Field Test Review: 2024 Ibis HD6 - Sporty and Smashy

Oct 10, 2023 at 17:10
by Matt Beer  

PINKBIKE FIELD TEST REVIEW

Ibis HD6



Words by Matt Beer; photography by Tom Richards


When Ibis dropped the all-new HD6, it slotted into their lineup as the brand's most aggressive enduro bike to date. That didn't come as a total surprise because carbon prototype sightings appeared in early 2023. Previously, their enduro racers had been modifying the front and rear travel of the popular Ripmo model, but still left more to be desired.

The HD6 is a highly capable race bike that is light and snappy, with 165mm of travel out back. Ibis hasn’t deviated from the DW-Link suspension, but most noticeably, the tube shapes are rather straight-cut and less swoopy than in the past. Space inside the front triangle allowed for water bottle fitment and top tube accessory storage. Overall, it's a specific bike with no geometry adjustments and runs exclusively on mixed wheels.
Ibis HD6 Details

• Carbon frame
• Travel: 165mm / 180mm fork
• Mixed wheels
• DW-Link suspension
• 64° head angle
• 76.5° seat angle
• Reach: 430, 454, 480 (tested), 508, 541mm
• Chainstay: 435mm
• Sizes: 1, 2, 3, 4,5
• Weight: 15.1 kg / 33.4 lb
• Price: $11,199 USD
• More info: ibisbicycles.com

That all sounds grand, except taller riders may find some shortcomings in terms of geometry. Given that the fork travel runs long at 180mm, Ibis has chosen a short 95mm headtube on the size 3 frame. Compared to the Nukeproof Giga 297, which uses a fork of equal length, the stubby head tube is 15mm shorter and may raise eyebrows for some riders who appreciate a taller stack height.

Then there are the chainstays to consider - the 435mm length remains the same on all sizes, which we’ll discuss in both climbing and descending.

The HD6 a stunning bike in terms of appearance, but it's also pricey, at least for the version we tested. Unlike the Ripmo, there's no aluminum frame options here. Our top-of-the-line build kit with Fox Factory suspension, house-branded carbon bars and 35mm rims, plus the latest electronic shifting and dropper post from SRAM totals $11,199 USD.

All of that sums up to a mass of 15.1 kg (33.4 lb), nearly 3 kg lighter than the heaviest bike on test, the Nicolai Nucleon 16.

Ibis HD6 - Photos by Tom Richards





Ibis HD6 - Photos by Tom Richards
Ibis HD6 - Photos by Tom Richards

Climbing

Out of the gate, the HD6 is quick on its feet. The DW-link suspension offers a solid platform to stand up and put the power down without giving up much in terms of climbing traction. The 76.5-degree seat tube angle isn't the steepest on test, but testers found it to be it to be more comfortable for pedaling on flatter terrain compared to some of the other bikes with what felt like nearly vertical seat tube angles. Out of the eight bikes we had in this round of testing, the HD6 ranks near the top when it comes to how easy it is to climb. Its low weight certainly doesn't hurt, but the blend of grip and support deserves credit too.

Our size 3 bike was able to clamber up tricky climbs without much fuss, but the balance of the two larger sizes may not be as ideal - the size 5 has a whopping 541mm reach, still with those compact 435mm chainstays. It is good to see that the seat angle does steepen on the larger bikes, which is meant to help ensure that riders don't end up with their weight too far over the rear wheel.

Ibis HD6 - Photos by Tom Richards

Ibis HD6 - Photos by Tom Richards
Ibis HD6 - Photos by Tom Richards

Descending

Why do we keep going on about the HD6 being a superb enduro race bike? In the right hands, it can be an absolute weapon on the descents. In a straight line, the monstrous 180mm fork can eat heavy impacts, making you feel invincible at times. However, depending on how you set up the fork, that can cause an imbalance with the 165mm of travel out back. Compared to a typical 170mm fork, it yields more sag and a steeper head tube angle, therefore faster steering. When you get into steep, chunky trails, found in Whistler’s Garbanzo Zone, the front end height can feel extra low as the fork moves into its plentiful travel. Unlike the similarly aligned Commencal Meta SX V5, it’s not as secure feeling in steep terrain or quite as forgiving in terms of stiffness.

Why the long fork then? Simply put, more travel means increased comfort and grip over the course of an enduro race weekend.

At the trailing end, the HD6’s DW-Link suspension handles impacts of all sizes effectively, but most importantly, with consistency. No, it doesn’t have that bump-erasing quality of the high-pivot Slash, nor does it have the squishy comfort of the Nukeproof Giga, but it allows you to focus less on what “might happen” at the rear wheel, keeping it predictable across various trail types.

When the race mode is engaged, you can attack just about everything you’d find in a bike park. There's an excellent pairing of stiffness and forgiveness provided by the frame flex and suspension too, at least for expert level riders. On the flip-side, for those that don’t have Enduro World Cup ambitions, pedalling the long-travel HD6 around less taxing trails wouldn’t be a total burden either, making it suitable choice for those that prefer to be over-equipped in terms of travel.


Ibis HD6 - Photos by Tom Richards
Ibis HD6 - Photos by Tom Richards


Technical Report

Ibis Handlebars: Handlebars are a personal preference, so why not put something middle of the road on there and let the rider pick their own if they have an odd favorite. These 31.8mm carbon bars had a ton of backsweep, yet state a 9-degree angle. They're on the softer side for flex and make sense for survivng all-day enduro descents. One interesting feature which I haven't seen on any other carbon bar is the integrated alloy ends that thread in to add or subtract length.

Ibis Carbon Rims: Another unique component carrying the Ibis name are the extra-wide, 35mm carbon rims. Those give the tires a more square profile, which can help to engage the shoulder knobs earlier and improve tire stability at lower pressures. Plus, none of us had any complaints about them being overly stiff. A minor issue to note was that the spokes lost tension sooner than expected and require finagling to hold straight as they're tightened.

SRAM Code RSC brakes: One might consider Code RSCs the bread and butter of braking. They're linear in power, fairly reliable and spare parts are readily available. However, we wished that the HD6 came with the thicker HS2 rotors which dissipate heat faster.




Pros

+ Can charge rough trails yet remains alive on flatter terrain
+ Composed, quiet, and efficient rear suspension
+ Excels at weaving through tighter trails


Cons

- Low stack height and greater fork sag led to reservations on steeper trails
- Same chainstay length on all sizes
- Top-of-the line model doesn't offer the best value




photo
The 2023 Enduro Field Test is presented Bluegrass



Author Info:
mattbeer avatar

Member since Mar 16, 2001
375 articles

385 Comments
  • 141 2
 “Top-of-the line model doesn't offer the best value.” Is that ever true? Value has diminishing returns as price goes up. That’s what it’s called luxury!
  • 57 1
 And ibis actually provides pretty decent value in their lower tier builds
  • 26 0
 @norcalbike: and eventually release the AF models which have great value
  • 37 3
 and $6900 for SLX is good value?
  • 9 4
 See Young Talent or Commencal for your answer.
  • 38 1
 The GX build is $6100 and comes with the same Fox Factory suspension, Code RSC Brakes, Same great tires, and a mostly GX drivetrain and descent alloy wheels. The only thing that I don't love about the GX build is the dropper, which can be upgraded quite easily, and maybe a carbon handlebar.
  • 9 1
 @rustiegrizwold:
For a carbon frame and Factory suspension? Yeah I'd say it's pretty decent.
  • 6 1
 @Daray: I don't quite understand this, are you paying $5k just for a drivetrain upgrade?
  • 5 0
 "Top of the line model doesn't offer the best value" relative to other models of same bike.... always true. But pretty sure it was meant as "Top of the line model doesn't offer the best value" relative to top of the line models (with similar luxury parts) of different bikes.
  • 3 0
 @Daray: oh wheels!!
  • 10 1
 @Dagabba: Since I don't care at all about carbon wheels or wireless shifting or electronic seat posts, the top spec feels insane to me compared to the SLX spec.

