Ibis Updates the Ripley - First Look

Apr 19, 2017
by Mike Levy  
Ibis Ripley LS Gen 3

Ibis' 120mm-travel Ripley 29er platform has been around for four years now, and in that time it has earned a rep as a sporty feeling, fun loving trail bike that's a good match for a rider who appreciates efficiency and near-telekinetic handling abilities. In that time, Ibis also offered a second version, the Ripley LS, with a longer reach and slacker steering compared to its OG predecessor, and now a new version of the Ripley LS is set to replace both models.
New Ripley LS Details

• Intended use: trail
• Rear wheel travel: 120mm
• Intended fork travel: 120–140mm
• Clearance for up to 2.6'' tires
• New, stiffer upper eccentric
• 2x and 1x compatible
• Frame weight: 5.9lb w/ Fox Float DPS EVOL
• MSRP: $2,999 USD (frame w/ Fox Float DPS EVOL)


Ibis Ripley
Ibis Ripley



If you've read any of my words on Ibis' short-travel trail bike, you probably already know that I'm a fan of its on-point steering and firecracker personality, two traits that make the Ripley stand out in a sea of bikes that are all about being long, slack, and possibly too forgiving. Thankfully, Ibis isn't mucking with any of that stuff, but rather going after two areas where the design can be improved: tire clearance and rigidity.

Short-travel and wide, 29'' rubber is a recipe for fun, and the third-generation Ripley receives a new swingarm that allows for 29'' x 2.6'' Schwalbe rubber and Maxxis' 2.5 WT tires to fit. Having run wide tires and Ibis' own 941 wheels on the previous two versions of the Ripley, I'm well aware that there wasn't much space between the rear tire and the frame, and a bit of sticky mud could easily gum up the works. The increased clearance should put an end to that, while also letting riders add some forgiveness to the bike by going with the high-volume tires. Prefer a fast rolling, hummingbird of a bike? Then go with a set of 2.35'' (or slimmer) tires. Looking for more smash-and-dash? A set of big Schwalbes or Maxxis WT tires should do the trick.

bigquotesSince we originally designed the Ripley, 29er wheel and tire technology have continually and dramatically improved. We upped the clearance with the launch of the Ripley LS. Now that tire manufacturers are coming on strong with 2.6" offerings, we decided it was time for another update, making the Ripley LS even more versatile.Scot Nicol, Ibis

Ibis Ripley

The updated bike also receives a new upper eccentric (and clevis) with a wider stance to improve lateral rigidity—the Ripley has never been the stiffest bike out there—and there are two new 'Vitamin P' and 'Ti-Ho Silver' color options.

The new Ripley, which will continue to be called the LS, will replace the current OG and LS models, and it will also feature the same geometry as the current LS. MSRP for a frame and Fox Float DPS EVOL shock is $2,999 USD.

Views: 3,318    Faves: 2    Comments: 1




MENTIONS: @ibiscycles



Must Read This Week

139 Comments

  • + 55
 An updated Ripley . . . but their "long/slack" geo XL is still shorter in reach than most brand's large. If they keep sizing like this, they really need to add XXL to their line.
  • + 17
 This. 1000 times this.
  • + 5
 And short head tubes while we're at it.
  • + 15
 Or to put it even more into context, the "Large" size in this Ripley has a reach just 4mm longer than a SMALL Whyte T130.... I'm out.
  • + 38
 I'm 6' 4" and run an 80mm stem on my Ripley LS. My other whip is an s-works Enduro 29 and the reach ends up being identical between the two. I know that 80mm stems aren't cool on pinkbike but on the trail where it actually matters, it shreds all the same and helps keep the front wheel planted on steep climbs.
  • + 59
 @Chadimac22: quick discriminate him for not following a trend!
  • + 23
 @Chadimac22: 80mm stem OMFG youll be telling us you only run 900mm wide bars next and puny 2.5 inch tyres. Dude get with the programme or you may as well pack it in.
  • + 5
 @thedriftisreal:
I rode a large Mojo with an 80mm stem. It climbed great but was unnerving on the descents. Almost bought an XL HD3, but opted for a large Nomad, and am not looking back. It doesn't climb as well, it's not as playful, but the steeps are way more fun when you don't feel like the bike is fighting against you.
  • + 3
 @SoDiezl350: Exact experience on an HD2.
  • + 1
 @zer0c00l44: hahahahaha. I just up-propped you.
  • + 2
 @thedriftisreal: haha. No kidding. You should see how "outdated" my 80mm race face turbine stem looks clamped onto my 35mm Race face Next carbon bars.
  • + 20
 @Chadimac22: Just to be clear, "reach" is a frame dimension and does not incorporate stem length. I'll agree the terminology is a mess. Seat-tube angles are even more misleading, as most "effective" angles are measured level with the top of the head tube (which isn't consistent among brands, models, or sizes), some are measured at the expected saddle height (varies by rider), and all bikes have a unique combination of actual seat-tube angle and seat-tube offset.

