like you'll find on a true fat bike - and the red Ibis scoots up complex and challenging climbs so well that you'll be forgiven for thinking that you're better than you actually are. And while the 6Fattie supplied plenty of traction, the bike's steering often felt a bit too slow to make the most of its abilities. The Mojo 3, despite sporting basically the same head angle (66.8-degrees vs. 67-degrees on the Specialized), is an easier bike to live with when the grades are steep and the speeds are low. Why? The Mojo's rear end is 12mm shorter (425 vs. 437), the wheelbase is tighter by 21mm (1158 vs. 1179mm), and its trail number is 106mm compared to the 6Fattie's 96.5mm.


Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore
  If you're going to earn your elevation, it helps if the climbs look like this.


A single, twenty-foot section of hellishly tricky trail sums up all those numbers, as well as how they compare to a standard machine. I usually do clean it on the latter, unless it's wet, in which case I'm probably batting .500. On the 6Fattie, however, I could do no wrong when it came to traction, with the only issue being that it took some serious steering input to keep the front wheel down below a trouble-making rock that may as well be a stop sign. The bike tractored through, but I wouldn't call it easy. The Ibis wanted to stay below that pesky rock so bad that I didn't have to tell it to, and it is more obliging if you take joy in testing yourself on technical climbs - there are still a few of us out there.

A big reason for all of the above compliments is the on-point steering, but also the bike's Nobby Nic tires that are grabbier than a prom date when the lights dim and the slow music comes on. At 2.8'' wide and at their best when around 16 psi, the traction is to be expected, but their taller knobs and open design means that they aren't prone to floating across the top of muck like some other plus tires I've ridden. They don't roll as quick as the Purgatory Control and Ground Control tires on the 6Fattie, but they're more predictable in the slop, which is a trade-off that I'll take everyday. And speaking of speed, the bike's latest dw-link suspension means that the Mojo 3 feels as sporty as a 130mm bike should, even with the big 2.8" wide meat, and I'd be surprised if anyone finds the need to reach for the Fox shock's pedal-assist lever. I never did.




Descending

I've spent countless hours on nearly all of Ibis' mountain bikes, from the older Mojos to the new HD3, and from that first generation Ripley to the latest LS version, and I'd make a case that all of them feel sportier, livelier, and quicker handling than most other bikes of similar travel. That's not always ideal, and no, they don't sport the most progressive geometry, but that is also what can make them such great bikes for so many riders - they're useable, and they allow riders to get the most out of the trail. Ibis designed the Mojo 3 in the same vein, and it's why it is exactly not what you'd expect a plus bike to be.

And what are they supposed to be? Unwieldy, and many reviewers have basically said that 27.5+ bikes have more in common with a fully loaded tandem than a unicycle on tight trails or terrain than should otherwise inspire some fun antics. This can be used to a rider's advantage when the ideal line is straight through a mess, but bobbing and weaving isn't the best tactic on a plus bike... unless that plus bike is the Mojo 3. The red Ibis, with its 2.8'' wide rubber, is more playful and alive than the large majority of bikes with tires that are half an inch skinnier and hundreds of grams lighter. Think Olympic gymnast who kills a large pizza every night and then scores a perfect ten despite it not looking physically possible. You know, don't judge a book by its cover and all that cliché stuff.


Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore
  Thankfully, the big tires don't make the Mojo 3 feel any fatter than its 27lb weight and 130mm of travel would have you believe, and the smallest of bumps can be used to up the fun factor.


I've said many times before that numbers don't tell a bike's personality, but there's no getting around that the Mojo 3's stubby, 425mm rear end is a big reason for the bike's eagerness to party. That's quite a bit shorter than the Specialized 6Fattie, Santa Cruz Hightower, and most others, and, along with a front-end that's not crazy long, it makes for a bike that feels wired directly into your nervous system. While the 6Fattie liked to go through things, the Mojo 3 likes to either air over them or, if you ask it to, dance around whatever it is that has the rider's attention. The bike's 140mm Pike is 10mm shorter than the Fox 34 that was on the front of the Specialized, which also means the front-end is a bit lower, both points that factor into this discussion, and they also make the Mojo 3 feel a bit more balanced unless you're on life threatening terrain.
bigquotesThe red Ibis, with its 2.8'' wide rubber, is more playful and alive than the large majority of bikes with tires that are half an inch skinnier and hundreds of grams lighter.


Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore
  The new Ibis likes to go over things rather than straight through them, and it's extremely easy to get the bike to do exactly that.


But what about when you need to plow? Well, the 6Fattie is a faster and easier bike when you need to smash through things, there are no two ways about it, and it's also a more confidence inspiring overall package when you're on the limit of your abilities. But I'd have to ask myself just how often I'm nudging up against that line. The answer is not as much as I'd like, which, I suspect, is the same for many other riders, and it's probably why I had so much fun on the Mojo 3. It's a bike the rewards control and exactness, even with its massive rubber.

The quick handling Mojo can also change direction with the best of them, and it's a joy to line up a bunch of interconnected corners that blend into each other. In those moments, I felt like one of those inflatable, five-foot-tall clowns that you can punch or push over and they pop right back up like they're spring loaded. That about sums up what it's like to string a bunch of quick turns together while on the Mojo 3, which certainly makes the shorter and probably not quite as stable wheelbase feel every bit worth the compromise.




Schwalbe vs. Maxxis

Ibis delivered the Mojo 3 with two different sets of tires for me to choose from: the 2.8" wide Schwalbe Nobby Nics that came installed, as well as a set of 2.5'' wide Maxxis Minions DHF WTs with a casing and lug design made to better gel with mega-wide rims like those on the Mojo. I spent the majority of the time on the former but managed to get in ten days with the revised Minions, enough time to comment on them and compare the two choices.

Firstly, the big Schwalbes provide much more climbing traction than the 2.5'' wide DHFs, and I found myself spinning out up wet, muddy climbs that I had breezed up only one day earlier when the Nobby Nics were on the bike. The difference when climbing in low traction conditions is immense, but there's also more braking traction with the Nobby Nics for the same reasons: lower tire pressures, more aggressive lugs, and a larger footprint.

