First Look: 2021 RAAW Jibb

Feb 18, 2021
by Henry Quinney  


Raaw are a German brand known for hard-charging and no-nonsense bikes. Or should I say bike? The brand seems to be near synonymous with the Madonna, its enduro rig that received high praise indeed when Mike Kazimer reviewed it, and it must have gotten a little lonely as the solitary series in Raaw's range because now it has a new playmate - the Raaw Jibb.

The Jibb shares many of the same aesthetic touches as the Madonna: the eye-catching oversized main pivot that draws your gaze, the aluminum framework that isn't shy of the odd gusset and 29-inch wheels front and back.
RAAW Jibb Details

• Wheelsize: 29"
• Travel: 135 (r) / 150mm (f)
• Aluminum Frame
• 65.5° head angle
• Chainstay length: 440-445-460mm
• Reach: 420, 445, 470, 495
• Frame only: €2290 (includes VAT)
raawmtb.com



However, although the apple never falls far from the tree, the Jibb is a new bike in its own right. Raaw say the Jibb "is made to ride up, down and chase its tail all over the mountains. It brings the Madonna’s DNA to an all-around more playful package and entices you to be an active part of the ride" and that it "doesn’t shy away from the big stuff one bit."

The Jibb showing that external cables and messy cables aren't the same thing.

Frame Details

It sports a 135mm travel platform delivered via a four bar system and is paired to a 150mm fork, although you can take this up to 160mm should you be so inclined. The bike will come in sizes small to extra large. Raaw feel that having the correct fore and aft weight balance on a bike is vital and, for that reason the chainstays grow as the reach does. The small and medium have chainstays of 440mm, and then each size after that adds 5mm. If the longer chainstays are a signifier of the bike's intentions and the ride characteristics the brand wants to impart, then the as-standard 203mm brake mount should be something of a smoking gun.

A medium frame, without the shock, weighs 3.6kg. All sizes enjoy a considerable 3.3 inches (84mm) of rear tire clearance to comfortably house a 2.6 inch tire.

Frames will be available in black or raw alloy with a matte clear coat. For a straight-shooting brand like Raaw, it's unsurprising that all the cables and hoses are external. It will satisfy some while disgruntling others, but it should be said that they seem to have made a good job of the execution, with the cables being kept out of contact with the headtube before diverting to follow the upper side of the downtube.

The frame is also available in black.

Geometry

If you wanted any more proof that the Jibb has the same blood running through its veins as the Madonna, then the geometry is a good place to start. The Jibb is built around the same static BB drop of 35mm. Dynamically, the Jibb will run a little bit higher due to the smaller amount of travel - the idea is that this will make the Jibb feel all the more playful and responsive.

The new frame also has slightly less reach compared to the Madonna and the saddle position is a shade more rearward. This will give comparatively similar riding positions between the two bikes, should you be so lucky.

Reaches range from 420mm to 495mm and increase in 25mm increments as you go through the sizes. All the bikes are built around a 65.5 degree head angle when equipped with a 150mm fork. While slightly less steep than the Madonna, the Jibb's seat angle is far from slack at 77.5 degrees.




Suspension

The four bar linkage suspension initially starts reasonably flat for the first 15mm of travel before it becomes more progressive as the leverage ratio consistently lowers throughout the remaining travel. It's very smooth and has an average of 15% progression. The initial flatter section where the leverage is relatively high should ensure the bike is active over small bumps while giving you more support the deeper into the stroke you go.

Leverage ratios such as this tend to mean the bike will play nicely with both coil and air. Raaw offer both, but are happy to be transparent and say that while a coil shock gives many great riding characteristics, the air offers very similar small bump compliance while being far easier to adjust.

The anti-rise, the term used to describe how applying the brakes affects the rear suspension, is quite low initially before increasing. The hope is that the suspension will be active under braking at the start of the stroke, where the value is low, before the influence of braking increases as you go deeper into the travel.


Build Options

The frame-only option is currently available for purchase. At this time Formula shock options are in stock and Fox options are ready to order with a delivery date of April. Pricing for the frame is €2290 and includes VAT. If you're buying from outside of the EU the price, less tax, is just over €1900.

There will be a limited number of full builds available to order with fulfillment from May. Pricing starts at €5490 and is only available in Europe due to restrictions on worldwide shipments of large boxes.





238 Comments

  • 212 17
 Ah yes, 29“, the new playful wheelsize for jibbing ^^
  • 24 10
 Mullet would be nice! No word on it as far as I see
  • 8 1
 @Germanmike: Agreed, it would make it more playful and in line with it's name.
  • 34 8
 I mean Jasper Penton rides a 29er and he's like the jibb king.
  • 35 0
 Someone let Vories know.
  • 41 10
 @learningcycles: what a miracle, a pro being able to ride a bike.
what about a normal guy, the one paying for a bike, beside silva.
  • 2 2
 @learningcycles: He's a small dude. You sure he's on a 29?
  • 1 0
 @Germanmike: I was really hoping the same.
  • 4 0
 @chriskneeland: at first he was but then Niner started making 27.5 bikes (lol) and he jumped on one of those. There are some edits of him shredding the 29 tho.
  • 28 0
 Ahh yes those 450mm chainstains the new playful size for jibbing.
  • 6 2
 Yeah, 29" wheels and calling it a "jib bike" is kinda silly, but since everyone wants 29ers these days, they are doing their best to make 29ers playful.