@ everyone: Reach cannot be considered without stack. A change in stack height has about a 40% impact on effective reach. To compare one reach to another, you must choose a standard stack and do some math to normalize the reach to this stack.

I don't want to seem pedantic, but these often overlooked variables can make over a sizes' worth of difference to the geometry.
  • + 4
 Damn fine looking bike, totally agree needs to bring there geo inline with others
  • + 3
 @R-M-R: excellent response.
  • + 7
 I like that some companies have not gone super long in the reach, etc. It gives people options. Plus, horses for courses. I had an XL HD3 that i'm faster on in tighter single track vs the XL Nomad and Bronson I've also had. Just depends what a rider is after. Again, options are nice.
  • + 0
 @alexsin: Geometrically speaking, you can accomplish this with a negative rise stem. It will simultaneously reduce the effective stack and increase the effective reach, with zero other consequences (other than aesthetics). So at least you have some "tools" to adapt. But for those of us on the opposite side of the stack/headtube needs, who want longer AND taller, every spacer we add to gain effective stack has a corresponding reduction in effective reach, making the (horizontally) short sizing even shorter.
  • + 4
 I demo'd the previous generation and it was crazy small in the xl. A bigger size is needed, 100%
  • + 1
 If Ibis would just come out with a shrink ray we could all size down to fit there bikes.
  • + 2
 @R-M-R: What you're saying is not wrong, but I've found that pretty much any bike with a 23-24" effective top tube and a 17-18" reach will fit me.

Having said that I don't believe stack height changes can produce a 40% change in reach. If the head tube angle is 60 degrees and I add a 1 inch spacer, that reduces reach by half an inch. If my original reach was 18 inches, then my new reach of 17.5 is over 97% of my old reach of 18.

Most of the various alterations one makes in adjusting geometry like this tend to produce very low changes in the original values, hence why they actually make for pretty good measurements.
  • + 7
 @Chadimac22: couldnt agree more. I have a 2016 ripley OG, and its a large with a 90mm stem. Admittedly like you said its not as "cool", but damn what a bike! Such a freaken ripper. My other bike is a yeti 5.5 with a 50mm stem. But the 90 feels fine on the ripley.
  • + 2
 @R-M-R: True dat, but still: these bikes are short as hell, and they need to stop speccing so frakin' long seat tubes. They need an XXL with 490 seat tube for guys like me (185cm/6'1")
  • + 3
 @R-M-R: You didn't seem pedantic until you used pedantic.
  • + 2
 @WaterBear: In your example you reduced reach by 50% of the amount you increased stack. 1/2 inch vs 1 inch.
  • + 1
 @TucsonDon: Clearly that is a different interpretation of what he was saying. Smile My apologies if I got it wrong.
  • + 2
 @WaterBear: The reason stack matters so much is, just like reach, it changes the distance from your pedals to your grips. I believe that distance is what really matters in whether a bike feels good in sizing to me.
  • - 1
 @Chadimac22: The longer stem isn't keeping your front wheel down. The only factors that effect steep climbing ability are seat angle, rear centre length, BB drop and reach/stack. If your Ripley had a longer reach measurement allowing you to use a 50mm stem it would climb at least as good as it does currently.
  • + 1
 @baronKanon: There is an Hightower for that!
  • + 1
 @R-M-R: I think you're splitting hairs with the terminology. Sure, you're right if you're talking about the reach of a frame only but I'm referring to the "reach" of the bike as it is built which is most certainly affected by stem length.
  • + 3
 @WaterBear: I meant a change in stack produces a change in reach that is ~40% as great as the stack change.