The gap between the two in best-case conditions was smaller, but the 2.8" Schwalbe tire still tops the 2.5'' Minion when talking about climbing and braking bite. This makes the Schwalbes the better tire in a lot of scenarios, especially here in B.C. where it's often wet and slimy.
Ibis Mojo 3 review test Photo by Paris Gore

What the 2.5" Minion DHF does offer, though, is a much more traditional, albeit a bit less forgiving, ride. I'd describe it by saying that the bike feels more accurate when the Minions were on, but I'm also not too proud to admit that I felt quicker and more comfortable when using the Schwalbe plus tires, especially when the speeds picked up or things got steep. Traction aside, the Minions proved to be more reliable as I managed to slice the casing on the rear Nobby Nic wide open on a rock that I know I've been rubbing my tires up against for the last decade or more without any issues.




Pinkbike's Take:
bigquotesIf I could do a blind test of the Mojo 3, I'm pretty confident that I'd still be able to tell you that it's an Ibis through and through. Sure, there are machines of similar travel that have more DH attitude, but the Mojo's nimbleness raises the fun factor to 11 on all but the scariest terrain, and a lot of riders don't even have access to those sorts of trails. And rather than hindering the bike's agility, the plus-sized compatibility only opens up more options when talking about both tire choices and line choices on the trail. - Mike Levy




Visit the feature gallery for additional high resolution images





About the Reviewer
Stats: Age: 34 • Height: 5'10” • Inseam: 33" • Weight: 165lb • Industry affiliations / sponsors: None
Mike Levy spent most of the 90s and early 2000s racing downhill bikes and building ill-considered jumps in the woods of British Columbia before realizing that bikes could also be pedaled for hours on end to get to some pretty cool places. These days he spends most of his time doing exactly that, preferring to ride test bikes way out in the local hills rather than any bike park. Over ten years as a professional mechanic before making the move to Pinkbike means that his enthusiasm for two wheels extends beyond simply riding on them, and his appreciation for all things technical is an attribute that meshes nicely with his role of Technical Editor at Pinkbike.


Must Read This Week

235 Comments

  • + 142
 Wow there was actually a lot of really worthwhile stuff in this review. Great comparisons too, and as usual I found myself chuckling when about 3 lines into a very well articulated simile that somehow links tire size to horny 16 year olds.
  • + 13
 you mean because of "wet and slimy"?
  • + 4
 Get a room.
  • + 2
 ...for a morrre ...
  • + 2
 Kinematic review of Mojo3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-dDhk_tpY
  • + 121
 Great review @mikelevy. The comparison(s) to other frames and tire choices are exactly what we need to help us wade through all of the 'amazing' gear out there. Much appreciated.
  • + 13
 Yes, completely agree. We all know most bikes are pretty good these days but the comparisons are key to pick out the subtle differences
  • + 5
 I second this. Comparisons are key to helping consumers figure out what they want, and that's what a review is all about
  • + 5
 mano a mano
  • - 4
flag endurocat (Feb 22, 2016 at 20:26) (Below Threshold)
 Nice bike , I wonder why the new Camber 650b was not on the comparison, it has a shorter rear end and it takes bigger tires without boost.
  • + 3
 I triple this! Love the comparisons between frames, tires, etc. And well presented here - not just what's best but how they are different, particular strengths and weaknesses, etc. This is so helpful in narrowing the component (down-) selection process.
  • + 2
 That's why we need Canadian and American reviews on the other side of the pond with comparisons prohibited in commercials and not really making it through in the magazines.
  • + 1
 Now, can Maxxis please start making 2.8-3.0 inch minions with decent side walls and i'm 27.5+ sold. I'll keep saying it until they make them
.
  • + 45
 Thank you for another well written review.@mikelevy
  • + 27
 This article sort of confirms what I suspected: "plus" tires are best when they are just somewhat wider trail tires (like 2.6-2.8 ). I really think the whole 3" wide tires thing is just to try to create "plus" as it's own thing, when really it should just be an evolution of the trail bike to offer more tire clearance and an evolution of mountain bike tires to widths somewhat wider than they are now (though not too crazy wide).
  • + 18
 Exactly. I don't see why tire size shouldn't be a continuum. Should no tires be made with widths between 2.8" and 2.5" just to preserve a marketing niche? I can see the gap between full fatbikes and plus bikes staying, sure, because fatbikes are actually designed for a different trail material entirely. But perhaps plus bikes and regular mountain bikes should be one and the same. We're accustomed to seeing a world of difference between these numbers on paper, but in the real world, we're talking about millimeters. I like Ibis' approach.
  • + 3
 Just in time to catch my $10,000 Ibis has a 130mm bike capable of handling 2.8's. Send me back to 1998 and pedal this moffaga to the moon.
  • + 1
 Yes I agree too plus I think 27.5+ 2.8 is just another 27.5 tire size cos its so so near to the standard ones in terms of height. The big wigs should leave 27.5plus to tires that are truly nearing 29er size to spare the community some confusions and make it more clear cut. So future 27.5 frames should all have clearance up to 2.8 max. Drop the plus thing if its not even tall enough... please...?
  • + 2
 I've been playing around with the 27.5+ tires for about a year on my 29er. what I've found is that everything they're saying about 2.8" tires is true... in the rear. But that 3.0" or bigger tire comes into it's own in front.

Which shouldn't be that controversial, considering how many of us ran 2.25" rear/2.4" front in the past, or how motos literally have different wheel sizes front & rear.

I'm also curious if they tested the 3.0"s with their rims or with something wider: 741s are 35mm internal, which I've found to be the sweet spot for 2.8"s, but a wider rim makes a big difference when you hit 3.0".
  • + 1
 I agree. This area is developing. Different rim widths and tire pressures need more exploring. Some riders are finding 10-11psi works with the right width rims.
  • + 0
 I'm really confused. Ibis says that 27.5 and 27.5+ are so similar they run on the same bike. Jeff Kendall-Weed is obviously not suffering on his Mojo. Does that mean my Tallboy 3 can run standard 27.5 wheels/tires???

