First Look: 2021 RAAW Jibb
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.
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
• 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.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
what about a normal guy, the one paying for a bike, beside silva.
youtu.be/XQ4owd3yQ_4
The long chainstays don't help, just saying ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
LMAO
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?
>English English isn’t your first language
It is matte though...
.
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 ????
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.
Kleins were way lighter than Kestrals.
that is a little concerning for a frame this burly.
(It has plenty of flaws too, but it's been a fun experiment and is far more variable than I expected it to be)
A combination of factors gives the result you're taking about, but it's not purely HA.
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
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.
On the other hand you can get pretty good complete bike for that much...
Or you are a dentist
just a nice decent small manufacturer
For comparison: A Commencal Meta TR frame is 1500€ and a Banshee Prime is 1800€.
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
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.
Its built in taiwan.
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.
raaw: "yes."
Fine:
whale = fatbike
shark = dh bike
dolphin= trail bike
tuna = downcountry
salmon = xc
jellyfish = e bikes
long live DH Bike week
-$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?
Or S-Works Enduro carbon frame for $2800.
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.
Yeah thats why a shitty Cube DH Bike weights 15kg
I do think a trail bike can benefit from being a bit lighter and more responsive though.
Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it.
Have you read the review of the new cube dh bike?
...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!
Mmmmkay I'll believe it when I see it lol
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 ...
www.mtb-news.de/news/raaw-jibb-erster-test
the weight though!
I’m currently riding a 2021 Stumpjumper which is basically THE perfect bike for what I do.... But.... Aluminium...
Great work RAAW..!!