The long chainstays don't help, just saying ...
  • 1 0
 @learningcycles: naw 27.5 was just creeping in his comments the other day.
  • 1 0
 @chriskneeland: nvm thought you were talking about vories
  • 3 0
 @diegosk: Either way, that's two riders known for jibbing that went back to 27.5
  • 7 0
 @chriskneeland: yup. I went back to 27.5 after my 29er got stolen. Don’t plan go back to 29 on long travel bikes
  • 4 0
 put 27.5 wheels on it
  • 1 0
 @iiman: but can he dodge a wrench?
  • 1 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: exactly.. Guys been shredding 29 hard for years
  • 1 0
 @trialsracer: So bacicly a diamondback release?
  • 4 17
flag phops (Feb 18, 2021 at 13:57) (Below Threshold)
 I dunno whats worse, people spending thousands to shave 200 grams off their bikes, or people still believeing that wheel size makes a difference for handling.
  • 18 2
 @phops: If you don't know how wheel size affects handling, you must have never ridden a bike.
  • 1 0
 Nothing like jibbing in the raw...
  • 5 16
flag phops (Feb 18, 2021 at 14:31) (Below Threshold)
 @chriskneeland:

Nah. It doesnt.

Its easy to prove. You think 27.5 wheels make the bike more agile? Ride a slack 27.5 bike like Norco Shore, and then an XC bike like Trek Supercaliber, and see which one is more agile.

And before you star trying to weasel out and saying that the bikes are not comparable because they are for different riding purposes, realize that that nobody said anything about categories previously.
  • 6 0
 @phops: lol. I’ve been on a 29er a 27.5 and now I’m on a mullet. Bikes are good fun no matter what size wheels you have. Differences are perceptible but marginal.
  • 8 8
 @zmums:

The differences are in geometry, not in wheel size. Geometry does make a difference for handling. And if you want an Agile bike, there are plenty short wheelbase 29 trail bikes that are plenty agile.

The funniest thing about wheelsize debate IMO is that people act like 27.5 is the gold standard. If people really wanted agility, the would be buying up the older 26 bikes on PB and Craigslist.
  • 5 1
 @phops: All things being equal, any adjustment makes a difference. Swapping the flip chip on a chainstay, adding length to the wheelbase with an angle set, increasing the reach with an adjustable headset, BUT no more so than going from 27.5 to 29 inch wheels. You can't weasel out of that fact.
  • 4 0
 @diegosk: to be fair, there are some edits of him shredding a recumbent. Lol
  • 5 18
flag phops (Feb 18, 2021 at 14:51) (Below Threshold)
 @chriskneeland:

Yes, adjustments make a difference, but nobody is talking about adjustments. People believe that 27.5 wheels are more agile than 29, full stop. And that is wrong.

Furthermore, if you put on 27.5 wheels on a 29, you lower the BB, and thus the CG of the bike/rider. The lower the CG height to wheelbase ratio, the more stable the bike becomes, in the same way that keeping the CG stock height and lengthening the wheelbase makes the bike more stable and less agile. And this goes contrary to what people say.

The reason that 27.5 bikes seem to be more agile is because you usually need less frame clearance for the smaller wheel, so the 27.5 bike will have shorter chainstays and thus a shorter wheelbase. But thats a pure geometry issue. If you took a 2 bikes with the exact same geo numbers for wheelbase, bb height, reach, stack, headtube angle, and them being the same weight, except one is 27.5 and one is 29, they would feel the same.
  • 7 0
 @phops: Still got my 26in Operator in my garage. Most agile DH bike I've ever ridden.
  • 12 0
 @phops: No, you're wrong. Do you know how to whip? Or scrub? Of flip? I ran 26 on my TR11 when I first got it before buying a 27.5 wheelset. The increased centrifugal forces were noticeable in the air and throwing the bike around. When you learn how to whip, scrub, and flip, then you'll understand.
  • 4 15
flag phops (Feb 18, 2021 at 15:32) (Below Threshold)
 @chriskneeland:

I can prove to you using math that the centrifugal force difference between 26 and 27.5 or 27.5 and 29 is something that you can apply with your pinky. You are full of shit dude.
  • 3 0
 @iiman: Thanks for making me feel like the worst rider ever. I keep saying its all about the bike and never me. haha
  • 1 0
 @chriskneeland: He's been on 29er since he was riding that Cannondale in 2019. His new bike is the 29er Meta. Look how the shock is mounted. Commencal doesn't make a 27.5 mounted like that anymore. Is a 27.5 more playful, yes, I ride one. You can still steeze and jib all you want on a 29er, rider > bike.
  • 2 1
 @Korbi777: I know a few normal guys who can really steeze on a 29er. I know it's crazy!
  • 3 1
 @phops: No, you can't. But think what you want.
  • 1 0
 Honestly, when I was riding my Chromag mullet style, it didn't feel as playful as it did in 29. However, I was used to riding it 29, and didn't take too much time to get used to the change before I went back.
  • 1 0
 @learningcycles: i can‘t, but i‘m great at going straight. or a little left and right
  • 3 0
 @phops: You are totally Wrong man. I have a Ripmo and a Pivot 5.5. Same travel same suspension and similar geo. The Pivot 5.5 is way more agile and playful. I’m not going to say you can’t dick around on the Ripmo. It just takes so much more effort and finesse to throw a 29” wheeled bike around.
  • 1 2
 @Bikethrasher:

For large sizes

Ripmo: 1238mm wheelbase 64.9 head tube angle, 435 mm chainstay

Pivot: 1200mm wheelbase, 66.5 head tube angle, 430mm chainstay

How much drugs over how little time do you have to do to think these are similar?
  • 1 0
 Shhhh, RAAW are playing 4D chess with you. So here it is: do as Jill K and others do, and take your 29 trail bike and add 27 wheels and fork to it. Now you have a steeper head angle (more playful) and smaller wheels (stronger, more playful). Two bikes in one. Check mate!
  • 1 0
 @phops: Well boy. I did say similar not the same. The intended use is the same. Same travel front and rear same suspension same brand and width tires, same brand fork and shock, same brand of wheels Of course the wheelbase and chainstay length are different both are typically shorter with smaller wheels. Take the Devinci Troy for example same bike from the same manufacturer, but I can tell you the from riding both that the 27.5 is easily more playful while the 29 is more stable and high speed. Yeti SB130 vs SB140. Same outcome. Stumpjumper vs Stumpjumper Remedy vs Remedy again the same. I can go on and on. Since Niner bikes became a brand people like you have been saying 29 is just as playful as 26 then 27.5. I ride a lot of different bikes. From your comments many more than you have. Fact of the matter is no 9er is as playful as a smaller wheeled bike of the same travel. It’s impossible due to the larger wheels. Geometry has helped a lot but even good geo can’t defy the the laws of physics.
By the way not on drugs I just have been riding bikes longer than you. You should try Actually riding bikes instead of just looking at the geo charts and making ASSumptions. You might learn something.
  • 2 1
 @phops: if 29 and 27.5 feel identical, why do tiny wheels (like 20” or 16”) feel totally different to big wheels? Compare a Brompton on 16” tyres to a road or hybrid bike with similar geometry on 622 rims.
  • 2 0
 @threehats:

In what world is Brompton similar geometry to a hybrid bike?

In order to have the same geometry between 2 bikes, you need to match the wheelbase, chainstay length, bb height, reach, stack, effective top tube, seat tube angle, head tube angle, head tube vertical distance off the ground, and front geometric trail. You also need to match tire width since this affects lean dynamics.

If you did that for 2 bikes, one for 29 wheels and then one for 20 wheels, you would find that they handle pretty much indentically (even if it seems counterintutivie) untill you start going offroad with more rougher terrain where the 20 inch wheels would get stuck more.

And thats because physic dictates that the bike moves solely from the reaction forces on the contact patch from the ground, whether propulsion, braking, or cornering. The ground doesn't know or care what wheel size you have. The force and torque goes throught the contact patch to the rim, through the spokes to the frame, and acts on the CG. So the only thing that really matter in terms of how the bike handles is the location of the contact patches in respect to the CG, and how those contact patches move around when you turn the bars.
  • 1 0
 @Bikethrasher: I used to think that way.. But over time muscle memory just takes over and the 29 just feels how my old 27.5 felt.. I can do everything on it that I could do on the smaller wheels.. At 6'4 theres no need for me to ever go back.
  • 1 0
 @phops: “ So the only thing that really matter in terms of how the bike handles is the location of the contact patches in respect to the CG, and how those contact patches move around when you turn the bars.”

Even if this argument is correct (which it isn’t as it’s an oversimplification), it fails to consider the dynamic shape of the contact patches. They aren’t contact points, they are contact patches, and the tyre radius as well as the tyre cross section has an effect on that.

“ untill you start going offroad with more rougher terrain where the 20 inch wheels would get stuck more.”

And therefore that is also true for 27.5 vs 29 - and that is going to change the handling too.
  • 1 0
 @threehats:

Remember that the thing I have issue with is not that things change between 27.5 and 29 handling wise, its that a bike with 27.5 wheels is somehow more agile.

If you are going to go the contact patch argument, you would probably agree that 29 has a longer contact patch than a 27.5 and much larger than 20. The larger contact patch size improves grip over looser terrain, since it redestributes the lateral force over a greater area, leading to less lateral pressure which has a lower tendency to make lose stones skip over each other. And better grip = more agility. So that argument falls apart.

As for rollover, this is no longer an agility issue but a rolling efficiency issue and yes, 29er wheels are better at this than 27.5 and 29.

This is all so pointless to really argue because the proof is already out there - go ride a Norco Shore, and then a Supercaliber, and see which one is more agile. If your statement is "27.5 wheeled bikes are more agile", you will quickly see how you are wrong. If you think that geometry matters as well, then we are in complete agreement. Not sure why this is so hard for people to understand.
  • 1 0
 @phops: I have never said that geometry doesn’t matter - geometry is critical. And wheel diameter is a fundamental part of geometry. If you design two bikes which are identical bar the tyre diameters (obviously BB drop has to change) then the one with larger diameter tyres (same width though) will be more stable and less nimble.

Anyone claiming a 27.5” DH bike is more number than a 29” XC bike is obviously talking rubbish but your argument was that tyre OD does not matter. It does.