J
  • + 19
 My #1 problem with Mike's reviews is that I always get funny looks from co-workers when I have a big stupid grin on my face while I'm "working." Great stuff, every time! ...and now I want a Mojo 3.
  • + 16
 Nice design, can still be run as a normal bike once the 27.5+ fad fades away..............
  • - 16
flag molloser (Feb 22, 2016 at 19:29) (Below Threshold)
 I think the 27.5" is here to stay my friend. 29ers can go die in a hole though... I rode a 29" once. They aren't nimble on trails like 26" and 27.5" are.
  • + 16
 I think you may have missed something there..
  • + 12
 A few things stick out to me here. Carbon wheels will make any bike lighter and more nimble, but the fact is most riders won't shell out the cash on that package.

Also, Maxxis lies about their tire sizes so it wouldn't be fair to compare a Maxxis 2.5 to a 2.8 Schalbe for the sake of volume/size (try WTB).

Finally, another sliced plus sized tire is more proof that in order to make a plus size tire stand up to high speed, rocky, technical terrain the sidewalls need to be really heavy. Therefore, the tires will likely end up weighing in the 1500 gram plus range.
  • + 10
 I agree with the comment about making plus tires stronger is gonna make them heavier. For this reason, you'll never see them on enduro race bikes. I may be wrong.
  • + 2
 how wide are the rims? Such that they can support a 2.8" tire AND a 2.2-2.3"?
  • + 35
 The biggest benefit of the plus is the grippy size of contact patch and well rolling flex of the big tyre. If we went back to 26" rim size (559mm) we'd keep 99% of benefits and lower the weight by at least 120g on tyre and rim combined. All that rolling on a smaller radius. In this way you can use a more durable and stable 1,5
casing.

So 26+ is the reasonable choice aaaaaand you could mount it to most 275 bikes.
  • + 4
 26+ exist yet ? id be tempted to buy a 'chubby' wheelset to go on my 275 bike.
  • + 5
 Velocity makes a rim for 26+ and so does Surly. Knard and Dirt Wizard from Surly are available in 26+.
  • + 2
 thank you very much arnoldtm2.
  • + 2
 The Surly Instigator is 26+, with Surly Rabbit Hole 26+ rims.
  • + 6
 Please notice that all the problems in every review with sliced tires are with the Schwalbe's. It would be like me saying I tried Avid Elixirs once, so therefore all disk brakes suck.
  • + 5
 26+ has existed for a while, but there isn't much support yet; I think we will see it grow a bit this year.
  • + 3
 Yepp. Just as soon as we start seeing some better 26+ tire options. Have you tried this concept yet Waki?
  • + 4
 Im thinking the rear chain stays would be to narrow for the tyre (assume 3" wide version) even if you could get the wheel 26" wheel in the 275 frame. Mind you I'm not technically minded and the hammer is my favourite tool.
  • + 1
 There are a number of 650/26 frames that could handle 26+, it's been a year or two since I've looked at a list of the compatible ones so I don't remember which ones were which. I'm thinking if the concept grows, it will be on new bikes brought out as 650b/26+ swappable. I've heard good things about the 26x2.75 dirt wizard, but the sidewalls are pretty thin from what I've heard (fixed on the 27.5+ version).
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns Derby 40mm rims plus Schwalbe Hans Dampf makes from something pretty close to what you're asking for. I have my original Mojo HD setup like this and it's a great ride.
  • + 1
 @Metacomet - yea that was my problem, not much tyre choice, at least not as fine as with 275+. Can't wait for demo days to ride all of those fat tyred bikes! But in general the concept was to use that weight dropped on 26 and put it into tyre durability for longer travel bikes.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns
I'm excited to see what comes out. Hopefully from Maxxis. I think my top picks would be the aggressor, tomohawk, shorty, high roller 2, DHF and Minion SS and maybe even an Ikon all in a generously proportioned 26x2.7 with exo, silk worm protection, and maybe a butyl insert at the bead to prevent pinch cuts from the rim. 2.7 would fit perfect in standard "non boosted bullshitforks", and the rear end of very very many 26 and 27.5" bikes. What would you like to see?
  • + 2
 Just putting this out there, but some tires are starting to have kevlar reinforcement in the casing, even dirt jump tires like KHE Mac 2s. If you look on the inside of say, maxxis ardents, you will see some rib like bands along the interior. Given full kevlar casings instead of nylon, all tires will likely drop a lot of weight for the strength. Cross your fingers and go rob a bank.
  • + 1
 @Mecabeat... There is no one who would fancy riding a 3.5 lbs tyre these days, not even Rampage contenders...
  • + 2
 They're the Ibis 741 rims, so 41mm. Pretty sure that's external.
  • + 11
 Sounds like Ibis has nailed it...again! When riding the HD3 back-to-back with a Santa Cruz Bronson 2, i went away decided that the Ibis was the bike i would buy. The Bronson felt a bit more capable on the steep, rough downhills, but the Ibis still felt confident on those downhills, climbed better, had better traction and was just plain more fun. I'm not a competitive racer so for me fun ranks pretty high on the "must have" list!
  • + 8
 I've loved ibis ever since i laid eyes on a bowti
  • + 4
 awesome review of this bike. mike levy does such a great job of putting it in perspective ie " A single, twenty-foot section of hellishly tricky trail sums up all those numbers, as well as how they compare to a standard machine. I usually do clean it on the latter,". we have all been there and can appreciate the advantage (in this case the Mojo 3) provides in this scenario. while i'm not likely be investing in a plus size 27.5, trail bike any time soon this is a great review and were there enough room in the garage and funds in the account - who doesn't want to own a bike that raises the fun factor to 11. great review!
  • + 6
 ''The Schwalbe and Maxxis 2.8s are only 0.15” taller in section height than a 2.3'' tire,
So does that mean I can use a 2.8 in my Fox 36 with a 30mm rim?
Anyone try this?
  • + 7
 well I think that the aggressive tire stance on the contact patch of .....aw fuck it, TAKE MY MONEY!!!!
  • + 5
 I had really bad luck with Nobby Nics, destroyed two tires in rock gardens that I never noticed on Magic Marys taking the same lines. They don't seem durable at all.
  • + 7
 Yeah Schwalbe tires have never been known for their durability. My last NN's lasted about two months.
  • + 1
 they have yet to figure out a good trail casing. The nobby nics need something between paper and snake skin. Their snake skin is great the rest of their casing just sucks.
  • + 2
 That definitely doesn't look good on Schwalbe, I've literally never had problems apart from regular wear on bike tires.
  • + 3
 "6Fattie [...] steering often felt a bit too slow [...]. The Mojo 3 [...] is an easier bike to live with when the grades are steep and the speeds are low. Why? The Mojo's rear end is 12mm shorter (425 vs. 437), the wheelbase is tighter by 21mm (1158 vs. 1179mm), and its trail number is 106mm compared to the 6Fattie's 96.5mm."