Not saying that even the $7k is build "reasonable", but I think it's competitive with other non-direct-to-consumer brands.
  • 9 0
 @Dagabba:
exactly- Carbon Wheels, Carbon bar, Very pricey T-type transmission, and axs dropper. It's also got the code stealth brakes instead of the old RSC's (no performance benefit there) That high end build is a model of how to spend the most possible on parts that won't actually make you faster. -excpet maybe the wheels, but the stock alloy wheels on the GX build are pretty good. and you can buy some great carbon wheels for a lot less than $5K.
  • 4 0
 @mtmc99: I doubt you're going to see that for the HD6. The AF were actually a bit of a test-mule for updating the Ripmo geometry, they released it before the Ripmo V2. Also, with the market being where it is right now, Ibis is going to be desperate to flip as many carbon frames as possible, to amortize the new molds they've invested in. They're not going to want to produce batches of aluminum frames that will be eating into carbon sales.
  • 2 2
 Just read the review for the previous gen Pivot Phoenix
  • 11 1
 @rustiegrizwold: frame only option is a pretty bad value $3900 with an x2 shock. Frame only prices always seem to discourage people from picking this option
  • 5 0
 Just get one of the Shimano builds if you are looking for value (and a long dropper and better brakes).
  • 4 0
 @Daray: it would be event better if it came with xt instead of gx
  • 3 1
 @mammal: That said though, they did end up releasing an alloy version of the Ripley, based off the pre-existing carbon model. Ibis's AF bikes seem to be pretty popular, so let's hope they end up making an alloy version of this eventually
  • 3 1
 @jgoldfield: IIRC the Ripley AF has more aggressive geometry (slacker head angle in particular) than the carbon version -- 66.5° for the carbon version and 65.5° for the AF
  • 3 3
 @PHX77: 4 rear triangle issues in my circle this season on commencals…and one of my boys weighs about 150 soaking wet…YT…im w you
  • 1 1
 @Bike-JAM-AMA: My guess is that is because OEM wholesale prices for components are so much lower than retail?
Would be nice to hear from an insider how the price buildup is.
  • 2 1
 @jgoldfield: The Ripley AF came before the updated carbon Ripley, just like the Ripmo AF/V2. And the bike sales landscape was MUCH different in 2019 when they were dreaming up "affordable alloy" versions of established models. Brands are now trying to just sell what they have, as opposed to increasing sku's.
  • 4 4
 LOOKS LIKE A YETI.
  • 1 3
 @mammal: Interesting, didn't realize that the Ripley AF came before the Ripley V4. Guess that makes sense then...
  • 3 0
 @jgoldfield: The carbon Ripley V4 came well before the Ripley AF. The AF was updated to have -1° HA.
Mammal is incorrect. The V4 came out in the summer of 19' and the AF came out in 21', the V4S is not really an updated version just because it has a UDH and new colors.
  • 5 0
 $6100 for the GX build but its NX chain, shifter, cranks... with a GX derailleur.
  • 1 0
 It's bike reviewese for "HOW MUCH?"
  • 2 0
 Pinkbike needs a text editor. Ibis is one of the few brands that offers the same highest grade Fork and Shock through the whole range. You can get a GX build for $6100, at a penalty of 0.5 added weight ...

No interest for a full on Enduro bike, but give me a 150/140 version with a 6.5 pounds frame weight with shock and I am sold.
  • 1 0
 @dododuzzi: like the Ripley?
  • 2 0
 The real thing we want to know is which is better Ripmo or HD6?
  • 1 0
 (Removed double post.)
  • 78 5
 Two triangles and two circles, that will be $11,000 please.
  • 18 2
 Yeah.....Bur this one goes to 11.
  • 6 0
 There are some way better priced builds available with solid spec.
  • 20 3
 You can get the YT Capra Uncaged for almost half as much. Is the Ibis twice as... bike?
  • 5 2
 @Jvhowube: what’s the spec on the Capra? The SLX build of the Ibis is just shy of $7k, full SLX, Fox factory suspension, aluminum cockpit and rims, 185 mm BikeYoke dropper.
  • 10 1
 @pmhobson: Uncaged 12 is transmission, top of the line RS flight attendant stuff (not sure I'd want that stuff but whatever), carbon wheels and cockpit, $6499
  • 10 9
 @Jvhowube: and you'll only be out 6 months of riding waiting for that warranty replacement halfway through the season.
  • 5 2
 @Jvhowube: Comparing standard MSRP, the Ibis with GX Eagle mechanical, and full Fox Factory is $6099 or upgrade to Transmission for $7799, and the YT Uncaged 12 is $6499 with XO Transmission and RS Flight attendant or Uncaged 11 with GX Eagle and Ohlins for $5499. A better value from YT... depends on which bike you want, but the YT is NOT half the price.
  • 6 2
 @Jvhowube: Resale is gonna be twice as much on the Ibis (at least around here). V1 Ripmos are still going for crazy money. Old Capra's are cheaper than old Process 153s (and the Capra is a better bike imo).
  • 5 8
 @dmackyaheard: but you are still stuck with sram shifting which is never a good option
  • 4 3
 @chrismac70: Thats a personal opinion. I have a bike with XT 12sp, SRAM GX Eagle, SRAM NX Eagle, and I think all of them are OK.
  • 4 0
 @learmiller: Huh...that's not been my experience with Ibis at all. I've been very happy with the warranty replacement. Hell, a guy I know bought an old Ibis and then found that the rear triangle was cracked and even told Ibis that he wasn't the original owner and they sent him a new one out ASAP.
  • 8 0
 @Explodo: I think the reference/implication was directed at YT's warranty process, not Ibis's.
  • 4 1
 @dmackyaheard: I think he is talking about this Ibis in test that is $11,199 for the comparison. And while $6499 is more than half it is damn near half. While the Ibis comes with XX transmission and the YT comes with X0 those do not have a huge difference in price. However, if you added Flight attendant and the power meter to the Ibis, things you may or may not want, I'm pretty sure the price of the YT would be half.
  • 1 0
 $15,000.00 Canadian
  • 3 1
 @dmackyaheard: How is it not close to half the price? The $6.5k Uncaged is not equivalent to the GX or SLX builds of the Ibis, it should 100% be compared to the $11k bike in this test.
  • 2 1
 @bananowy: If you read what I posted above, I wasn't comparing the model that PB has on test. This added to my point I originally made about how you do not have to buy the highest spec model after someone complained about the pricing on the build level tested. Ibis spec's the same factory level suspension from Fox on every single model, so at that point you select a level of drive train. Most people I imagine will opt for the GX, XT, or GX Transmission. On the contrary, YT spec levels change the level of suspension from entry to high end depending on the build kit you select. Also, I mentioned the YT is a better value, if you just break down the spec, and spec only. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and there are a lot of us that would prefer to not to ride a YT, even if the value at purchase for components purchased was better.
  • 1 0
 Engineers unite!
  • 51 0
 I'm confused about the comments regarding fork sag and how it means a steeper HA - there's only a 2.5mm difference in sag height between a 170 and a 180 fork (at 25% sag). This would hardly affect HA as I understand it...
  • 34 0
 Yeah, this doesn't make any sense. They're saying a longer travel fork sags more and therefore produces a steeper head angle? Sag is / should be a percentage of total travel. At the same percentage sag, a longer travel fork will still have a longer axle to crown distance, and therefore a slacker head tube angle.
  • 12 2
 @toast2266: I think they were talking about the difference between the amount of sag in the front (25% of 180) and the sag in the rear (30%? shock stroke of 165, so you have to account for the changing leverage ratio).

My guess would be that the bike would slacken a little bit at sag, but it's too early for me to figure that out.

Personally, I've never quite understood the fixation on "balancing" front and rear suspension since:
1) I ride a hardtail ~50% of the time
2) my knees, ankles, and hips all work (for now)
3) the fork is subject to the head tube angle, so maybe the vertical displacement at full fork stroke is more important.

In any case, even a 20 mm difference between front and rear in a shorter, steeper bike seems minor
  • 23 0
 They were really reaching here with that critique. 2.5mm in sag is nothing, barely an 1/8 of a degree in HT angle...
  • 3 0
 @pmhobson: well said. I hate it when people are more articulate than me......wait that's almost everybody
  • 7 0
 @toast2266: I think they were trying to tie that in with the short head tube situation (although not well described), so comparing a setup with a 170mm fork and taller head tube, with the shorter head tube of the Ibis and a bit more sag added on during steeper terrain.
  • 4 1
 @toast2266: you're absolutely correct, but sometimes the longer airshaft produces a spring with different characteristics, it's why many race teams try to measure dynamic sag.(at what height is the bike riding at) instead of static sag.Larger volume airspring tend to be less progressive. You can have a situation where one fork at 25%only goes down to 35% when x force is applied, and another fork at 25% that goes down to 50%when the same x force is applied. This can be adjusted with volume spacers, negative chambers air pressure and or volume.
  • 3 0
 @uponcripplecreek: Can you explain how dynamic sag would be measured? Would you do it on a representatively steep, but smooth road/trail in the “attack” position?
  • 4 0
 To make up for this can't you add a thin spacer under your stem to keep the bar height up? I know that doesn't fix any head angle changes with sage, but your hands are still in a higher stack position. Just don't cut your steer tube too short when you build the bike, and test it before you bring out the hack saw.
  • 3 1
 @pmhobson: someone with experience running data acquisition would answer you better. But if you have axle position over time ( just position sensor, no need for accelerometer) then you can look at height averages, but also average shaft speed in compression and rebound separately. For example, you can notice that with correct static sag, the average ride height of the rear wheel is lower than the front. You look closer and see that the rebound speed of the front is 40% slower than compression speed, but that on the rear it's 50% slower. Looking at the graph, the peaks of the rear wheel position would look flatter than the front too. Then you can say that ride height is uneven front to rear due to rebound speed. Maybe it's not optimal for going fast, but the rider might prefer a bike that gets slacker in the chunk, and can put up with the harshness on the back that comes with the shock packing down.
  • 2 3
 Me too if it’s saging 2.5mm more than a 270 fork then it’s going to have an axle to crown length 7.5 mm longer which is most of the head tube length difference
  • 14 0
 That comments regarding imbalance between front and rear made me also wonder.
I read once about the sense of unequal front and rear travel, what made at least sense for me. In this case, 165mm is the vertical rear travel. Corresponding vertical front travel for the given 180mm fork and 64° HA angle is 162mm --> sounds pretty balanced.
But please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • 7 0
 They were speculating on all the cons, none of them actually experienced any issues, they were hypothesizing about potential issues with other sizes. Seems like they didn't have enough negative things to say so they made up a few.
  • 3 0
 @Munne: You are correct... but something about the "dynamic" characteristics don't add up to the mechanical characteristics of these offset suspension bikes (ie. previous gen Yeti bikes). It is very difficult to get the same "feel" from the front and rear assuming similar percentage travel used. Had 3 previous gen Yeti's and would always eat up rear travel completely while leaving 15-20mm on the fork. Sure, I could adjust settings and air pressure on the fork or shock to use the same amount of travel, but then one is firmer or softer than the other. The SB165 was similar to this HD6 (180/165mm)... I dropped the fork to 170mm to balance it out. However, the HD6 HTA isnt slack enough to drop the fork travel.
  • 3 2
 @Caddz: to be fair, that largest size with 1328mm wheelbase and 435mm chainstays... will certainly feel very unbalanced for 90% of riders and terrain.