It wouldn't make much sense to say an arbitrary change in stack automatically produces a 40% change in reach! Smile
  • + 2
 @TucsonDon: No, I'm pretty sure I always seem pedantic. Wink
  • + 0
 @jclnv: were you secretly watching me on my last ride? How do you know my longer stem doesn't help keep the front wheel planted? Did you steal my bike, ride it, and return it without me knowing? Either way, this is getting weird.
  • + 0
 @jclnv: second thought, sarcasm aside: how does the reach of the bike (not the frame) fail to increase with a longer stem? Ride a bike with a 110mm stem then tell me it's not more of a REACH to the handlebars. Call it reach or whatever term you want, but you have to REACH farther to the grips with a longer stem. Only here can such a simple concept become so obfuscated. Along that line, as the handlebars are moved forward due to the longer stem, there is no denying weight distribution is also shifted forward which I feel, based on actual experience, helps keep the front wheel down in the steep climbs. YMMV.
  • + 3
 @jclnv: Stem length factors into climbing and other aspects of riding because it will shift the riders center of mass relative to the wheels. You can't exclude the impact of things like stem spacers, stem length, handle bars etc. because they all have an influence on the riders center of mass location.
  • + 3
 @AllenM: It's all torso angle which is why stack matters more than reach to XC racers. You can think that you're putting more leverage on the bars with a longer stem but it's pure BS.
  • + 1
 @westeast: if you look at the ews the top racers are choosing to ride shorter bikes. Both Sam Hill and Richie rude race medium frames and not the longer larges they could choose.
  • + 1
 @chrismac70: Sam Hill is only 5'9". That's solid medium territory. Richie Rude is 5'11", that's sort of on the cusp between the two depending on manufacturer. I wonder what stem length Richie uses? Then again, their bikes are optimized for the downhill. A lot of EWS stages are pretty much repurposed full-on DH courses. They're not worried about handling on the climbs, because most of the climbs are fire-road transfers, or lifts... Might be great to base your bike choice on their's if you're an up and coming Enduro racer, but probably not as wise to do so for someone riding loops at their local trails.
  • + 10
 Wow. Great update from Ibis. Santa Cruz has two of the best bike makers on the planet. Must be something in the water. Or the the ganja.
  • + 1
 High on the fumes from neon paint most likely
  • + 3
 My '09 Mojo is still running sweet and quiet and wants a 29er brother....giddy up
  • + 1
 @madmon: Don't say Giddy Up in an Ibis story. The crazy guys over at Transition will hunt you down!!!
  • + 2
 @bender-oz: I own a Bandit as well so its all good
  • + 7
 IBIS, please stretch your bikes out. Loved the do everything personality of the HD3, but always felt too pinched even on the XL even when I ride a large in almost every other brand.
  • + 7
 GEN 4 Ripley Update: this new update will allow the crank arms to clear the chainstay whereas our previous GEN 3 couldnt

DOH!!!
  • + 4
 Not loving the new colors, but I still love my OG Ripley. For those short people amongst us (not all of us are 5'10"+), the Ripley is a really fun 29er that revels in technical, rooty trails that litter New England. I've been on the long, low and slack bikes and they aren't as fun to ride here in the land of rocks, roots, and weird looking lines. Unless you've ridden one here on the Beast Coast, it is kinda hard to understand the appeal - see all the geometry chart naysayers above. But in real life, there are lots of folks, myself included, who are fans of this bike for our types of trails.
  • + 1
 Speaking of this, I don't totally get the obsession with long top tubes and reaches. If you have a short TT and reach with a long stem, then your weight gets nicely over the front wheel. I've ridden bikes with "modern" geometry and top tubes so long I couldn't weight the front wheel in a turn.

Same with steep head angles. Everyone has to have a slack angle these days but if you're picking through slow speed roots, rocks, and chunder the steeper angle is nice and manoeuvrable. Easy to pick up the front end with a steeper HT angle, too, making jumps, wheelies, and manuals all the easier.