Shouldn't a lower "trail number" make steering faster and easier at lower speeds?
  • - 2
 I sounds counter intuative but the article is correct. Imagine you hade a reverse trail fork, it's easy to see self stability properties increase .
  • + 3
 Okay, I get it, plus size tires have lots of traction. But for the love of gravy, cheese curds, and french fries, can we got an honest comparison between a 2.8" or 3.0" plus size tire at 15 psi, and, say, a Minion WT 2.5" with Procore or a similar system also at 15ish psi?

Because all I keep seeing is that the benefits of plus size are lower pressures and higher stability (to a point). A wide rim and something like Procore with a regular tire seem to offer that, all while being substantially better suited for high speed gnarly terrain.
  • + 2
 The only bummer about thus bike us they tamed the HD3 compared to all the other all mountain bikes out there. And now they introduce another tame=trail bike. (Not that there's anything wrong with that) But now they have too much overlap in their bike line, everything us trail, or long travel trail... The HD4 better be badass!!!
  • - 1
 Agreed. I wish the hd3 was 160+mm. Throw a steeper seat angle and it would have been close the perfect bike....for me anyway lol
  • + 2
 While I usually like Levy's questions and comments, his words that a 130mm travel bike is "ambiguous" and questioning the lack of a super long top tube, suggests he is out of touch of what a trailbike is.

Scot's responses are spot on for someone who knows what riders need from a trail bike. Last time I checked, all trails don't point straight down.
  • + 2
 Looks like a lot of fun... But come on guys... Whats next?

Manufacturers are letting the consumers do the testing, by bringing out all kinds of "new" industry changing product. Really all they are doing is making it VERY difficult for the LBS to stock parts to service everything that is now on the market.

The other issue is constantly decreasing used product values. Have a 2 yr old, Carbon long travel 29er that ONLY accepts up to 2.4" rubber? Not only will you not be able to sell it for 1.6th of what you paid.... You are going to be buried with that thing... because 27.5+ is the new fad didn't ya know?
  • + 21
 Ride what you have. Love the ride. Forget about the hype.
  • + 14
 1. Ignore the hype. 2. Never sell your bike, keep all of them. 3. Buy the bike you like, be happy you can afford it and have the time to ride it. 4. Enjoy riding your bike, every time you ride it, just enjoy it and realize how lucky you are.
  • + 4
 I don't know, I think it's awesome that something new and awesome comes along pretty frequently. I definitely wouldn't want design to take a nap just to protect the resale value of my current bike.
  • + 2
 @bishopsmike Don't get me wrong. I'm all for innovation and new designs. Some of the current products on market have transformed the ride completely.

I'm saying don't bring EVERY new invention to market the second it's off the drafting table. By doing so they are letting the public test the product, and gauge interest. It seems to be creating a gigantic mess when it comes to parts ordering, availability, and the consumers best interest.

A bike which was all the rage 2 years ago, is now old news, undesirable, and almost impossible to get parts for. As a mountain bike enthusiast who makes a decent wage... I couldn't afford to keep up if I tried.
  • + 1
 2.4" tires on a 29er work amazingly well. My next bike is going to be a 29er FS rig and all I care about is room for 2.4" rubber. Whether it can run 27+ is not a consideration.

And I've owned a 29+ bike with 3" tires for 3yrs now. I'm not afraid of new tech, but just because it's new doesn't make it better for a specific rider or something you gotta have.

I agree with others I keep my bikes longterm so resale value is irrelevant to me.
  • + 15
 IMO 27.5+ vs 29 vs 26, 142mm vs 148mm hub spacing, etc etc is all a mute point. Industry progression has to exist, whether design 'improvements' appear as fads or true progression. Just because it exists doesn't mean you need to buy (into) it. Just be thankful people out there are trying to push things forward, and ride what you've got or can afford! I'm a MTB tech head just like the next bloke, but I know I can't have the latest and great, that's just a fact of life!

Ibis have never been about following fads - Scot Nicol is famous for only applying to his bikes what he genuinely believes will improve the ride for the customer, be it wide wheels, more versatile all-round geo, non-pressfit BB's, etc. This is why he is one of the most respected guys in the industry.

I ride a 2012 Mojo HD. I rode it in 140/150mm air guise initially, then 160/170mm coil guise, and now converting it to 650b guise (basically as an HDR650b). I've had it for four and a half years and don't intend to replace it in the near future. I will likely get 6 years or so of service out of it... will it be worth anything once I'm ready to sell? Will i get some of my money back? Pfft, who cares! I will admit it was a huge stretch for me when i bought the HD, but it's given me many years of amazingly joyful riding and who can put a price on that?! Thinking you're second hand mountain bike stuff is worth something is complete the wrong attitude. When you hand over your hard-earned in the beginning, you are buying riding experiences for your future, not a bunch of shiny parts hanging off a pretty frame.

Anyway, the Mojo 3 sounds and looks like a highly capable, extremely fun trail bike, and i hope it works out as a great success for Ibis.