The F/R travel "unbalance" however, I can't relate. I spent 5 years on a bike with low stack, compensated with low fork sag, and had 170mm rear and about 140mm used front (so like 125mm vertical?) and it worked great.
We are not racing cars in straight lines, so the F/R suspensions experience obstacles very differently.

At least my rear end gets trashed whereas the front goes where I delicately point it
  • 2 1
 @Uuno: at the very least I think its fair to say that the largest size will behave differently. Maybe everyone still loves it but its behavior will most certainly be different from the model under test.
  • 6 0
 @Munne: thanks for running the numbers. It’s been common for bikes to have an extra 10-20mm or so on the fork versus rear for awhile now. Seems like a weird thing for them to call a negative here. Balancing front and rear suspension feels is also usually about 5-10 PSI. You feel the fork is too soft, firm it up. You don’t, and probably shouldn’t, need to use full travel every ride. I run a 170 fork and 90% of the time just use 160mm of travel. The extra 10 is for when I went too big as backup. Darren from Push talked about this years ago. Keeps the forks running more in mid-travel where they are more efficient. Besides, I mostly bumped my fork from 160 to 170 to increase stack height and slacken the HA 1/2 degree. I’d rather it be firm for a 170. Since Ibis’s EWS team were running 170 forks on their Ripmo’s, maybe it’s what the pros were asking for on the new design. I’d trust Robin Wallner’s opinion more than keyboard warriors.
  • 2 0
 @whambat: I still don't understand why bikes that have a high anti-squat and climb really well have 15-20mm less travel in the rear. The back of my Ripley and Ripmo felt over matched compared to the front. I can see having a mismatch if the bike climbs like crap and needs all the help it can get but otherwise why not have it matched?
  • 4 1
 @Munne: Yes, that's absolutely correct!

180 mm fork with 165 mm rear should be dead easy to balance out on that head angle. A balanced bike is all about the dynamic ride height of both wheels. Balance in this terms would mean that the bike will keep the chassis stable across the chunder. Given that both of HD6 have similar vertical travel that's easily achievable. Also all that means that the fork needs to travel more millimeters trough the stanchion to achieve the same vertical path as the rear.

Actually it's the opposite of what PB claims -> bikes with same travel at both ends are harder to balance. Only top of the shelf suspension can make that process easier and that's what they mostly get to review.
  • 1 0
 To wrap up -> because of the bigger fork HD6 will have very similar ride characteristics with both lower and high tier suspension specs. And this is a big phat + in my book.
  • 2 1
 the ibis are known for using very few sag at the back so actually 165 might feel as 180mm the same with the ripmo I had 145 felt like 160. thats why they are so poppy and pedal so well
  • 3 0
 @zarban: The rear travel is measured vertically, the front is measured along the axis of the fork legs which are at an angle. The travel of the longer fork is close to the same as the rear when both measured vertically. That's why we often go with a little more travel in front.
  • 1 0
 @Caddz: yea pretty annoying I have a s4 on order and I'm now reading speculation that the size I have is no good
  • 56 10
 I'm cheering the chainstay length on this bike. Because I'm tall and want the reach, but I also like to hit drops and rip corners; so no thanks to cs any longer than this!

Kudos IBIS for giving the mullet, mullet dimensions, and please ignore the constant whine from PB reviewers about their preference for long chainstays!
  • 23 4
 This. Every long chainstay lover I know doesn't even try to manual. I love manualing sections of trail and my bike with the longest chainstays is by far the hardest to manual.
  • 19 4
 With you 100%. Can't stand the PB obsession with STA and chainstay length. This bike is the farthest away from their preferences, yet got the best review so far.
  • 16 0
 @lelandjt: am I long cs lover, and can confirm: I can't manual for shit.
  • 3 0
 6'4" and with you.
  • 3 5
 @TheRamma: These things matter for taller riders on larger sizes. With a long inseam, a slack STA and/or short chainstays = involuntary wheelies up any steep climb due to your center of mass being right over the rear axle. Less of an issue with shorter legs.

I think most people who are "obsessed" with STA/CS length are advocating for balance from front to rear, and that these things should vary at the same rate as the front center length rather than staying static across sizes as many manufacturers do for cost saving reasons.
  • 14 1
 This series of reviews has consistently lacked feedback on the cornering ability of these bikes. IMO cornering is among the most important characteristics of bike handling. When you talk to WC & EDR racers it is literally one of the few difference makers amongst the world's best. But in a PB review it barely gets a couple sentences. Instead they over-fixate on how the bike "feels" over bumps. Which, although important from a comfort/arm-pump/fatigue standpoint, isn't nearly as important when it comes to performance. Blasting a rock garden, from a racing standpoint, is way easier than carrying good corner speed.
  • 9 0
 @jkowitz: the problem is that PB has become a bit obsessed with STA/CS length, at the expense of a lot of other characteristics. I agree, those numbers are important for tall, long-legged riders. That describes the majority of PB reviewers, and the minority of consumers. Not the best thing to bring up in every review if you want to be relevant. Even then, as this review shows, a bike is more than just the sum of a few geo numbers.

There's nothing objectively right or wrong about preferring 430 vs. 450 chainstays. It's worth noting that on a bike with a 1250 mm wheelbase, that 20 mm difference shifts static weight distribution by a whomping 3% by the most optimistic estimate. The bro-science of balanced chainstays gets a little tiresome to hear about in every review.
  • 5 0
 @jkowitz: Not for me. I am 192cm with really long legs. And I chose an Ibis because of the short chainstays. The effective seat tube angle on the ibis bikes is really good so even with long legs in size xl it climbs well.

I am happy that ibis exists as one of the few companies who have short chainstays.
  • 1 0
 The chainstay length obsession is getting obnoxious. You'd think they all ride stretched out hayabusas in their spare time
  • 36 11
 Sad they missed an opportunity to make the chainstays grow with sizes, especially since this is not a budget bike
  • 17 6
 The seat tube angle DOES change with sizing though. Surprised this wasn't mentioned.
  • 7 1
 Unfortunately with their suspension design it greatly complicates production when you need a different set of molds for the one piece swingarm in each size.
  • 10 12
 @VonFalkenhausen: Agreed. But then a middle of the road CS length of around 443mm would have been the better 1 choice.
This bike would have won all of the Enduro bike shootouts, in 2019.
  • 6 6
 This does feel like a pretty big miss. Even cheaper brands like YT have size-specific chain stays. But hey, you're only paying 5 figures for a bike, can't have it all!
  • 3 1
 @IamZOSO:
"It is good to see that the seat angle does steepen on the larger bikes, which is meant to help ensure that riders don't end up with their weight too far over the rear wheel."
  • 8 6
 @SunsPSD: Agreed. Its like they chose a chainstay length that optimizes for sizes S and M, rather than attacking the "center of the bell curve" and optimizing for M and L.