I've got both kinds of bikes and I'm not so sure the newer geometry is actually better.
  • + 5
 @WaterBear: With short reach long stem on steeper or gnarly terrain you go easier OTB and you have less of a range wherein to manoeuvre your bodyweight to compensate for terrain. In essence makes it easier to stay in attack position relaxed. Not so good if you are sitting, front wheel washes out. Independent of that longer reach means longer wheelbase which helps with stability at speed, in the gnarl and up/down as well.
  • + 3
 @Sontator: Good points.
  • + 1
 @Sontator: Thank God I didn't read this back in the 90's. I would have been going OTB every ride with my 110mm stem on 21.5 TT Large frame.
  • + 4
 I'm 6'2 with an XL Hd3. I use it with a 50mm stem. Yes it is a little short but that is one of the things that, to me, gives the bike it's character. Yes it's less stable at speed but my God it's fun to whip through zig zag turns. The steep(er than fashionable) head angle makes it so quick to turn in that it feels so intense, even on mellower trails.
My mate has a Nomad and it is incredible, but it is less of an all round bike than the Hd3. If I lived in Whistler it would be a no brainer, but for the stuff round here I think it is perfect. Horses for courses and all that.
  • + 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: I don't think so but it was much more involving to ride down a gnarly trail at speed. I said in essence it makes it easier to stay relaxed in attack position because you don't have to worry that every bump that slows down the bike pushes you so far over the front that you lose balance or go OTB. You have a wider margin of error while back then you would hold on for dear life.
  • + 3
 The major update on this frame was the .4lb of extra carbon they added to it to stiffen it up. Likely an additional layer or two in all the right spots. Used the same front triangle molds, which is why it's still 1x compatible and geo/reach hasn't changed. Used the tire increase to push it as the primary reason for the update. But also important was to shore up the bike to be competitive with modern trail bikes in the stiffness and capability dept.
  • + 4
 I hope they not only improved clearance to the chain stays but also to the seat tube. I'm running Maxxis Aggressors 2.3 on my Ripley LS and regularly buzz the tire on g-outs.
  • + 1
 Apparently the front triangle hasn't changed, and the chainstays grew by only 2mm. So ignoring some negligible trigonometry with the rotating chainstay, the V3 frame is gonna give you 2mm more space before the buzz.
  • + 2
 I guess OG now stands for Outdated Gangster. I like the OG 29er geometry on hardtails for sharp handling and more moderate speeds. But on a FS, give me longer, lower, slacker for going I'm-stupid fast.
  • + 1
 But why? With a mere 325mm B.B. Height and a 67.5 head tube angle, I can assure you from experience that you won't want lower or slacker on this bike. I had no problem with the trails in Finale Ligure aboard my LS and never felt under-biked.
  • + 2
 @Chadimac22: The OG was 331mm and 69.2 degree. Those are numbers I'd want on a hardtail, not a FS. I'm guessing the sales numbers proved that most buyers agree with that sentiment. Hence the OG geometry is being retired. You and I are miscommunicating but not disagreeing.
  • + 2
 @SpillWay: right on.
  • + 1
 @Chadimac22: Then again Ligure is not really steep and not fast either so slack geometry is not needed.
  • + 2
 Not everyone needs or likes long and slack.

I've tried a few and it doesn't suit my riding style, At 50 I'm not going to adapt to weigh the front end style that LS requires. I've been riding with the weight further back since my Schwinn BMX with Tuff wheels.
I'm so glad I snagged an OG Ripley V2 when CC accidentally listed them for $1850 for a few hours.

With the current trend I won't be buying a new bike anytime soon. Hated what SC did to the Tallboy as well.
  • + 1
 @wakaba: depends on how fast you ride...
  • + 3
 Is everyone forgetting that Mike Kazimer did a back to back test of the OG and LS last year and ended up preferring the OG geometry as it was more playful?

Yes we all like going fast but the longer and slacker we go the less suited the bike is to trails that aren't nuts fast or technical. Aren't we allowed to choose a bike based on what trails we ride and what handling traits we want any more?
  • + 1
 @slimboyjim: That comparison is even linked to on the Ibis homepage. But with the long-and-slack mantra being touted throughout the media I suppose the LS simply sold better.
  • + 1
 @slimboyjim: No we aren't because the manufactures aren't going to make bikes like the OG Ripley and Tallboy V1 and V2.

It's going to be XC race machine or a L&S bike.
  • + 5
 3 different models in 4 years
  • + 0
 Sounds like Ibis engineers are busier than marketing department.
  • + 3
 @kanasasa: what marketing department?
  • - 1
 @kanasasa: Here is a little industry secret: Bicycle engineers create "innovations" that cause marginal gains just so they can keep their job where they get to ride a bike nearly every day.
  • + 7
 @Sycip69er: What industry doesn't have employees creating marginal gains? That's what business is. People in the bike world just like to hate on it.
  • + 7
 @btjenki: Seriously. No one complains about next to unnoticeable improvements on their smartphone because they know eventually it'll pay off.