*3o3
  • + 3
 Great bike, interesting that the geometry is almost identical to the HD3. Besides the 20 millimeters less travel the only difference is a 5 mm shorter chain stay (425 Mojo 3 vs 430 HD3).
  • + 5
 I absolutely love how weirdly organic the front triangle looks...like movie alien technology or something!
  • - 1
 Organic!ha ha ha ha ha
  • + 2
 yup.


organic
ɔːˈɡanɪk/
adjective
1.
relating to or derived from living matter.
  • + 0
 Yes understood.i just that I thought I'd drifted off into a luvvy nightmare of bearded hipster proportions when I read it.
  • + 0
 Carbon fiber is made from Organic Polymers.
  • + 1
 I think it was meant in a fruity wholesome way.
  • + 2
 Mojo's do have a unique look, and they ride great.
  • - 2
 Understood.unique or a freak..not rightly sure.
  • + 2
 Great review / article! Loved the comparison of the 2 different tires on the same bike. I think more riders can relate to the type of trails Mike enjoys over resorty "flow" trails. I love a good bike park as much as the next guy, but prefer natural terrain mice-elf.
  • + 4
 I saw this bike at the shop a couple days ago ... And it looks badass. First ibis that's ever caught my eye. Looks extremely playful.
  • + 5
 Not quite sure what makes a bike look extremely playful.

Now if it had tits then yeah, that would look playful Smile
  • + 5
 I think a bike can look playful! Does EVERYTHING have to be compared to boobs? Minds out of the gutter people. I mean, the tires weren't flat, and the suspension didn't sag. Had a nice perk to it.
  • + 3
 Saggy or perky?make your mind up.
  • - 1
 LOL!!!
  • + 3
 A bit of both: saggy enough to communicate volume and weight and perky enough to communicate firmness and that they don't slide away when horizontal.
  • + 2
 This whole excellent idea Ibis had to put 2.8 plus tires on their 130mm 27.5 trail bike got me to wondering- (and I work at a bike shop) so I put the wheels and tires (2.8 rekon) from a Hightower on my 5010. They fit. The rear pivot link it a little close for comfort though- like 1mm. I'm now wondering if the 2.8 nic on a 35mm rim would give enough clearance.

Does anyone know if the diameter of a 2.8 nobby nic is smaller than the diameter of a 2.8 Maxxis Recon?

I do prefer the way a 130mm pike for a 27.5 wheel feels compared to a 150mm pike for a 29in wheel. Much nicer stack height and better steering, climbing, overall stiffness. It just works better for the type of riding I do.

Great review. Thanks Ibis and Mike Levy
  • + 1
 Just checked the Ibis website for the Demo tour. Pretty psyched they are coming to my trails FRIDAY APRIL 29 - SUNDAY MAY 1: Fruita, Colorado! Fruita Fat Tire Fest! Yowza!

www.ibiscycles.com/buytry/ibis_demo_tour
  • + 1
 I feel like the 650plus/ 29er option bikes make more sense...I appreciate that the Ibis has been designed 'specifically' for the plus wheels but I think 650plus and 29er would compliment each other well. All this is based on nothing more than what ive read so far but I'd probably run the plus wheels most of the time for general 'do-whatever-I-like' kind of riding and then have the 29er option for a more precise and racier ride. Id rather that route with a flip-chip or some other slight geometry tweak - an offset bushing perhaps for the discerning ghetto fettler.
  • + 7
 This bursting of the 27+ bubble by Mojo is fascinating.........Plus already seems to have defaulted to 2.8 (poor old Spec has built their frames and tyres around 3" standard) and no doubt we will see more 2.5/2.6 tyres so maybe Mojo will look very smart.

@ThomDawson you could take this all one step further.........lets see which bike manufacturer works out that you can sell a single frame which covers 27.5, 27 plus and 29. You only need adjustable chain stays and you could make a banging bike. (I accept the anal may want a different fork offset)...

@WAKIdesigns While we are at it......... Can anyone tell me why the Hightower needs a flipchip and shorter fork to equalise the frame geometry when the front ad rear tyres are the same height??? Santa cant explain it to me!
  • + 0
 27,5+ is almost 29", it surely depends a lot on tyre and rim width. I haven't measured them so I don't know how much of a difference it is. Sotheoretically you would like to be able to higher up BB for 27,5+ and steepening of head angle is not a problem either. But other than that I have no clue... it is so easy to make a flip chip or one more hole to mount the shock in, that it's just good they gave the option.
  • + 2
 @Travel66 yes I agree, I hadn't yet looked into the real world diameters of 2.8" plus tyres so this caught me off guard a little. I had already concluded (again only based on what I've read) that the 2.8" are better than 3.0" for my intended use but I think the 650plus tyres will drop the bike by somewhere in the region of 12.5mm? If Ibis numbers and my mental arithmetic aren't totally shite (quite possibly). So a 29er with a good BB height will start to get very low when you swap the wheels out to 650plus - this could be the reason for the Hightowers flip chip? Not sure, I'm not great on SC bikes.
  • + 3
 @Travel66 I think with the Hightower it's because it switches between 27.5+ and 29. There's an inch difference in height between those tires, so the chip adjusts frame geometry like BB height.
Unlike the Mojo 3 that switches between 27 and 27.5+, where the difference (in diameter) between the two tires is very minimal - .15 inch or less than 4mm.
  • + 3
 Add to that the sag of a 2.8" tyre at 15-18psi and you're at the same effective diameter of standard 650b/ 27.5 if everything written above is accurate. So yeah sounds like sticking 2.8" plus tyres in a 29er is going to drop the bike quite a lot. You'd be best to start with a 29er that has a high BB to begin with, use it as standard with 650plus tyres and add an offset bushing when using 29er wheels...? Possibly.
  • + 1
 I think I worked it out. It's because of the fork offset changing the effective head ante at different axle heights....

@WAKIdesigns
@jon123rjk
@ThomDawson
  • + 2
 Reliable diameter measurements of 29er 2.3" tyres and 650plus 2.8" tyres would be very useful if anyone has come across such informations. Or side by side pics of the two, I've seen 650b 2.3" alongside 650plus 2.8" but what about all three?
  • + 1
 Having spend more than a casual moment in my LBS this weekend looking at this bike there are a couple of things that concern me about this bike.

The clearance of the seat stays around the rear tire seem very tight. Even with carbon rims it seems possible to get rub on the stays from (fat) tire distortion or wheel flex when cornering.

The original HD had pretty tight clearances on it's lower linkage and a small rock lodged in it could pretty much finish off your frame. I know this first hand and apparently it isn't that uncommon. The Mojo 3's lower link is even tighter, maybe that's better maybe not.

Living in the PNW where mud and grit is everywhere I'm starting to think carbon frames and super tight tolerances on linkages are not the best idea. I guess only time will tell if I'm right.