Regardless, its a bit unforgivable for a $4k frameset (this is definitively "premium") to not make at least 2 chainstay molds.
  • 3 1
 Agreed. As a former Ripmo AF rider, the size large had an extremely well balanced front/rear (IMO), but for rowdier stuff, I always thought it would need a longer Front-center and Rear-center. You get that increased front-center with the HD6, but the rear-center is still the same as the Ripmo.
  • 18 6
 @PeakHopper: I have to say the size specific stays on the new Jeffsy are a bit of a joke IMO, the three smaller sizes all have same length, and the two larger ones have the same length too, and there is only a 5mm difference between them while the reach on those sizes grows by almost 100mm in 20mm increments. Size specific chainstays seem to me to be the latest marketing buzzword with next to no real world difference. Chainstay length is ultimately a rider preference thing. Pick a length and be a dick about it
  • 2 7
flag opignonlibre (Oct 26, 2023 at 9:53) (Below Threshold)
 @VonFalkenhausen: at that price it is a poor excuse.
  • 4 0
 @opignonlibre: or a difference in design philosophy, think of a size large from a few years ago, the reach would have been like 460 mm paired with a 435mm chainstay, but the modern larges have a reach that are between 480 and 490 for the most part, paired with the 435mm chain stay you are still way further forward of the rear axle aka centered on the bike than the older ones, plus you still benefit from the quicker handling of the shorter stays. This was developed as an enduro race bike, so they might have prioritize quick handling and keeping the wheelbase from growing too long over a more "centered" feel from the bike. Different strokes for different folks. If you want a DW link bike with "size specific chainstays" the latest Pivot Firebird has them. Personally I love 435 chainstays, they feel great to me, and at 6'1 I'm probably at the end of the spectrum where some would assume I should have longer stays than that, but I don't get along with them super well. Current bike is a Norco Sight Aluminum, which has 440 stays and I had to go to a shorter stem than I had on my Process X to get it to feel good for me to ride, even though the reach on the Norco is shorter than the Kona's was.
  • 5 2
 @AddisonEverett: It's definitely a rider preference thing, but if you polled a crap load of riders with experience on longer and shorter chain stays, you'd find a strong correlation between taller riders liking longer rear ends. Addressing this, even to some extent, makes for a more satisfied user base.
  • 1 0
 @mammal: Totally valid point, unfortunately it's practically impossible to accommodate everyone's preferences with the large batch manufacturing styles currently used, and should manufactures focus on pleasing everyone or focus on refining their own product with their own design philosophy. There is a place for both ideas in mountain biking. Personally, I don't just choose bikes at random and look through their geos and leverage curves to find a bike that I know I will like and would be happy to pay more for it, which allows the smaller brands to exist with a more narrow focus on the design of their bikes, where larger brands can accommodate much more of what other people want, giving them the options they want. I am the market for this Ibis where others might not be and that is OK. We can all get what we want, so long a we accept that not every bike has to be for everybody.
  • 2 4
 @AddisonEverett: "or a difference in design philosophy, think of a size large from a few years ago, the reach would have been like 460 mm paired with a 435mm chainstay"

The Ripmo AF was released in Sept'19, had a reach of 475, and a 435 chainstay. Balance on that bike was fantastic, but the new one, not so much.
  • 2 1
 Even 435 for S, M & 442 for L & XL woulf have done the trick
  • 1 0
 @jdejace: not mentioned in the video though. The article gives a number of details that those who only watch the video miss.
  • 10 2
 @AddisonEverett: You have this backwards. Longer reach but same chainstay length results in a higher percent of the rider's weight being on the rear tire. This commonly results in less front wheel traction.
Long chainstays increase front tire grip and I would say are pretty necessary on long reach bikes. That said, a short stack puts a lot more weight back on the front end as it pulls the rider's weight down and forward.
If you have a tall stack AND a long Reach you darn better have long CS as well! If you have a bike losing front wheel traction and your technique is on point a few things you can do to your set up are, lower the bars, slide the seat forward, get a longer and/ or lower stem.
  • 6 2
 @SunsPSD: hard facts. This is the same length as the Ripmo from 2019. Reach and travel grew but the CS didn’t. If they went with a 440 or 445 CS it would’ve been much better. But honestly they need to figure out size specific.
  • 2 1
 Ibis has employees from about 5’ to well over 6’. They ride validate their frames across sizes. Straight seat tube plus steeper angles on bigger bikes means you aren’t hanging off the back of the bike if you’re tall. Should keep even most tall riders centered.
  • 6 2
 @wyorider: what is your point? That’s the bare minimum of what a bike brand should be doing. You’re arguing with basic math if you think it’s okay to have a 435 CS on a size small and a large. Most of the bike industry has realized this. Hell even Ibis realized this on the Oso. If you’re telling me this isn’t a cost cutting measure then you’re in denial.
  • 2 0
 @IamZOSO: it was mentioned
  • 6 0
 @mammal: you are saying 475 reach with 435 chainstay was great balance but 480 reach with 435 CS is now out of balance? 5mm of reach difference on a bike with 1256 mm wheelbase is 0.4%. Are we really that much of princess and the pea that we can tell that difference?
My biggest issue in the past with short chain stays is feeling like I’m going to loop out, but the steeper SAs these days helps a ton with that on the climbs and the slacker HAs lets you keep more weight over the bars without endoing on the DH. Call me crazy, but at 6’1” and riding L or XLs, I like the shorter stays because the new bikes are so long in wheelbase, it’s a little more agile in tight turns. 1288 mm wheelbase in size 4 is already long enough. There’s a reason why so many EWS riders size down for more agility, and I think largely because wheelbases have gotten so long. I’d be tempted to size down on this bike from recommendations and put a higher rise bar to compensate for the short head tube.
Maybe it would have been better if they offered a flip chip to lengthen the stays, but that has never been Ibis’s style.
  • 2 8
flag rookie100 (Oct 26, 2023 at 12:34) (Below Threshold)
 @SunsPSD: honestly am so confused by people lamenting loss of front wheel grip. It’s only a thing in flat a** unsupported corners - so, who cares
  • 1 1
 @AddisonEverett: man gets its
  • 1 1
 @rich-2000: Go measure out a 7mm line on a piece of paper and then get back to us on this
  • 1 0
 @SunsPSD: I really don't understand your logic here, because a longer reach doesn't just move the front wheel forward, it shifts your riding positon forward as well, in a standing aggressive position, which should put your weight more centered on the bike.
  • 1 0
 @AddisonEverett: longer reach does shift your weight somewhat more forward, but a lot of that weight (hips downward) is static in relation to the BB.
  • 2 0
 @whambat: The current sizing puts "Large" in between S3 and S4 (there's an S5 now), so yes, a theoretical "Large" in between the reaches of S3 and S4, would be getting into unbalanced territory.
  • 2 0
 @SunsPSD: All things being equal, longer reach will result in more of the riders mass being placed on the handlebars and front wheel.

Weight distribution will be a function of the center of mass of the rider (think: approximately the belly button area for males) in position between the contact points (pedals and handlebars). Assuming some relatively normal/worthwhile riding position, as reach grows you'll accommodate by shifting your body and center of mass forward, which will load the handlebars and front wheel.

You can prove this to yourself with a bathroom scale under your feet and a countertop to hold onto like handlebars. The closer you are to standing perfectly vertical (a bike with 0mm reach), the more of your mass will be reflected in the scale (the pedals). The more you slide the scale back from the countertop and lean into a riding/attack position, the less of your mass will be reflected on the scale.
  • 1 0
 @mammal: have you ridden it?
  • 1 0
 @mammal: That is what I thought I was getting at in my previous comment, that the longer reach does shift your weight more forward, even if it is slight. We are working with millimeters here so everything is a relatively small difference. I would say that a 10-20mm change in reach changes where your weight effectively sits along the wheel base of the bike more than a 5 mm change in chainstay length does, all other things being equal.
  • 1 0
 @rookie100: i think people who ride primitive back-country trails care
  • 2 0
 @VonFalkenhausen: Santa Cruz solved this by making all the swing arms the same size, and instead changing the pivot location on the front triangle to determine chainstay length. Front triangles have to be made different sizes anyway, so it makes more sense to use the pivot locations to grow/shrink the chainstay length and keep the rear triangle the same across sizes.
  • 6 1
 @SunsPSD: I'm looking at 8 mm on some calipers and it's about the width of Abe's head on a US penny. I just have a hard time believing anyone would notice moving the rear axle by that much, considering how much room you have to move around on bikes now.

I might be wrong though.
  • 2 0
 @pmhobson: Good point. I wonder what percentage of mtbers ride flat trails? How many spend 5-11k on an Enduro bike to ride flat trails and can’t weight the front?
  • 2 0
 @KJP1230: That hasn't been my experience, but whatever works for you. Keep improving front wheel traction by increasing Reach, I guess.
  • 1 0
 @rookie100: I'm not talking about flat trails. I'm talking about flat to off-camber corners
  • 2 6
flag rookie100 (Oct 26, 2023 at 14:27) (Below Threshold)
 @pmhobson: so people are washing the front on off camber freerideish trails because their chainstays are 5-10 mm too short? Cool
  • 5 0
 @rookie100: not what I said. I’m saying people care about front wheel traction because not every corner has support.

I think generally people loose front wheel traction because the have bad body position, and bad body position can comes from reach that is too long.
  • 3 1
 @AddisonEverett: I don't believe this is how the weight distribution is normally analyzed. yes if you shift your body weight around you can load the front up more but in terms of FC/RC influence it is your weight loaded through the BB. No matter what the reach is when you are in a neutral stance you want your weight through your feet and not your hands so you can think about standing on the pedals and just touching the grips to steer and not tip over. The weight distribution can then be analyzed as a balance beam with two lever arms (FC and RC) and a fulcrum (BB) the longer reach = longer leaver arm = less weight at the end where the front wheel is.
  • 5 0
 @pmhobson: couldn't agree with this more.