Minor adjustments are attempts to fix annoyances, and many minor adjustments eventually reveal root causes, which are then addressed head-on for real progress. Just look at what 5 years of "marginal improvements" to suspension has done--let alone suspension kinematics and geometry. Let the engineers make marginal improvements and ride their bikes every day, upgrade your bike every 2-3 years to take advantage of now meaningful progress, and quit b*tching.
  • + 2
 Ibis really only sells five different bikes so it makes sense that they'd invest in incremental improvements.
  • + 2
 How wide a tire could you go with the pre LS with boost? One update I wish it had was to allow for the XL to have flush/complete insertion of a 150 mm dropper post(without a longer seat tube).
  • + 3
 I have E13 TRS 2.4 tires on mine with the Easton 30 wheels, just clears in the back.
  • + 5
 Looks better dressed in Race Face Next R IMO
  • + 4
 I consider this more like 2.1
  • + 4
 Longer? Slacker? Nope, wider!
  • + 3
 It's not plus bike because plus is a fad
  • - 4
flag jclnv (Apr 19, 2017 at 13:56) (Below Threshold)
 Bullshit. Plus bikes are some of the most fun mountain bikes I've ever ridden. Suspension will never do what a Plus tire can do. Fact.
  • + 2
 @jclnv: wrong, the fatbike does what plus bikes can't do, plus is fine for rigid bikes but ruins an all MTN or any 29er, makes it a heavy pig, I'm saying it's a fad for some bikes, in snow they are useless, it's gonna definitely help the stupid e bike segment, plus is great for e bikes! 275 + only makes sense because it gets the diameter to 29" and 29 isn't going anywhere.
  • + 0
 @markar: m.youtube.com/watch?v=w6TMA2vI8bA

And they're shit Plus tires.. 2.8" Minions destroy any 29" tire.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: I'm coming from an xc point of view duh, nothing is faster then 29"
  • + 2
 @jclnv: LOL you're using that as some scientific end all to the conversation?

Just because you like plus doesn't mean anything. Many people think they suck, which they do -FACT. Wink
  • + 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: What bike and tires have you ridden?

How something that gives grip that no suspension system can come close to can hardly be said to suck.

I went through all this shit years ago with 29" with the clueless kids on here saying they're only good for XC and all that crap. I see guys who have never ridden a Plus bike go into the shop and immediately discount them even though they haven't even ridden one. I'm not saying they're the be all and end all but they're pretty bloody funny to ride and in the right conditions, like loose and blown out, nuts fast.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: I have a Mojo3 ran it both ways.

I know it's hard for some people to understand what they dearly love is thought of as shit by others. It may increase traction, but that has never been an issue for me. It does give a very vague feeling though and that I can't stand.
  • + 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Fair enough.
  • + 3
 2x and 1x compatible? Thank you!
  • + 1
 Or as it's also known, compromised 1X.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: Unless you live somewhere with 1000m plus climbs Wink
  • + 0
 @carlitouk: And that's why there is Eagle. More range than 2x Shimano that compromises frame design.
  • + 3
 @btjenki: Is that 1000 euros burning a hole in my pocket again? Ah well, better blow it all on Eagle.
  • + 1
 @carlitouk: Or just get fit and run 1X11.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: I hear ya, but still not wild about replacing my pretty darn light cassette with a brick. Ooh, quite the dividing issue this Wink
  • + 1
 @carlitouk: Curious about how much your cassette weighs?
  • + 1
 @NateMob: Sadly, I weigh before fitting...285 grams, xt 11-32, 10 speed.
  • + 1
 @carlitouk: Reason being we've been sold this Boost idea yet we've still being sold frames with piss weak narrow main pivots so people can run FD's.