FWIW: The a Hans Dampf on a 40mm Derby rim is 2.6" wide. You don't need a new bike to get + size or very close.
  • + 1
 Great bike, even better review.

This bike fills a market segment for Ibis and allows them to cover all the standards with three bikes.

The red is a great color choice , but I prefer the raw black version not pictured ( see their website).
  • + 1
 I am having a hard time believing that the 2.8" is only .15" taller than the 2.3". Especially after looking at the picture of the 2 tires side by side. That is a lot more than .15" in height difference. In my experience, an increase of a 1/2" in tire width equals at least 1/2" in tire height and in many cases a whole inch in height.

That picture pretty much shows exactly what I am talking about. Looks to be about an inch difference in height.
  • + 2
 Per Scot Nicol, this measurement reflects the bigger tire at a lower pressure than the smaller tire, which is reasonable considering this is how they will typically be used and are capable of be used without burping etc...
  • + 4
 Looks to me like they're going head to head with the new Santa Cruz Hightower. Both looks like sweet bikes.
  • + 3
 Sweat bikes.
  • + 4
 If there was one bike that might make me consider selling my Evil Following its this - looks amazing. Cant wait to demo it
  • + 1
 So, after more than 2 month in 2016, the new trend becomes : "Not too long reach, not too wide tires and 29" is not so advantageous anymore". All together to keep fun in our ride.

Where are the : "Longer, slacker, fatter" of 2015 gone?

Confused...
  • + 1
 lemme guess: the bike is tons of fun and handles difficult terrain very well. The plus-sized rubber is noticeable but in all the best ways. Ibis pulls through with an amazing bike design once again....blah blah blah...

meh...don't mind me...a bad day at work
  • + 2
 Hang in there buddy!
Just look at the pictures of the shiny new bike, soon everything gonna be alright Wink
  • + 2
 That front 3/4 looks mean, like kick a kitten crossing a hallway and giving no f*cks mean; I love it!

PS - I'm cat and dog lover, but I hate ferrets.
  • + 3
 for that price fox couldn't just put matching stickers on a fork to complete the package?
  • + 2
 Does anyone know whether or not the yoke shock mount moves independently from the rear triangle like a pivot point or if it's fixed in place?
  • + 3
 It moves a small amount and has bearings present.
  • + 0
 Great article guys. But i can't help looking at that frame and seeing a slightly melted Specialised Endure frame. Like making a bike design out of wax, sticking it in the microwave, heating it a bit, pulling it out then using the result as a design.
  • + 1
 I think this bike is really very pleasing to the eye. I like how it kinda looks like an older specialized enduro up front but with much sexier lines.. and a DW link up back.I would buy one.
  • + 3
 Mike, how about the endorphin? It's chainstays are 427, no boost needed, longer reach to.
  • + 4
 Dam you crappy CAD dollar!
  • + 1
 Would have liked to see a pic of the 2.5 minion on a wide rim...I just got one to run on my i25 rims and it's too rounded for my taste..for being very similar in size to my go to 2.4 HR2 it has a much rounder profile...
  • + 0
 Yes that tire does have a rounder profile than the HR2. Im currently running a DHF front and HR2 rear on inner 31mm. rims. Personally I like the roundness of the DHF. Feels like it sticks at all lean angles.
  • + 2
 @wydopen the new DHF 27.5x2.5 WT on an i30 rim actually has a nice profile. I can take a pic of it and send it to you.
  • + 0
 What's the ideal rim inside width for 2.8" - 3.0" tires. 35mm is definitely narrower than most, i.e Sraper at 45mm.

I'm 6'4" and would not ride a bike with 455mm reach - that is 20mm too short. I'm quite sure my knees would hit the bars when standing. Unless I used a 140mm stem like Cavendish.
  • + 3
 Hey Mike, HD3 or Mojo if you were buying a bike today. Mostly trail.
  • + 8
 Mojo, but the HD3 is one of the few AM bikes that is also a great, long legged trail bike.
  • + 1
 Mike: Mojo with 27.5 or 27.5+ tires?
  • + 1
 I think the review answered that pretty well!
  • + 1
 Mike Levy: I didn't see it mentioned on the product page, but were you riding a standard 100mm spaced 27.5 Pike, or a Boost 110 Pike? If you were riding the standard Pike, how was tire clearance with the 2.8? Much appreciated before I pull the trigger on one.
  • + 1
 I had the same question about the front hub spacing. In this shot there looks to be quite a bit of clearance, so i think it might be 110mm: ep1.pinkbike.org/p6pb13176666/p5pb13176666.jpg
  • + 2
 According to digital hippies (great) review of the same bike, its a boost front end:
digitalhippie.net/ibis-mojo-3/ibis-mojo-3-review

(worth a read as its got some great comparisons with an enduro bike in the form of a Mojo HD3, as well as some details that will make or break the success of 27.5+)
  • + 1
 Thanks guys! I suspected that had to be the case.
  • + 3
 I need this in my life… Good bye Bronson2.
  • - 1
 Boost compared to 142x12 shortens the chainstay by 3mm given the tube passes between the tyre and chainring at 45 degrees which is a commin design. Everyone thinking otherwise is drinking the cool aid. Just look at Enduro 29 and Canfield Riot. Then... Who said chainstays shorter than 440 are good anyways?
  • + 1
 They seem to work on the Process - but then again, that's with 142x12... Wink
  • + 2
 Really.wow.
  • + 4
 Throw a leg over a 2014-2015 Orbea Rallón R4. Do a few test laps on a steep, twisty single track. Try to erase that freshly acquired smile off your Face. Then you'll get the short-chainstay/log-front-center concepto.
  • + 10
 I rode some sweet bikes with short chainstays (Kona Process) - just like I loved some bikes with long ones (Capra, Stumpy 29EVO). It seems that I really have to draw this CAD analysis of Boost... to show empirically that it does next to nothing and any bike maker praising it deserves a slap in the face.
  • + 3
 Well said Waki.

I had to laugh when I read this "It's hard to get enough weight on the front wheel".