Not only can an overly long reach create a bad body position, it can also decrease your range of motion making it difficult to shift your weight enough to have a meaningful effect on weight distribution in every direction.

I think super long reach is for passengers and today's "conservative" reach is for drivers.
  • 4 0
 @gonebikin09: yeah, I was talking with a friend of mine who is further along in his ME degree than I am and he pointed me in the right direction. I see that I was partially wrong in my thinking before. @SunsPSD thanks for calling out where I was wrong in my thinking, the longer front center relative to the rear center definitely does shift the balance of the forces towards the rear wheel. Still trying to learn and sometimes your intuition can be wrong.
  • 1 0
 @st-alfie: It is mentioned towards the end of the video
  • 1 0
 @the-lorax: I'll believe you. Must've been too far through for my very limited attention span.
  • 3 1
 @VtVolk: I can tell the difference between 7mm of chain stay length quite easily.
  • 1 1
 @KJP1230: Here is an idea: Instead of talking theoretical balderdash, just ride a long reach bike fast and realize for yourself, that bikes clearly experience reduced front wheel traction when the reach is extended while maintaining short chainstays. Sure, many factors in bike set up can improve this compromise (i.e., lower stack, longer stem, more front sag, steeper sta, etc.) but if all other factors are controlled, the longer Reach bike will experience reduced front wheel traction due to less weight being placed on the front of the bike.
  • 1 0
 @SunsPSD: You're missing it. I am talking about the actual physics of the thing. Assuming a natural/useful riding posture for descending, the more your mass is shifted forward, the more weight will naturally move toward the front wheel. Now clearly, beyond a certain point you're going to have trouble weighting (and importantly) controlling the front wheel.

What you are noticing is that it is very easy (i.e. you don't have to actually shift your body very far) to change weight balance front/back on shorter bikes. However, the primary instinct in mountain biking when descending is to avoid OTB crashes, and avoid putting yourself in a position that would lead to head-first crashes. Especially on steeper, rougher trails, I personally feel more comfortable putting the appropriate amount of weight on the front wheel as bikes have gotten somewhat longer and slacker. This geometry allows me to simultaneously load the front wheel and feel relatively secure on the bike in doing so. Clearly, there is going to be an upper limit to this, and the same is true of the tradeoff between HTA and actual control of the bike.

Within reason, I find that appropriately long bikes a.) lower my overall center of gravity, b.) allow me to appropriately weight the front wheel while also feeling secure on the bike, c.) put me in a strong position to use my arms/chest to control and really drive the bike. That said, I think we are at the upper limit of geometry trends. My current bike has a reach of about 490 and a HTA of 63.5 - at 6'2", I don't think I would be benefit from a longer bike at this point, and I've spent more time playing with bar/stack height.
  • 2 0
 @KJP1230: I think the issue here is you might be thinking of the issue more dynamically, with the shifting center of mass being accounted for instead of loading through the bb. If the front center is increased without changing the point where the load is applied relative to the wheelbase, ie still through the bb, the resultant forces on the front wheel will be reduced since the system would be in equilibrium and the load hasn't changed. This is thinking of the bike in the simplest 2d terms, which is still accurate. That being said, if we take the load as something that is not always going to be applied at a fixed point on the bike like the bb, and we increase the reach and front center the same amount, which shifts the load forwards as well, it won't change the resultant forces on the front and rear wheels as much when the front center alone is increased because the load is moving forwards as well, but it most likely will still reduce the load on the front wheel and increase the load on the rear because the center of mass isn't likely to shift the same amount forwards as the front center has grown. Then considering that all riders have different proportions, arm lengths, torso lengths, leg lengths etc... It is likely to make even less of a difference as people get taller since with longer proportions on average, they will likely be able to put their center of mass closer to the bb even with the longer reach and front center, taking the weight off of the front wheel and moving it onto the rear wheel. This doesn't mean that taller riders will whole sale from longer chainstays, and that size specific chainstays are 100% what is needed in every case, but the physics of longer chainstays increasing weight on the front wheel isn't wrong. Please correct me if I am wrong, since I am still learning and am far from an expert on this. What would be interesting to see is to compare people's center of mass relative to the wheelbase on the bike and see if there is a point where people like to sit across the board, what the balancing point is so to speak.
  • 1 0
 @AddisonEverett: What math are you using to determine the impact of chainstay length on weight distribution? The standard formula I've found is (simplified) Rear center/wheelbase= weight distribution on front wheel. On a 1250 mm bike, a 20 mm longer chainstay contribues a whomping 1.6% percent more weight on the front. On a 200 lb person, that's 3.2 extra pounds of force on the front. Not exactly massive, and that's making a bunch of assumptions that I'm not sure are correct (nobody rides with all their weight on the BB).

My suspicion is that it's more a style thing. People who like to put their ass back more are going to benefit doubly from longer stays. That slight increase in pressure is something, but I think the bigger issue is that you're not going to unconsciously unweight the front since you have more space before you go over or behind the rear axle. YMMV, but I don't think that longer stays really do nearly when their loudest proponents claim they do.
  • 2 0
 @TheRamma: Im finding the reaction forces at the front axle and the rear axle, by using the sum of the moments and assuming the bike is in equilibrium. Newton's laws every action had an equal and opposite reaction so, we can find the amount of force that each wheel has on it by knowing that if we have a 190 lbs force (using my weight) acting downwards on the bike, the sum of the forces acting in the opposite direction at each axle will equal 190 lbs. In order to find these forces we have to use the sum of the moments at each axle as well, since if the bike is in static equilibrium that sum will be equal to zero. If we take the size 3 Ibis with its rear center of 435mm, and front center of 861mm, applying the load through the bb, and knowing that the moment at the rear axle is equal to 435mm x a force with an unknown magnitude, And the moment at the front axle is 861mm x an force with an unknown magnitude, and that both of those forces added to each other equal 190 lbs, we can solve for both of those forces. The resultant forces are approximately 126 lbs at the rear axle and 64 lbs at the front. If we were to lengthen the front center that would further reduce the amount of weight that is on the front wheel. This is about as simple as we can treat this problem, and it doesn't account for every aspect, but we can also assume that for the same rider (me in this case) if we lengthened the reach and front center, even though my center of mass would move forwards with, it wouldn't be the same amount as the reach has grown, and would still result in more weight on the rear wheel than a bike with the shorter reach and front center. Like you said it is a small difference, and ultimately chainstay length is a style and preference thing. Is having the forces on each wheel being perfectly balanced or at least more evenly distributed a good thing? I can't say, but it's worth looking into. Thinking about the math makes me wonder if women in general would benefit from longer chainstays than men, given that in a descending riding positon, most women's center of mass is further towards the rear wheel than men's (at the hips vs around the naval) I have a buddy who is about the same height and weight as me, 6'1, 190 lbs, but they prefer long stays, he's looking for a bike with a 480mm reach and 450 - 460 mm stays (dh race bike) where I don't think I would like anything longer than 440mm stays on any of my bikes, and the bikes I've ridden with 435mm stays have been some of my favorites. Finding a way to easily offer the end consumer a way to customize chainstay length would be the best, but that could be really expensive on the manufacturer and the consumer. Lots of interesting things to think about and experiment with.
  • 1 0
 @AddisonEverett: Oh, so you're using the same math then?

Agree that CS length is style and preference. I agree that adjustable chainstays aren't a bad idea, but I'm also fine with manufacturers offering a range of lengths for different consumers. Adjustable stuff makes me worry about complexity, particularly with FS.. Sliding dropouts on a hardtail are a no-brainer.
  • 2 0
 @TheRamma: For sure, you should look at what Kavenz is doing for their adjustable cs lengths, they use a bolt on drop out with a UDH interface on them and it seems pretty good.
  • 1 0
 @AddisonEverett: cool to see somebody trying it, imagine it's going to change some suspension behavior. No idea if that's actually perceptible.
  • 29 6
 You would have thought that with all the money they saved by going to the angry swan headtube sticker, they could have kept the enduro team.
  • 14 0
 For nobody to watch??? Enduro at the amateur level is doing fine (at least in this part of the world) but a pro series with real money requires eyeballs on athletes. Always has. And enduro is a hard format to package that way.
  • 21 0
 I bought this bike in the GX build and swapped a couple of parts- It's a fantastic bike! I think the review was very accurate. Its a well rounded bike. The 435 chainstays work for me as I'm on a Medium. I personally have wished that they built it with a longer headtube and spec'd it with a 170mm fork to keep the Geo exactly the same but more balanced from a travel perspective front to back. To compensate I have added another volume spacer to the Fork to keep it from going as deep in the travel except for when I really need it.

I have never been a huge fan of the Ibis brand, probably because they don't have a DH bike/team and they seemed to lean pretty heavy on youtube influencers for marketing a few years back, but I'll happily admit that this bike rips and is one of the best I've ridden.