Also, better grip does not equal more agility, if anything it correlates more with stability, especially regarding the rear tyre. That’s one reason why 29F 27.5R is a thing.
  • 1 0
 Obviously that should say nimble not number.
  • 1 1
 @threehats:

>Anyone claiming a 27.5” DH bike is more number than a 29” XC bike is obviously talking rubbish

Wait do you disagree? Do you really think that a 29xc bike is less nimble than a long/slack 27.5 DH/enduro bike?
  • 1 0
 @phops: My TR11 is way more nimble than my Trek Top Fuel. The Top Fuel is pretty twitchy. You actually can't do shit on an XC bike except climb with it. You clearly don't ride enough bikes.
  • 1 0
 @phops: Look, I realise that English English isn’t your first language but it’s really not that hard to understand. Tyre size is part of geometry and therefore affects handling. If you can find a way to keep the trail figure constant whilst changing tyre size but keeping geometry identical then do let me know. Likewise BB height and drop.
  • 1 0
 @threehats:

>English English isn’t your first language
  • 61 1
 Wow. This just went straight to the top of my most-wanted list
  • 7 72
flag Jacquers (Feb 18, 2021 at 5:53) (Below Threshold)
 The 2021 Giant Trance X has almost the same amount of travel (136 / 150). Different geo though.
  • 202 6
 The 2021 Toyota Corolla also has wheels. It’s a car though.
  • 38 1
 My coffee mug also takes up space on this astral plane. Doesn't have wheels tho
  • 93 1
 @Jacquers: if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle
  • 1 0
 So shiny...want NOW!!!!!
  • 2 0
 @smartyiak: I feel you.

It is matte though...
  • 4 0
 @50percentsure: It's kinda like: bad is "good," hot is "cool"...or is it cool is "hot." It just means: good-looking.
  • 2 0
 @nskerb: Maybe she is your uncle?
.
  • 5 0
 @RowdyAirTime: is her name Lola?
  • 1 1
 @ReformedRoadie: I thought she might be the doggie on the top tube?
  • 2 0
 @T4THH: First thing I thought of
  • 48 2
 No MX wheels, Heavy (ok weight doesn't mater), Long chainstay = no jibb bike
  • 7 3
 Compared to the battleship that is the Madonna, this one might actually be quite jibby.
  • 9 0
 @Ttimer: yeah maybe, the tests will tell. But it isn't like the speci staus, that bike I would call "jibb"
  • 3 0
 I ride a M madonna with the short stays. I also have a previous gen 5010. True, the madonna is no 5010, but it's easier to throw around than you might think. I still wheelie, manual, nose bonk 180, stair hop, and other silly jibby things with it
  • 45 12
 So when did weight stop mattering, when Pinkbike, Vital, etc. declared it? Weight not mattering is marketing BS, a bike like this should be lighter than it is. There was a time when a lot of thought was put into aluminum frames, they used high-end double/triple butted tubing, were lighter and still durable. This is just laziness now, mass produced, stock 4-bar HL aluminum bikes cranked out of Asian factories, and you all buy this crap high-tech marketing crap that weight = durability.
  • 3 1
 @SlodownU: My new Aluminium rocky mountain thunderbolt weighs the same as my BMX....
  • 3 0
 @Ttimer: ...but then again, compared to a Madonna, everything is "jibby".
  • 1 0
 @BenTheSwabian: That's my point. In-house, the name makes sense.
  • 1 2
 @SlodownU: I agree, but I think the problem is the bikes are getting bigger overall, that means longer tubes, which means more leverage, so the tubing wall thickness and general design has to be much stronger.

Rewind a few years back to when 27.5 was all the rage and reach values were a good 50-70mm shorter - some burly ally frames were very light.

The other factor is what we ride, or the bikes are capable of these days.
I used to ride AM / Enduro, but I’m definitely classified as a Trail rider these days ????
  • 2 0
 @DG370: I agree partly with what you're saying, however the differences in reach should not account for the 2-pound difference in frame weights, and chainstays were actually longer 10yrs ago. Also, we were still riding 150-160mm forks, which is where a lot of leverage on the front of the frame comes from. Either way, you should still be able to butt and gusset a frame where you expect the stresses to be without building a tank. I will also argue that what we rode was less manicured and more gnarly terrain. The trails were rockier, and the transitions were not as nice. The movement to make everything a flow/jump trail hadn't reached todays level of acceptance.

Looking at it differently, 10-12 years ago before we fully transitioned to carbon, aluminum was state of the art, designers had years of experience under their belts engineering and manufacturing with that material. To make an aluminum frame light and strong required butted tubes, intelligent design, and skilled welders. The best manufacturers used all of this and 7-series aluminum. This would cost $$$. If you want premium aluminum today, your choices are much more limited, and you have to dig deeper, but its still out there.
  • 1 0
 @SlodownU: Mm some interesting takes.
Kleins were way lighter than Kestrals.
  • 39 3
 8lbs for the frame without a shock? I'm no weight weenie, but that is CHUNKY for a 135mm 'trail' bike. (But it does look awesome.)
  • 19 6
 Ya, same thing as that Privateer 141; just as heavy as the bigger enduro version, so whats the point?
  • 5 3
 Point is that the bike is heavy and privateer too
  • 4 1
 @hamncheez: Less travel, so the bike is more responsive to inputs, pumping. pedaling etc. Honestly I'd have the Maddonna, or the 161 (I've got on on order).
  • 21 3
 Let's put it this way: If it was 1 kg lighter, at 2,6 kg it would already be relatively heavy for a short travel trail bike. But 3,6 kg is just unnecessarily much. If you need that much material to make your frame durable and stiff, you're doing something wrong.
  • 4 1
 @hamncheez: This. I don't get why you're being downvoted.
  • 10 2
 @melonhead1145: Grab a Maddonna, put a 150mm fork on it and run your rear air shock with all the volume spacers in it. Now you have this bike.
  • 11 0
 @BenTheSwabian: durable is also not guaranteed, seeing that the warranty is only 2 years.
  • 3 0
 @GZMS:

that is a little concerning for a frame this burly.
  • 3 3
 @BenTheSwabian: people don't buy shorter travel bikes just because they weight less. The reason you buy a shorter travel bike (as opposed to a longer travel bike same weight) is because it's more fun on the trails you have access to or like to ride.
  • 5 0
 @GZMS: Maybe if Raw added another 1-2lbs to that superlight weight frame, warranty would be better?
  • 5 1
 @BenTheSwabian: True. There is also surprisingly little correlation between frame weight and strength. This fact is regularly proven by the likes of Syntace, Scott, Kona or Alutech.
  • 5 0
 @Ttimer: If you want to see burly done correctly, go look at Banshee. Forged parts, internal ribbing on the stays, completely over-built, and they’re still lighter than this.
  • 25 0
 I'm surprised no one is talking about the head angle. I think it's great that they recognise that 63/64 degree head angles don't make for a particularly lively ride. Slack angles are great for bombing through stuff but steeper = agility. I think we've tended to get sucked into what the racers are using at the expense of being sensible about our own abilities. You'll be faster on the bike that's easiest for you to handle.
  • 5 0
 Amazing truth's being spoken here.
  • 3 0
 Depends on the bike, I've got a 2018 Transition Scout that I've mulleted with a 140mm fork and it now has a sub 64 degree head angle and yet it's the most playful bike I've owned for a LONG time. Definitely playful and jibby, and yet able to handle really steep terrain.
(It has plenty of flaws too, but it's been a fun experiment and is far more variable than I expected it to be)
  • 3 0
 @2d-cutout: yeah but you just said it. it's really good on decent's, this would not work well for people with limited downhill. playful and "jibby" downhill is very different than playful on flat ground. 64 degrees on a flat trail would be terrible for me. I run 65.6 and that's as far as i would go. punchy climbs are fun for me and having nimble fast and steep Geo is what les me not dismount at the top with an overhang of roots.
  • 1 0
 @ridingofthebikes: I think what makes us playful and jibby is that it's short, it's a medium and I'm 5'9". After mulleting is about a 438mm reach and I would consider it playful everywhere. What it is NOT is a good technical climber, but it's a great trail bike and covers distances well - I did a 2200m 60km ride the other day and have an 80km+ ride planned soon. (Insert Yoda voice) 64 degree head angle doesn't a bad riding bike make.
A combination of factors gives the result you're taking about, but it's not purely HA.
  • 2 0
 @2d-cutout: I agree, it’s not all about the head angle. But @nukechip is right too - a steeper head angle does two things; quickens the steering and shortens the wheelbase (obviously). That should help to create a bike that’s easier to handle, less of a handful on our local trails. For riders in the Uk - certainly around here in the midlands that’ll make for a quicker bike than an ‘enduro race bike’ type rig.
I’m a big proponent of good all round handling, creating a bike that is an extension of the rider. As you rightly say it’s a combination of factors.
Most of us need rally cars, not f1
  • 2 0
 @ProperPushIrons: agree. As a fellow UK ‘midlander’ my steep-by-modern-standards Giant Trance keeps it quick between the trees, and is nimble in the tight sections, whilst the short climbs and descents are still handled well (ride regularly at Cannock Chase). Super slack I think would make for a worse ride on these trails.
  • 2 0
 @GazeeMW: I grew up in Oxfordshire and have ridden Cannock a good few times, prior to NZ I lived in Whistler though so am pretty used to steep and deep now.

There's no denying my Scout feels more alive on gnarly trails, even with 130mm rear, 140mm front than it does for XC. I'm curious as to whether that is suspension kinematics, weight (it's about 16kg's with heavier tyres and cushcore etc) or the geo though.

Obviously I'm just comparing to a single bike, not being a tester I don't have a big back catalogue of bikes to compare to. We do have a Tallboy at work though, and that also feels very capable for the travel and yet covers ground very well.
  • 1 0
 @2d-cutout: yeah fair i guess i just have a bad view of it because i dont get to ride bikes on hills. lol.
  • 29 1
 ordered
  • 13 1
 ooops, xtr build has carbon wheels ...
  • 29 2
 @Stizzl: now thats a "first world problem" if I've ever seen one
  • 34 10
 Budget Raw alu frame for 2300 euro?
On the other hand you can get pretty good complete bike for that much...
  • 31 4
 Idno if the bikeindustry has ruined me but I thought it sounded pretty cheap
  • 16 3
 This isn’t a mass produced bike that’s trying to hit a certain price point
  • 1 3
 check out Trek or other brands....
  • 15 2
 @rokokong: Yeah the bike industry ruined you.
Or you are a dentist Smile
  • 21 0
 RAAW is not a budget brand, why would you think so?
  • 7 1
 not every brand aims to be the cheapest out there it's kind of crazy to expect a small brand to be cheaper than big name brands. Plus Raaw sets a big focus on a long life span of its bikes. You can definitely get a cheaper Frame but you pay for it later
  • 2 2
 @slothez: Maybe he mixed up Budget and Boutique?
  • 3 0
 Budget? Not really.
  • 2 1
 Ya, the Specialized Status, or the bike that shall not be named, kinda killed the buzz around these other brands. Aluminum, lighter, 140mm or 160mm, $999.
  • 10 0
 @Ttimer: I don't think its boutique either. The tubing, welding, etc. looks _very_ similar to the ones of Airdrop, Bird, Privateer to name a few.

just a nice decent small manufacturer
  • 10 0
 Yep, that's roughly $2700 USD. Banshee frames are just above $2k, just for comparison. The Phantom or Prime are very comparable to this bike.
  • 5 1
 Even at 1900 euro to get it over here in the US (~$2,300) is not a competitive price point. Ripmo AFs and Sight Alloys are $1700 -$2000 albeit not with a Fox X2, but that seems like an odd choice of shock for a bike like this right? Why would you get this (other than availability rn) over a carbon Optic frame for $2800? Crazy to think my Giga was $2600 for full carbon + same Fox X2 + across the pond on my doorstep in 1 week.
  • 11 0
 That's not cheap for an aluminium frame. Quite expensive actually.