Yeah no shit eh? When you're literally standing on the rear axle with a stupid 425mm rear centre of course they'll be no weight on the front. People need to wake up before marketeers and clueless designers kill off all the neutral handling bikes.
  • + 1
 Yes. Can we please end this short chainstay bollox.
  • + 2
 A bleeding 1! It's bloody ridiculous,we're getting that far over the rear,may aswell put a chopper seat and bars on.
  • + 0
 Waki, I completely agree with you on the boost issue. The Rallón or the Procesa are excellent examples of 27.5 wheels fitted on short chainstays without sacrificing wheel clearance or two-by compatibility. Plus you won't get shiny chainstays in a couple of rides and have the burden of getting used to a poor Q factor.
  • + 4
 To each its own. If you like 'en longer, suit yourself. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a short-stayed bike.
  • + 3
 Blame it on the incomprobable seat tube angles before taking it on the rear centre. Most bikes these days have kinked seat tubes and "effective" STAs which seem drawn after too many beers. 74 degrees or more are a sweet spot to me, and I don't need to hang over the handlebar to keep the front wheel where I want it.
  • + 0
 Ok.relax abit if you can.im off fishing tommorow.
  • + 5
 southoftheboarder, seat angle doesn't help much when you're out of the saddle.

The ridiculous thing with rear centre length is people are all "yeah rad short chain stays" without having the slightest f*cking clue what the optimum is. It's like putting 60 degree head angles on trail bikes and saying "yeah bro, slack rules".
  • - 1
 @jclnv I couldn't agree more dude. Options are great, some people might want short chainstays if all they ride is park or something and there may even be rare examples (I'll believe it when I see it) of bikes with short chainstays that are ok but if we really want rad then longer chainstays are better! They don't even have to be 'long' just not ridiculously short. The short chainstay thing has gone on too long, it's time we started seeing bikes with more balanced front/ rear-centres. Short chainstays on a long, slack front end on a bike designed for destroying trail? Nope, I don't get it at all. You can still manual a bike with more sensible chainstays people.
  • + 0
 PS @WAKIdesigns id love to see a CAD analysis dude, do it!
  • + 2
 @jcInv standing on the rear axle too stretched out....... so true

...maybe if you have average/short legs and are rocking a medium frame 425/430mm CS is ok but for those of us who are bigger the bikes are so out of kilter....the implied neutral climb angles (the only way I can describe it) are so low for tall guys on most bikes its nuts.... the steeper you like the descents normally the steeper and longer the climbs....why forget about the upbit????

Its amazing to see a Capra being complemented (which I own) yet its still too short as far as I'm concerned... I just bought a bike with 450mm chainstay and a very steep seat post.......and its still got a lower maximum climb angle than some 32" leg dude on a short CS bike...............bike designers think about it!
  • + 2
 Most importantly frame makers should take the thumb out of their arse and start making bikes with chainstay lengths according to size. YEs I know it would be more expensive, especially for carbon frames. So much time and money spend on stupid 650B or Boost and we still have same chainstay length through all range of frame sizes per model. They say few milimeters matter - oh really? how about a full centimeter on BB positioning in relation of rear axle, tyre contact patch and riders Bum off course.
  • + 0
 Amén, Waki!
  • - 1
 I come from a BMX/dirt jumping background, so I'm used to short chainstays. Like I said before, just ride whatever suits you best. Luckily there's a ton of different bikes and geometries to choose from. And very few brands are taking each geometry number to the extreme.
  • + 0
 Yep, i agree with the different chainstay length for different size bikes as I've said before. What if you manufacturers had 3 or 4 stock sizes of chainstay for each of their s/ m/ l/ XL bikes but also allowed the choice when you buy the thing to spec which length you so desired. Only in dreams.
  • - 2
 @WAKIdesigns yes please, CAD analysis of boost!
CS is a good example, but I also feel like we forget to mention the relation between wheel size and rider size.
I believe it's Liteville who pushed this idea to the extreme of wheels depending on size (26/26 XS, 27/26 S, 27/27 M, 29/27 L, 29/29 XL).

I've also seen 29" hardtail with CS from XS to XL 422,4 422,4 427,5 432,5 437,5
With XS and S having 27" wheels.
I think it makes sense, this way the bike has a more consistent feeling throughout the different sizes, instead of the small people feeling they ride a tandem with long CS and big wheels and vice versa.
  • + 2
 I'm not so keen on the idea of sizing wheels to fit the rider. I don't believe they're a fit item, the varying characteristics of different wheel sizes will be the same for riders of all sizes. Frame size can be altered for fit independent of wheel size (these days). I don't believe that a large rider is able to utilise 29er wheels better than a smaller rider and vice versa, I believe what's more important for fit is the frame and geometry itself. That said I'd like to see more similar bikes offered in 650b and 29er options with similar geo like the new Mega for example but the two wheel sizes should be available across all sizes.
  • - 2
 First time I got on a 29er it felt better in every way, even in situations where small wheels are supposed to be better.
You get the idea with this extreme example :
dirtysixer.com/2015/10/26/ask-me-about-my-wheel-size
And the side effects, like more rotational mass, are not so bad because of my weight (29" feels even lighter for me than 26" for some 60kg rider).
Just based on my experience of course!
  • + 0
 @Uuno
@ThomDawson

29er feels more natural for me than 26 or 27........

Hopefully my new Mega 290 will as well :-)))
  • + 1
 Heavy stuff.its still bone ugly tho.
  • + 0
 its lighter than a carbon capra.....beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
  • + 1
 Agreed.still looks like it was rendered by someone with a buckled eye
  • + 1
 you ride an Orange right?
  • + 2
 Whoa whoa whoa.fives are dog ugly....the beauty is in the artisan hand welding.they don't pop out a jelly mould my man.
  • + 2
 @Travel66 meant heavy stuff as in 'technical nerdy stuff'.
Cheers Wolfgang.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: I hope you're not literally standing on the rear axle. Where you are standing depends on reach, stem length, cleat or foot position on pedal, and leg component lengths. All else being equal, a shorter stay bike will always handle more quickly and allow the front wheel to be lifted more easily. Honzos, EPOs, and Torrents can't be that stupid, and there's no danger of all the neutral handling bikes being killed off. If maneuverability is fun, shorter is superior. The tradeoff is that if you're tired or inattentive, bike is more sensitive to steering inputs. I bet that if cleat channels on clipless shoes were extended rearward by a cm or two, stay length issue would be less sensitive.
  • + 3
 Werx.Is that how you say works if your south of Bristol
  • + 1
 i feel that Scot Nicol, and Rob Roskopp have gone a little Henry Ford with the whole 27.5+ bike thing." you can have any color you want as long as its red or flat black"
  • - 1
 Insufficient rear travel at 130-mm and selling it with a 2.8" tire that fills the clearance between frame and tire is not too bright. Also, usual Ibis over pricing... There are better options for less money with superior performance.
  • + 3
 Nice Review. Love seeing shots from the Chuckanuts in PB!
  • + 1
 i want one, but a little out of my price range. wonder if the rest of the bike industry will follow?
*wink*
*wink*
*nudge*
*nudge*
  • - 1
 It's amazing how Ibis are still keeping the 1990's geometry alive after all this time; a retro classic! XD