I've set PR's on some Double Black DH trails on this bike and the other day in less than ideal conditions I decided to push and set a PR on a very pedally XC loop near me. It's also light in the air and rails corners. It's not quite the Plow bike that my specialized enduro was but it's close and it's easier to ride.
  • 2 1
 Could you give more information about the 170 fork wish?

This would make you lose 8.9879 mm of vertical travel at the front and lower the actual vertical front wheel travel from ~162 mm to ~154 mm. With 170 fork and similar bottom out force you would hit the ramp up sooner in its travel resulting into a harsher ride.
  • 3 0
 @pr3dator: I think he has already described it. The longer fork is wallowing in its travel... deeper compared to the rear... probably diving. He's tried to compensate by adding a volume spacer... but really that's just going to make a deference near the bottom of the travel. Sure he could add air pressure, but at some other undesirable expense like small bump compliance, or lack of full travel.

This bikes geo, and that short HT and stack height limits any other fork travel options. This is it... 180mm is your only option... unless you want to turn it into trail bike geo with a 170mm.
  • 3 0
 @pr3dator: @Baller7756 Thinking about this more. I am happy with the 180mm fork. I think the key is just making sure that you have it set up balanced. If your fork dives too much or moves through it's travel too easy relative to the rear, then that wouldn't feel great on any fork 170 or 180. But How I've got mine set now, it feels great. I still find bottom from time to time on my fork. (last week going a little deep off a 7ft drop into a large hole) I rode out just fine and I was glad I had the extra travel. There are plenty of rides where I only use 150-160mm of fork travel too, but it feels great and supportive.

I think a bigger head tube looks nicer, but that's a matter of opinion. This bike is awesome.
  • 20 0
 Haych
  • 4 0
 Jometry
  • 14 1
 Cannot wait for the full 29 inch version. What is amazing is that they did NOT spec onionskin walled tires to make the weight better on the shop floor.
  • 14 0
 do you intentionally have henry do the VO just so he can keep saying H in that funny British way?
  • 39 0
 Haych dee six.
  • 38 0
 @mikekazimer: riding my haych dee six on chewsday init
  • 2 2
 As a Brit I can tell you I hate hearing aitch pronounced with a hard H. It's a pretty recent thing and it's selective. No one talks about the en haitch ess when referring to our health system.
  • 1 0
 @henryquinney: Proper job
  • 14 0
 How would you compare mullets @mikekazimer , Ibis HD6 to the Santa Cruz Nomad you reviewed earlier this year?
  • 6 0
 I'm interested in this comparison as well. HD6 vs Nomad- My assumption is that the Nomad is a little less well rounded, Maybe the HD6 pedals a little more efficiently, but maybe the Nomad is ever so slightly more composed on the descents with the extra 5mm travel in the back and the slightly slacker HTA.
  • 3 0
 this ^
  • 11 0
 It's interesting that you list the short stack height as a complaint - sure it might be unsightly but a shorter stack can ALWAYS be raised with a few spacers, whereas a bike with a long headtube can never achieve a shorter stack.
  • 15 5
 The review I've been waiting for! This is probably the only bike in the test I'd be interested in demoing for myself.

My question is, the front center of this bike is a lot longer than, say, a Ripmo's due (I think) to the longer fork and slacker HTA. Does this with a long-ish chainstay length make the bike corner a little awkwardly?
  • 18 0
 Not at all - cornering didn’t pose any problems. It’s a very well behaved machine, a bike that with fairly neutral handling that doesn’t take much time to get accustomed to.
  • 4 0
 Hmmm... I imagine it takes unsuspecting corners with ease (smaller rear wheel + less rear travel + short rear end) but won't win a straight-line plow contest against the Grim Donut.

I like that Ibis keeps their long travel rigs agile and versatile. As an armchair reviewer a steeper sta and size specific chainstays would be nice.
  • 2 1
 @mikekazimer: thanks Mike! I'll get a demo queued up. This thing looks like a perfect NorCal ripper.
  • 4 0
 I don’t know if this is the review I’ve been waiting for, but based on all the other reviews, it seems this is the only bike I’d have any interest in actually buying. (Although maybe not the $11k version).
  • 2 1
 @WasatchEnduro: i think most companies would like to do size specific chainstays, but the increased manufacturing costs of a different RT mold for every size are huge
  • 4 0
 @bknorris are you getting a size 3? That's what they tested. Otherwise you're gonna have to figure it out on your own. The middle sizes tested in 99% of online reviews don't tend to be the ones with front/rear balance issues. ~435 chainstays on a ~1250 wheelbase are perfectly sensible, it's probably close to where they would have landed on the size 3 even if they had size specific chainstays. It's more the extreme ends of the sizing range some people might find suboptimal.
  • 3 0
 @maybemarcusking: most companies simply move the BB and pivots in the front triangle and use the same rear part across all sizes.

There are a few that use different rear triangles but in reality this is a bad idea because each size will have different suspension kinematics and typically the larger sizes, where you would expect heavier riders, apply the most leverage on the shock.
  • 2 0
 @maybemarcusking: you can change CS length by moving the location of the pivots too. Since you’re already making a different mold for every frame size, you could modify CS length there.
  • 1 1
 @maybemarcusking:

Yeah that's the rumor and there are ways around it. It's pretty lazy for a high end and costly bike to not have this. Either add the adjustment to the chainstay or just go with 2 different rear ends with the longer one on the L/XL or the XL/XXL depending on the bike. No need to have 5 different rear ends. Sure it'll still cost Ibis a little more but it also shows an increased commitment to the rider and their experience.
  • 1 0
 @jdejace: yep I'd be a size 3 based on Ibis's chart.
  • 1 0
 @WasatchEnduro: as others have mentioned, some companies also move the pivot points to change the chainstay length, at which point the suspension kinematics are affected. All I'm trying to say is it's a little more complicated than most riders would like to believe. I agree that companies should try, especially high end expensive brands, but for some brands I think it's genuinely not feasible
  • 1 0
 @loudv8noises: I'm aware of this, and moving those pivot points also affects the manufacturer's desired suspension kinematics. It seems like they tend to prioritize the suspension performance over having different length chainstays. Not right or wrong just the way lots of companies do it.
  • 1 0
 @jdejace:
It's still surprising to me that they didn't complain enough about CS size. I've owned an SB150 with 480 reach and 433 CS and it's been the most horrible bike handling I've experienced: godd only on straight and steep , shit everywhere else. Front wheel washing out at every corner , the balance point of f/r grip was in the middle of top tube, totally out of balance. I care less about seat tube angle in comparison. Yeti, Ibis, Pivot... All the same.
The only way to load properly the front end is to raise the BB with such CS length but then cornering becomes even shittier
  • 12 2
 This is the one that interests me the most. Doing research on it, I found out that this bike is almost identical to a Salsa Cassidy in geometry and appearance. A size small Cassidy is a 180/165 bike with 64/76 head and seat angles, the salsa has 4mm shorter chain stay, slightly shorter stack and 29 front and rear. Cassidy is interesting because while hilarious expensive at retail, you can sometimes find them heavily discounted online as a frame only.

Any reviews can chime in between the two if you have ever ridden the Cassidy/Blackthorne?
  • 17 9
 Different suspension design too. Salsa is single pivot. Ibis is virtual pivot.
  • 2 0
 I went down this line of thinking as well. Super boost is a major detractor for me. I own two sets of quality wheels I plan to reuse indefinitely. The real issue I found was an alarmingly high rate of frame failures on the longer travel Salsa's.
  • 9 1
 @AndrewFleming: split pivot.
  • 4 1
 @AndrewFleming: some might call it a split pivot
  • 6 5
 You're comparing an apple to an orange. The suspension platforms will make the bikes behave and ride very differently. Plus, Salsa is for chips, not bikes.
  • 3 2
 @AndrewFleming:
It's a split pivot. Very different.
  • 3 0
 I'd suggest looking at the Revel Rail 27.5. Very similar fit and geo, big difference Ibis being 29 front. Both are dual link, light and 165mm travel. I can say my Rail has been very impressive, both on climbs and dh's, would love to try this bike as a comparison.
  • 1 0
 @artistformlyknowasdan: While I'm short (5'6") I actually like riding 29" bikes and I've owned both wheel sizes recently. But a mullet would be ideal which is why things like the the HD6 interest me.