Makes no sense.
  • + 1
 @carlitouk: What are you front chainrings? (Tooth count)
  • + 4
 @btjenki: So Mr. Engineer how is the Ripley compromised by supporting 2x?
  • + 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Aesthetically, the mount for it is pretty terrible. Santa Cruz has the same style on the 5010. Otherwise, i'm no engineer.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: Piss weak main pivots? To be fair, that could be a sweeping generalisation.
  • + 1
 @carlitouk: Why? We're told we need to make everything obsolete with a 6mm wider axle spacing yet it's cool running a 8mm (a guess but I doubt far off) narrower main pivot spacing.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: Good lord man, you are right! I give in. I will conform with the status quo. Marketing department, I'm all yours, do with me what you will. Smile
  • + 1
 @carlitouk: Bollocks though isn't it? One minute it's all Boost and the next we've got these mega stiff carbon rear triangles connected to the frame with this skinny pivot just so that Marcel from Frankfurt can have a granny ring to climb up the Black Forest to pick truffles.
  • + 0
 And here I thought Boost was developed (by Trek?) to make 29er wheels as stiff as 26ers were with 142mm spacing by correcting the spoke angles. But since by just looking at one video and four pictures you guys already *know* the pivots are piss poor, I have forwarded your contact data to Ibis so they can finally hire some competent folks and ditch their team of clearly mentally retarded a-holes.
  • + 1
 @jclnv: Funny you must not have read the article, Ibis actually made the upper pivot wider than the V2
  • + 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: So what? The main pivot width is far more important.
  • + 1
 Bad ass bike.. owned the v1 and v2.. would buy again in a heart beat.. especially in that rad yellow color.. im on an sb4.5c now..
  • + 1
 Utley, the Ripley and the SB 4.5 are the two bikes I'm considering. How do they compare for you? You like the SB 4.5 better?
  • + 1
 @Asolando: both great bikes... I like the infinity switch over the DW but thats personal preference. Cant go wrong with either bike.
  • + 1
 Repeat after me, "this is not an enduro bike...this is not an enduro bike..." Its like therapy!
  • + 1
 i want trails like this.. no 'get at the hospital fast' jumps..just normal flowing trails..
  • + 1
 North America is almost exclusively normal flowing trails... like to a fault. If you're stuck somewhere with only steeps and jumps I can't muster any pity
  • + 2
 Does it come with free teeth cleanings?
  • + 2
 What's with the large pointy dome head bolt?
  • + 0
 Looks crap doesn't it.
  • - 2
 I've owned the original Ripley, amazing bike.
Demoed the LS version, didnt like it as much.
Sorry but this doesn't look innovating. Tire clearance was def an issue on the original Ripley but they should have fixed it in V2.
Looks like you can't even run it with 27.5+ tires (correct me if im wrong)
  • + 1
 16.9" chainstays might be good for someone who's 5'3", but chainstays in the L and XL sizes have gotten too short across the industry, leaving riders with long inseams hanging way back over the rear wheel. I'd gladly trade some ability to manual for the ability to not collapse the suspension on extended climbs.
  • + 2
 @Marcencinitas: or fight to keep the front end down.
  • + 1
 Anybody tried an angleset headset on their LS? To try steepen it up a deg?
  • + 0
 Lost me at $2999 for frame and shock. That's more than my new Mojo SL cost with a solid XT build.
  • + 1
 It says not plus tire compatible...why not?
  • + 1
 @Bomb: Breast milk storage. It's the new SWAT.
  • + 1
 Anyone this thing would be good with 2.8 -27.5" plus setup?
  • + 1
 The BB is already notoriously low. Going w/ that wheel/tire dimension will drop the BB another 10-12mm, which is gonna be a significant problem.
  • - 3
 Ibis pushed the industry when the original Ripley came out, it was a game changer running a 130-140 fork.

Was hoping for this 3rd gen Ripley to have 130-135mm rear travel, 16.9" Chainstays... 120mm with 17.5" chainstays just isn't competitive in 2017. Bummer.
  • + 1
 iblis cycles.
  • - 1
 Rented one of these last summer and, after all the hype, was underwhelmed. Was very happy to get back on my Evil Following.
  • + 0
 Wonder if it creaks as much as every. single. other. Ibis.
  • + 3
 I had a creak at the clevis of my Hd3 and contacted Ibis. Half an hour later I had a solution sent through and I've never had an issue again... I can live with that!
  • + 0
 Looks really good, but I'm keeping my masterpiece.
  • + 0
 How nice of them to post a picture of a bike that we can not see.
  • - 1
 I feel like whoever is designing bikes for Ibis should be sent back to 1998.
  • + 1
 so much potato
  • + 0
 Pedantic...........
  • - 1
 Stumpjumper from couple years ago.
  • + 1
 Exactly. And the ibis mojo feels like Enduro Big Grin
  • + 0
 Deleted photo>
  • + 0
 Threaded BB FTW!
  • - 1
 Looks like an EVIL
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2017. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.088245
Mobile Version of Website