For comparison: A Commencal Meta TR frame is 1500€ and a Banshee Prime is 1800€.
  • 3 0
 @BenTheSwabian: Bird would be an apt competitor as well.
  • 2 2
 @asapyohanes: They are all the same frames like the big co. because its produced in Taiwan. Where the big company produce there frame is also the same company produce the frame of Madonna.
  • 1 0
 @lakay: @lakay That still doesn't matter from the standpoint of price to me at least. I think it doesn't make any sense to expect Raaw to beat big name brands in pricing considering they are most likely not buying in the same high numbers (Insert joke about shipping delays) and the have a new buisness that most likely does not have the same connections as most well established brands. I don't mind paying a bit more for reliability and durability. In that regard they are very much not the same as most other companies !
  • 1 0
 @bikefuturist: because they come out of same factory?
  • 4 0
 @Endurahbrah: the prime is literally this bike except it probably pedals better. same geo, same travel...
  • 5 0
 @Endurahbrah:

The Banshee Prime is very similar in geo and travel as well.

Both are 135mm rear travel.
Both have 65.5 degree hta
Chainstays are within 5mm of each other in size large, and identical in XL
Both have 470mm reach in large
  • 1 8
flag nurseben (Feb 18, 2021 at 11:23) (Below Threshold)
 @bikefuturist: It's boutique because it's built locally and in small batches vs mass produced in another country.

Of course here in the states it's still "foreign" to us, but we have our own local builders.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare to mass produced bikes to boutique bikes, it's like saying you can get a "good" hamburger at McDonalds.

I think it's cool looking bike, but the chainstays are too long for me.
  • 4 0
 @nurseben:

Its built in taiwan.
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: shall not be named?
  • 1 0
 @romERROR: Perhaps he mean Calibre Bossnut. It is cheap and the name is suggestive.
  • 1 0
 @romERROR: Did you know pinkbike did a review of it this week? Go and try to find that article.
  • 1 0
 @bikefuturist: well damn, that’s lame, now it’s looking kinda pricey for what it is, hard pass.
  • 21 3
 Oh no... What are you doing, RAAW?

They are currently making the same mistake as Privateer made with the 141. The RAAW Madonna might be awesome and in its case, weight might really not matter that much. But literally no one wants a short travel trail bike weighing 17 kg, if you could also have a 160 mm enduro bike that weighs the same.
  • 7 9
 but 160mm bikes pedal like poo poo. even if a short ravel bike is heavy. it rides better. a heavy road bike will still ride faster than a heavy enduro. If you live where i do with flat smooth rolly hills where 160 mm feel like a dirt bike without a motor (or a dead ebike) than it makes sense.
  • 25 12
 Very sorry we're having a good time on the Jibb! We should have checked the internets before going down this road...
  • 19 0
 engineer: "how big do you want the main pivot?"
raaw: "yes."
  • 12 0
 Haha, high5
  • 16 0
 I do like the RAAW brand, but looks like I'm going with a new Banshee Prime.
  • 14 0
 Another review posted too early and to get pulled later today.....Get out of here with your non DH bike in DH bike week.....Do they put whale shows on during Shark Week? Long live DH bike week!
  • 4 0
 Lol.
  • 4 0
 Aren't trail bikes the dolphins of the bike world? When thinking about whales, I immediately picture fat bikes. Wait, what's a seahorse?
  • 13 0
 @Dr

Fine:

whale = fatbike
shark = dh bike
dolphin= trail bike
tuna = downcountry
salmon = xc
jellyfish = e bikes

long live DH Bike week
  • 5 0
 @pink505: e bikes are the microplastics.
  • 13 1
 $2730 plus shipping to the USA. Why would I buy this when:

-$2800 gets me a Reeb Squeeb v3, in the color I want, that takes a full sized bottle, can be run 130 or 150mm, has the choice of two leverage curves, comes with a DVO Topaz, and is made in the USA,
- $2249 gets me a Banshee Prime with the same dpx2 standard, takes a full sized bottle, and has adjustable chainstays and bottom bracket height (with the option to buy it without a shock for $1900),
- $2200 gets me a Guerrilla Gravity carbon frame that is made in the USA, or
-$3199 gets me a Ripmo AF with a DVO Topaz, and at that price they also throw in a DVO Onyx fork, wheels, tires, a drivetrain, brakes, cockpit, dropper, and a saddle?
  • 4 1
 @carym $2500 gets you a carbon Mega with a Fox shock!
  • 2 1
 Or S-Works Stumpjumper carbon frame that weighs 5 lbs for $2800.