If I could have any bike from this test it would be the Nicolai just based on my riding style (I don't jump or have a poppy riding style) I just plough through things lol.
  • 2 0
 @stravaismyracecourse: That's why I'm asking if anyone who has ridden the HD6 has ridden a Cassidy or Blackthorn to compare how they ride as the geo is so similar. I've heard good things about Salsa's suspension feel.
  • 5 0
 @Ryan2949:
"I don't jump or have a poppy riding style"

You're in the fat part of the bell curve, most just don't like to admit it.
  • 1 1
 @stravaismyracecourse: I thought salsa was a dance. #confused
  • 3 0
 @jdejace: I think poppy is Jeff Kendall-Weed and ain't no way I can understand how he can get air off nothing like he does.
  • 2 0
 @notthatfast: @JasperTS @getschwifty
Split Pivot is a type of single pivot suspension.
  • 5 0
 @Ryan2949: Thanks Ryan!
  • 1 0
 @Ryan2949: Cocaine would be my guess. He's way too happy.
  • 4 0
 @Nathan23: Yes, but he's happy without being an egotistical dick. So not cocaine.
  • 1 0
 @AndrewFleming: I once saw a comment by DW himself describing it as 'single pivot, floating brake'
  • 1 0
 @ak-77:
Sure, but that doesn't make it the same as "single pivot". If you want to go down that route, does that mean Trek and Orange are basically doing the same thing?
  • 2 0
 @artistformlyknowasdan: I have a Rascal, which is much more thame Trail bike, but holly guacamole I was impressed with how it rides DH while being pretty much best climbing bike I've ever rode
  • 1 0
 @notthatfast: I'm not saying it's the same. Not all bikes with virtual pivots are the same either. But they are both single pivots.
  • 2 0
 @valrock: I’ve been really impressed with my Rail. I can smash proper park laps and it’s still comfy for grinding out those awful backcountry climbs. Only complaint is I had to do the gnar dog with tokens in the shock, wish it had a bit more bottom out resistance without adding all the spacers.
  • 2 1
 @ak-77: @notthatfast: @JasperTS The Split Pivot design has one pivot between the BB and the rear drop-out. It is a single pivot design. It’s that simple.
  • 1 2
 @AndrewFleming:
I mean you can make bolt blanket statements like that. Doesn’t make them true.
  • 3 0
 @notthatfast: I think an accurate definition of a single pivot suspension layout is one where the instant center is in the same position throughout the travel. There are many ways to achieve that, with many different ride characteristics. But with this definition, both split pivot and abp are single pivot layouts.
  • 1 0
 @notthatfast: What’s inaccurate?
  • 1 0
 @ak-77: Yes, that’s a more detailed technical description. Most single pivots have that instant center just behind and above the BB in alignment with the chainring. How the shock is driven through linkage and where the brake is mounted in relation to that pivot affect the suspension performance.
  • 3 0
 @AndrewFleming: but now, the hypothetical splitting hairs option: a suspension layout that somehow achieves to put a virtual pivot somewhere else than the physical pivot, but it stays in the same place throughout the travel. Is that a single pivot or not? ;-)
  • 2 0
 @ak-77: We’ll worry about that when it happens!
  • 11 1
 I’m not sure the geometry is all that conservative. It’s seems pretty consistent with a lot of bikes out there. Could it be that after years of development in “longer, slacker” this the geometry we’ve arrived at? Any geometry more radical than this seems to result in what we saw in that Nikolai and Chromag — just kind of a lumbering, non-nimble, wallowy machine.
  • 1 0
 Yeah thats subjective to the reviewer. At a certain point its a skills issue lol
  • 13 1
 Cons for the Ibis: It's not a super long and slack plow
Cons for other bikes on test: It's just a long and slack plow, not terribly versatile
  • 8 1
 This is the best looking Ibis to date! I've grown tired of those similar swoopy frames. Too bad their prices have risen soooo much! Their entry level build is still north of $6k
  • 18 0
 To be fair, the Gx build has top tier brakes and suspension. You are really getting worse shifters and drivetrain. Which is arguably the easiest thing to upgrade later.
  • 5 5
 Yeti appearances at Yeti prices
  • 6 2
 @mca896: This is definitely a better value than Yeti
  • 1 0
 @HB208: Yeah, and their next step down from this $11k build is the $7800 Gx transmission axs build, with top spec brakes, suspension, and arguably a better dropper post.
  • 3 4
 I’m not a huge fan of swoopy, but on some models it works. I don’t know why I dislike it on the Ripmo but am OK with it on the Ripmo AF, but it works on the aluminum bike.

But for better or for worse, it’s an Ibis thing. In that sense, it’s kind of a shame they abandoned that. Bike loses a bit of brand identity. I guess that doesn’t matter too much to me in the end, but I’m also not a fan of everything just looking the same.
  • 7 1
 I dunno, I actually think the Ripmo is a great looking bike (full disclosure: I am the happy owner of a Ripmo V2). For some reason, it seems to look way better in person than it does in photos
  • 2 0
 @HB208: oh completely agree, i would buy an HD6 over a Yeti in a heartbeat.
  • 8 1
 This is the bike my Gen 6 Slash currently fears... Torn as now that I have an absolute plow, I miss a bike that leaves the ground without requiring me to yank so hard that my arms rip out of their sockets.
  • 10 0
 You need 2 bikes
  • 2 1
 It looks like a great bike, Ibis makes good stuff and has a very cool and involved group of riders at the core. But what does this bike offer that 30 other long travel enduro bikes that have come out over the last 4 years? Your 2020 enduros, 2020 slashes, Canyon Torque, transition (insert one of their great 150mm+ models here), Rocky Altitude, SC nomad/Megatower, and a few dozen others. I'm not asking Ibis to reinvent the wheel. I don't want 2 additional idlers. But its not a rhetorical question. This bike is likely to "Win" this enduro shootout and what does it bring to the fight that we didn't see almost 4 years ago?
  • 7 0
 @HciNGPDo: it offers DW link. Honestly, after 5 years with it and trying other suspension, you are never getting me back to a standard Horst link bike, especially in this travel segment.
  • 2 0
 @whambat: that's funny because I went from a Ripmo v2 to a spire and I like the transition's suspension platform more. I'd love to try this hd6 though
  • 3 0
 @DCF: Nah, it's even harder to get two bikes into the air at the same time. This dude needs booster rockets that can be aimed down or rearward.
  • 1 0
 so Slash is hard to get airborne?
  • 1 0
 @DCF: I have heard great things about the Spire. Glad you are liking it. Being a Transition, I bet it rips on the DH. Feel any loss of power on the climbs?
  • 1 0
 @whambat: running the same wheels and tires, it feels pretty similar on efficiency on steady climbs.. in a good way. Where I feel it leaving energy behind to the Ripmo is more on stand up sprints during flatter sections of trail and on short steep punchy climbs
  • 2 0
 @DCF: yeah, that’s what I’d be afraid to give up. I love the Ripmo even on XC rolling trails, feels like a short travel bike on the short punchy stuff.
  • 2 0
 @whambat: ya the spire isn't a good quiver killer, but it is an EXCELLENT enduro bike.
I realized that I was willing to give up the great all-a-rounder traits of the Ripmo for a bike better geared towards what I like to ride most. Which is enduro and bike parks. Riding laps on Westridge and 10ply at snow valley is what really put me off the Ripmo. I'm curious if the hd6 can be the Goldilocks for what the spire and Ripmo can and cannot do. But I won't find out anytime soon considering you couldn't get a loaf of bread for selling a bike right now
  • 1 0
 @valrock: Slash is a 170mm High Pivot race machine. Jumps consistently and has great support but is by no means a jibby bike.
  • 6 0
 "Then there are the chainstays to consider - the 435mm length remains the same on all sizes, which we’ll discuss in both climbing and descending."

And?
  • 3 0
 It's probably great on smaller sizes, but you'll be off the back on bigger sizes (especially for those with long legs). Up and down.
  • 5 0
 Right? If there's any analysis on how the chainstay length actually affected the ride characteristics, I'm missing it.
  • 3 0
 @LaNada: I mean I really just want them to validate my opinion on CS length, but still come on! On the preview article, they list each bikes CS in a way that makes it one of the defining characters of a bikes handling but then they are not discussing its influence in the reviews. Is it important? Is it not? does the DW link kinematics play well with a shorter CS? Inquiring minds want to know!
  • 3 0
 @TOOTRIKK: I don't own a HD6 but Large Firebird (similar DW link and CS length). Running a MX wheelset with a CS 437mm and reach would be around 485mm now that I have a smaller rear wheel. Super agile and rips corners, front end doesn't feel light at all, plenty of grip. Overall feels pretty balanced both on the ups and downs.
  • 1 0
 @souknaysh: Similar experience here. I'm on a mx Starling Twist L with 435mm chainstays and 485mm reach, and it feels spot-on for down, up, and across.
  • 3 0
 @AndrewHamptonzrk: another random data point - the size large murmur (485R / 445RC) was one of the best balanced, best cornering bikes i've tried. discernably better (imo) than my current (mullet) bike with 490R / 435RC in terms of balance & cornering dynamics (ie, able to drive from a centered position, with less fore/aft weight shift required to generate grip).

i think there's something to be said about those skinny steel frames in regards to cornering compliance as well. neat bikes.
  • 6 0
 Don’t tube shame those round tubes! It looks better, carries better on your shoulder, and fits the velcro on tail gate pads. In frame storage is overrated.
  • 5 1
 At the end of each review there is the question "Who is this bike for" It would be interesting to hear from each MFG. what their answer would be to that question. What is Enduro? We all know the tracks can cover the whole spectrum. We also see the top pros especially in Europe ride bike of sizes and setups that are a surprise. So far I would say the Ibis fits the bill for the greatest number if we ignore the price. Even the price of the frame only pushing close to 4k is simply highway robbery there is no way that can be justified. No matter how good a bike is for the price I would not even consider it.
  • 1 8
flag stravaismyracecourse FL (Oct 26, 2023 at 9:02) (Below Threshold)
 Leave that question to the Freehub guy. He has a wayyy better review format than PB, and I trust his opinions way more.
  • 5 0
 The way that UCI is killing enduro as a racing discipline, it might be back to the grassroots race format of yore. And that would probably get us away from the super-enduro uber bikes and more back to something just a little more all-around useful. Ironic that Ibis seems to be getting something like that to market just in time for them to pull the plug on their pro enduro team that helped them develop it.
  • 4 0
 @g-42: Yep, if I look at our local grassroots enduro racing scene, it's extremely popular. We have a 7 race series and every race has a 200 to 250 rider cut-off depending on the location. Typically each race sells out in 2 or 10 mins. I keep hearing the same from across the country.