Seriously though, that thing's shorter than one of Sam Hill's sentences and steeper than the Champery DH track.
  • + 1
 "grabbier than a prom date when the lights dim and the slow music comes on." @mikelevy I saw what you did there
  • + 1
 Great review and read! Mine is coming in a few weeks! I hope to experience your words!
  • + 0
 ibis mojo 3 ""X01"" but the only thing that is actually XO1 is the derailleur ????

and 7600$ ??? another joke? no rct3 solo air, XT brakes, where does this price come from?
  • + 1
 Builds start at only $4000. Check out the website.
www.ibiscycles.com
  • + 7
 "only". thanks
  • + 14
 @RedBurn you're in school, once you're out and have a decent job- it'll be only. Just make sure to pay for toys in cash and buy them before a wife and kids. Otherwise you'll be like many of us - limited in frame color so she doesn't notice you bought a new bike.
  • + 5
 @TheOriginalTwoTone How awfully supercilious of you old bean.
  • + 0
 I'm surprised you're down voted.
7600 USD with low-end equipment is such a joke that I registered only to support that opinion.
I thought the High tower was expensive.. it's a XX1 top build with alu wheels you get at this price.

When adding the plus tires and the down tube protection (basically what you'll want to have):

The XX1 build, which comes with.. surprise, X01 components (so not pure XX1) is 8900+USD
The Deore XT build is 7500 USD
The X1 "Special blend" doesn't show up options of what's included for 3999USD. I bet it's GX with a X1 chain and wooden wheels? Or maybe sram X9 with a X1 shifter and it comes without frame.

Come on already. There's ridiculous expensive then there's the Ibis Mojo 3.
  • + 5
 You consider a carbon wheel set low end equipment?
  • + 2
 @bankz Special Blend is 1x or 2x XT 8000 with lower cost shimano brakes.
  • + 0
 @bankz You must have fallen hard for her huh?
  • + 1
 2.8" tires that tear open where others don't, not a lot of use, eh? I've heard this about Schwalbe's...
  • + 3
 that bike is gorgeous
  • + 0
 That 2.8 nobby nic in the side by side tyre shot reminds me of my old IRC Kujo Dh tyre from when ever that was !
  • - 3
 Are 130 mm trail bikes for those that tried 160mm and understood they are too capable not so much for their trails but for their commitment level = balls? If you go fast enough and have the fitness to do so for longer you can ride on the edge also on tamer trails. (not referring to myself)
  • + 1
 show it in CND currency... i dare you!
  • + 2
 Awesome bike !
  • + 1
 everyone should just paint their bikes red
  • + 0
 Great article. Personally I don't like the colour of the bike but I'd still like to ride one to give it a try.
  • + 1
 Did Specialize stop paying the bills?
  • + 1
 what pedals are those ?????
  • + 1
 What rims Mike?
  • + 1
 Ibis 741 (41 external)
  • + 1
 LOL
  • + 0
 Stop that sickness of 27.5+ ..........
  • + 1
 Wanted!!
  • - 2
 Yet another ADvitorial.....new stuff is awesome, especially if there is also a lot of reference to big brand product at the same time!
  • - 2
 This Ibis Mojo 3 is starting to look a lot like the Specialized Enduro Comp!
  • - 1
 Throw a 29" front end on this thing and you'll have a real beast
  • - 1
 Unlike santacruz sell outs, Ibis always makes great bikes.
  • + 1
 Which Santa Cruz model are you referring to? I'd say their latest offerings (Nomad, V2 5010 and Bronson, and Hightower) are all pretty amazing.

In fact, this new Ibis is very similar to the v2 5010 in terms of numbers for BB height, reach, ST and HT angles, travel, and chain stay.
  • + 2
 Read the interview above and what he said about 27 plus / 29.
  • + 0
 another red bike
  • - 3
 Awesome!
  • - 2
 love big tires
  • - 2
 the bee's knees.
  • - 2
 It looks the business!
  • - 2
 harmony lines, but frame is heavy. why?
  • + 2
 Heavy? Compared to some but that is still not what I would classify as heavy - paticularly if you want strength.
  • - 2
 Strenght is not in raw frame weight power, it is in your skills. So, if you've got skills, you don't need extra weight to carry
  • + 6
 So have you ridden a cardboard bike yet- shouldn't be a problem for such a skilled rider as yourself- please post a video.
  • + 5
 Attention all frame designers: strength is no longer something you need to worry about! Ask koshki all about it!

Broken headtubes just reflect a weak mind.
  • + 2
 Because lots of people will push it and they have to keep it strong. But yes, the difference in weight in respect to HD3 is a fairly irrelevant 150 grams. You can build the HD3 lighter than the Mojo 3 that needs boost fork and wheels. 2.8 Nobby Nic tires add a massive 400-480 grams in respect to standard 2.25/2.35 Nobby Nic. Do the math and very really little reason to go for the Mojo 3 ... unless you want to play with fat tires and have enough heart to survive the suffering uphill.

I am kind of disappointed by this offering, and the slightly deceiving hype that goes around it. Bring me a 5.0 pounds frame with 130 travel, avoid the boost nonsense and I would be much more excited.
  • + 1
 Well said that man! 741 rims give me enough girth ta ;-)
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2018. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.118785
Mobile Version of Website