Or S-Works Enduro carbon frame for $2800.
  • 8 0
 @Mr-Monterey: I never thought I would see the day where the Big S and a good value were in the same sentence. They have really stepped it up with innovation and their competitive pricing over the past few years.
  • 4 2
 @carym: or maybe you've just gotten so numb to ridiculous frame prices, to the point that you consider $2800 for a mass-produced plastic specialized frame to somehow be a good deal
  • 1 0
 @thegoodflow: That has been the going rate for about 10 years. Keep in mind, Turner aluminum frames were the same price when they were still made in the USA.
  • 2 0
 Maybe they aren’t that arsed about the US market, probably not very profitable for a small German company compared to selling inside the EU. On a side note (as you mention which bikes are made in the USA) why do people add so much value to whether a bike is built in whatever country they are from? Not a dig at the USA, I remember a post about Orange and loads of British people were obsessed with it being made in the UK. Is it about keeping money in your country’s economy or a mindset that the bikes are built better because the factory is in the same country as you? Surely you just want the best frame builder irrespective of where they live?
  • 1 0
 @thegoodflow: That "plastic" frame is 2.5-3lbs lighter, while having drastically adjustable geometry, a big storage compartment and a lifetime warranty. None of which this frame has, while being more expensive.
  • 12 2
 Hey raaw, please develop a 27,5 version with 145/160mm travel. When you're done: Shut up and take my money! Thanks!
  • 10 0
 1240mm wheelbase large sized trail bike great for jibbing... 2013 me falls off his chair.
  • 11 1
 Am I the only person who can’t stand the term “jib” / “jibbing”?
  • 4 7
 Ok boomer
  • 7 4
 @thegoodflow: ok wanker
  • 8 0
 nice a banshee prime!
  • 7 1
 Wow 2,6kg wonder if someone can hit the 20kg mark with his full build
  • 11 0
 I think you mean 3.6kg (without shock)?
Too heavy for my needs for a trail bike, but about the same as the Privateer 141, which I believe is created in the same factory.
  • 2 0
 3.6kg! at least it will take a hammering
  • 12 7
 I have a RAAW Madonna v2 in size XL, with double down tyres, 38 and float X2 and it weighs a tad under 16kg. It’s not light, but that’s not what it is trying to be. And compared to my old megatower that was just about 2kgs lighter is is way more planted in techy sections. I think people should stop thinking that weight is automatically a bad thing, and if you’ve ever tried an ebike you’d know that they feel insane on the downhills.
  • 3 3
 @filthyphill:
Yeah thats why a shitty Cube DH Bike weights 15kg
  • 7 0
 @filthyphill: My enduro bike is a similar weight to yours - and none the worse for it.
I do think a trail bike can benefit from being a bit lighter and more responsive though.
  • 11 3
 @filthyphill:
Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it.
  • 2 0
 @dark-o:
Have you read the review of the new cube dh bike?
  • 2 5
 @PhilBoss: Why shoud I? Cube sucks balls
  • 2 0
 @dark-o: I also don't like cube but the new DH is alright
  • 5 3
 @filthyphill: my raaw madonna v2, xt, size M, fox 38, dpx2 (coil) + cush core and mallet pedals was 17.4kg. It's a good bike for those who shuttle a lot or don't climb a lot. I'd like to see EWS riders pushing such a bike for 2000m+ on races such as the one Pietra Ligure. Weight definetly plays a huge role (same story for the specialized stumpy over the enduro). I sold it straight away. Was very disappointed when i asked to the factory why they told me it would weigh 15.7kg and in reality it was easily 800g more0 (without pedals and cushcore). They couldn't explain, nor admit that they were deliberatly providing me with false information.
  • 2 0
 @cvoc: yeah, snatch, great movie.
  • 2 0
 @mrusconi: the weight on websites always refers to a size small, with no pedals, with exo+ tyres, air shock etc. Obviously putting a coil,Cush core,xt transmission and chunky pedals on it and it quickly adds up. I don’t know how you got it up to 17,4 kg but the Cush Core and dhx2 coil alone probably costs you 1kg. By putting on xtr you could save a coupe more hundred grams and carbon rims and wheels could lighten it even more. But what’s the point? I have carbon rims on my bike but that’s more because of performance and less about weight. I’m really happy with the bike for the trails I ride and in the park it’s a machine!
  • 3 1
 @filthyphill: The weight was directly communicated from RAAW in an e-mail discussion. I would just expect to not be lied about it. It's not difficult: one buys a 30$ scale, hangs the bike on it, reads the measurement and send the information to whom asked for it, also if the numbers are not so beautiful.
...but as you say, the bike rips when going down...that's all it does
I got myself a norco sight instead: very similar geo, love it!
  • 1 0
 @mrusconi: yeah but that’s the same among all brands... no bike ever weighs what they advertise on the website. I see your point though.
  • 3 1
 Actually i love the idea of great alu bikes. The best examples are Nicolai bikes and Raaw. They are just great. The problem is there came out lots of great carbon bikes like Propain and Nicolai and Raaw are more expensive or similar.
  • 5 0
 Im rocking a v2 prime and this guy is very similar, super fun bike prefect do it all.
  • 3 0
 I have a V2 Prime and a Madonna. This new Jibb has a similar bottom bracket to the Madonna which is probably the biggest geo difference. When I swap onto the prime it feels notably taller (better pedal clearance though).
  • 5 1
 Had a madonna, kept it for 2 weeks and sold it straight away. This bike it's definetly going to be way too heavy for its purpose, exactly like the madonna (>17kg, size M)
  • 5 0
 "Fox options are ready to order with a delivery date of April"


Mmmmkay I'll believe it when I see it lol
  • 6 2
 I know adjustable geometry is a desired feature, but two bottom bracket holes?!
  • 4 0
 Has anyone pointed out that this is a Madonna with a short shock? 15% progression!? What is this, 2016?!
  • 3 1
 Does jib have a different meaning in German? It makes no sense to have long CS and wagon wheels ona bike then market it as a jibb. They going to make a bike with 26 inch wheels next and call it the Monster Truck?
  • 2 2
 Jib has many meanings. Jibb is gibberish enshrined in a proper name
  • 1 0
 @ceecee: They have a puppy picture on the top tube, perhaps it is the name of someone’s dog?
  • 1 1
 @matthellstream: & R.A.A.W. is an acronym. /s I pity Mary and her child, but if you make a porno called Raw Madonna starring Ruben Torenbeek I'll purchase the copy
  • 3 1
 Okay, so I gotta ask: Is that a small frame?

Cuz if it is, I suspect they used the smaller frame size to make it look more compact to appeal to the "jibbers".

It's all in the advertising ...
  • 5 1
 Asking myself why I just started to build up a Gravel bike Big Grin
  • 4 0
 There is something on that Raaw frames/bikes. They all look awsome.
  • 6 2
 External cable routing, threaded BB and raw aluminum!!! Sign me up!!!
  • 8 3
 german magazines reviewing german bikes are usually terrible (at least enduro mag is)
  • 1 1
 @bikefuturist: enduro mag is terrible overall, no matter the country the bike is from ^^
  • 4 0
 Ok, next mission for Ruben is a mullet link for the Madonna!
  • 4 0
 Hello, hello alloy Sentinel. You are back!
  • 3 0
 When Madonna 2 available?
  • 1 0
 according to the Raaw website... Frame kits will be available in ample quantities with different shock options throughout 2021 and are planned to be back in stock in June.
  • 3 0
 Very clean looking frame.
  • 2 0
 I thought that price tag was high, for an alu frame. Until I saw the raw, frame only pic, lower down the page!
  • 4 2
 Always makes me wonder when a see a cracking bike like this. Why buy a plastic bike when you can have something like this!
  • 2 0
 I've been on plastic bikes for a while, but after switching to a Ti gravel bike, i reeeeally wanna get a metal MTB.

the weight though! Frown
  • 1 1
 @huckschwinn: In reality a decent spec aluminum bike vs a carbon bike there isn't much difference now. 1-2 lbs which isn't much and long as not rotational weight.
  • 1 1
 @huckschwinn: like a pound difference. most carbon bikes have expensive components making them light. it's fake news. a high spec aluminium is hardly more heavy on a lot of models. Rocky mountain's especially.
  • 1 0
 @MattP76: oops we commented at the same time, with the same info lol.
  • 2 1
 @ridingofthebikes: LOL, great minds think alike!
  • 2 2
 65.5 head angle? Near enough the same as my 2019 stumpy. Seems like a backwards step to me. Shame really. This would have been spot on otherwise. If I’m not mistaken head angle is more about turning that agility?
  • 1 0
 Now try finding a 31.6 seatpost for it. Or group set. Just when we thought we'd reached nirvana we looked around and realized where we really were....
  • 4 6
 I wonder how much this will weigh with a 34 fork and how good the pedalling platform is.......

I’m currently riding a 2021 Stumpjumper which is basically THE perfect bike for what I do.... But.... Aluminium...

Great work RAAW..!!
  • 3 0
 Stop looking at the pictures of this bike and go enjoy your NEW stumpy!
  • 2 0
 @CircusMaximus: Haha! I sure do! New Stumpy is mega. Loving that bike a lot, it does pretty everything.
  • 2 0
 Argh I would really like matching Madonna and Jibb in my garage..
  • 3 0
 Me too. This is going to be expensive
  • 2 0
 This is how you do frame colour options!
  • 2 0
 Want one! But would be nice to slap some paint on it. Or polish the thing.
  • 3 0
 good head angle!
  • 2 0
 29"jib bike. Brilliant....
  • 2 0
 Is the Black anodized? or paint?
  • 1 0
 Powder coat
  • 1 0
 This looks incredible. Might be my next full squish to compliment my hardtails.
  • 1 0
 Love Raaw! But is anyone having trouble getting their frame from Germany to the US? I’ve been waiting 3+ months Frown
  • 1 0
 Man I love how RAWW bikes look. I'd be keen to grab one if they didn't sell out instantly lmao
  • 2 0
 I like it alot!
  • 1 0
 oh wow, frames are in stock, no need to wait till 2022
  • 2 0
 I was fully expecting to check the website and they be sold out already
  • 1 0
 Hallelujah miracles do come true. Ship in 8 weeks though...
  • 1 0
 Yes, please. I want both. Raaw Madonna and this one as well.
  • 1 0
 What is the total bike weight? with dpx2 ?
  • 3 1
 They need a 120mm bike.
  • 3 1
 Fake news
  • 1 0
 Ahh yes a Banshee Prime V3.....
  • 1 0
 Sick rig but really really missed the mark on the name
  • 2 2
 Yes please. This would complement my awesome Madonna V2 nicely :-P
  • 2 1
 Give it to me raw!
  • 1 0
 would be sweet 26s
  • 1 1
 When 135 is short travellol
  • 1 1
 Ahh I saw Jib and had hopes of no wagon wheels. False advertising!
  • 1 1
 You can hardly eat it. It Is RAAW Smile
  • 1 1
 External cable routing is the new internal cable routing
  • 1 0
 Aight USA ima head out
  • 1 4
 Looks like a pretty solid trail bike. Reach is a little short for the seat angle and head angle. I would like at least 10 more mm. Quality ride though
  • 1 1
 Looks like a fuel ex.

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.028571
Mobile Version of Website