Then you go to the race and half the field is 19 or under... so many Jr racers coming up!! It's an extremely healthy, young and growing discipline.

Why, at the pro level, they can't figure out how to properly showcase and take advantage of enduro is beyond me.
  • 6 0
 @stravaismyracecourse: Trolling or serious? Those reviews are a total joke. Zero criticisims on any bike they test. Everything is over the top amazing.
  • 4 0
 Ok to call Ibis out for not having frame storage, but probably worth mentioning that they make custom frame bags that don't look as cool as internal storage but work for enduro riding and are vastly more functional than frame storage (accessible while standing over bike).

I couldn't find a version of the porkchop bag for the HD6 on their site, but I'd be surprised if it isn't released.
  • 1 1
 For now there is no matching bag realeased. I hope they will come up with one.
  • 3 0
 @Adam1987: I was told by Ibis that the Ripmo frame bag works with the HD6, so that's nice.
  • 2 0
 @theloamrangerchannel: I contacted Ibis about a pork chop bag for my Size 2 HD6, and they told me a "Size 1" bag would fit. But I haven't ordered it yet.
  • 3 0
 @Adam1987: Not true, my buddies HD6 has an Ibis frame bag and the Ibis website shows it on the chart (see link below). Its quite a bit smaller than the Ripmo bag though.

store.ibiscycles.com/collections/parts-storage/products/bag-pork-chop-bone-in
  • 4 0
 That size 5 with 541mm of reach feel must feel totally different than the smaller sizes. Was told at a demo event that the owner is 6-7 and likes the short chainstays. Sucks for the rest of us tall guys. I’m on an XL deviate claymore with 442mm chainstays that grow significantly into the travel and it’s been a revelation to be on a bike that’s long enough and still balanced.
  • 4 0
 Definitely a beautiful bike, seems like it works damn well too. I would have loved to see Ibis offer a 10mm tall lower headset cup as optional to allow using a 170mm fork for a bit more balance in the suspension, but I suppose that could be an aftermarket option as well. Having seen one of these in the local shop, that headtube is truly tiny.

I also wish they'd have gone with adjustable chainstay lengths to allow for 29" wheels and a longer chainstay to have some broader appeal, I'm not sure why so many brands are fully committed to mullets now when they previously were better about offering adjustability between the two wheel sizes.
  • 7 2
 I'd want it so bad if only for more reasonable chainstays as a taller rider, 445-450 for L/XL would seal the deal
  • 2 3
 Agreed. You've already got the smaller rear wheel to increase agility - seems like moving to a 445 and slackening the HTA by 0.5 deg would've made this thing (more) a weapon!

Would've been really cool to have a true enduro rig with ~34 lb. weight and sporty climbing manners.
  • 3 3
 what is it that these chainstays are giving you that 435 cannot? I’m calling bs
  • 1 0
 @rookie100: That's like saying there is no difference between a 480mm reach and a 490mm reach. There is, and its noticeable. Specifically a bump up 10-15mm can give a more balanced/centered feeling to the bike.

Depending on the suspension layout, effective chainstay lengths often get shorter as the suspension cycles in its travel - so the difference in feel between a 435mm chainstay with an arcing or forward axle path compared to a 445-450mm chainstay with a vertical or even rearward axle path becomes even more pronounced as you actually use/push into suspension.

Just because you don't notice it, doesn't mean others cannot.
  • 4 2
 @KJP1230: I notice how good short chainstays are riding. And I notice how long chainstays are less good. What is it that you feel they give you that you need?
  • 3 0
 @KJP1230: maybe ibis didn't set out to make an enduro weapon for the mass market. It sounds more like they've tried to make a bit of an all rounder that could easily be a do it all bike for many people. I'd say this would suit more people's single bike ownership than a super focused sled of a bike.
  • 2 0
 @rookie100: is it so hard for you to fathom that people may not have the same preferences as you? Are you going to complain on each comment of this page that wishes for longer CS?

In a try to answer your question : longer CS helps with front wheel traction and straight line stability.
Maybe I need those because I'm a... rookie. But considering the number of wins on the Supreme (similar as HD6 wheelbase, and 475mm dynamic CS), pros also would beg to differ
  • 3 1
 If Ibis still had a racing team, i'm sure their pros would love interchangeable milled drop outs to perfectly tune the bike to their preference. Many other companies have figured out how to accommodate CS length preferences, and it makes sense with Ibis wide sizing philosophy. Someone who is 5'4" should not have to ride 455mm. But neither should I at 6'4" have to ride their short stays. Standardized CS is a decades old inertia
  • 4 0
 I know that idlers are the big thing now, but I totally love the feel of a DW link bike. Makes me feel like a better climber than I am.
  • 2 0
 or maybe the other bikes make you a worse climber than you actually are
  • 1 3
 Imagine what an e-bike could do for your self esteem
  • 2 0
 @st-alfie: I figure I have about 10 good years left before I have to find out!
  • 3 1
 Way out of my price range, but the HD6 looks like a perfect "real world" enduro bike. From local trails to bikeparks to serious races this should more or less cover it all. Also, as a shorter rider I love how Ibis approaches their smaller sizes.
  • 1 0
 Honestly, even the more "budget" builds are really nice. You keep the Fox Factory suspension and bigger brakes throughout the lineup.
  • 2 0
 my 2009 Mojo SL still rides nice even with the steeeeep head tube and it climbs easy even with the old 26" hoops. I have always been a fan of the old design but that new top tube and the entire bike looks amazing... great look, awesome colour but a ... for 15K CDN it has some undesirable SRAM parts. I think I might get the alloy frame in 27.5
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer @henryquinney Can I have some better explaining as to why you need a 200MM dropper? I have 170mm drop post on all my bikes and for the most part theres no way I'm getting a longer post in them(my hardtail could maybe go up to 180mm). This is all the drop I will ever need.
You all seem to bitch about posts being specked that are to short on nearly every bike review. What I want to see is a list of bikes with the length of post listed the amount of insertion into the frame the seat tube has and how much extra all you boys could actually get away with. Are you really suffering when I bike comes with a shorter then 200MM post, or are you just finding something to moan about? Do another article on a selection of current bikes, trail and enduro. Show us what post drop they come with and a selection of riders, who fit each bike and how much longer a post they really could get into it. How often does some one need a shorter post? Just because someone wants 200MM( or more) of drop can they really find many frames that have a short enough seat tube with enough insertion to allow them to run a 240mm dropper? Im going with few and far between.
Ive had the idea, you have the means. Put together a list and give us some context. Please.
  • 2 0
 Dropper length is very height dependent, but at 6' tall, I strongly agree with the reviewers that the ability to run a longer dropper is very nice. Does a bike need it? No, but riding anything steep or jumpy and its a huge bonus to get the seat down an extra inch. I have a 175mm reverb on my bike with about an inch of post sticking out of the frame and I regularly slam it down that extra inch when riding park or anything gnarly. Only reason I haven't swapped to a 200mm is the reverb came on the bike and just won't die, 3 seasons in, no services and works like new.
  • 1 0
 @coachphillip: And to add to that. It doesnt cost anything to add a longer dropper. A 150, 180, and 200mm post from the same brand all cost the same. So if 40mm of post is always going to be exposed why shouldnt a longer post be specced
  • 4 0
 @bookem13, the vast majority of the size large bikes we review these days can accommodate a post with 200mm of drop (or more) very easily. It's the fact that they're coming with shorter droppers that's frustrating, and that's why we've been complaining about it.

Why do I want that much drop? On bikes with steeper seat tube angles the seat doesn't move as far out of the way as it's lowered compared to bikes with slacker seat angles. It used to be that 150mm of drop was totally fine, but then seat angles steepened and more drop became more important. I don't like having a seat in the way on really steep terrain, and if I have the ability to lower it why not get it as far out of the way as possible?

There are also posts on the market that have adjustable travel, which is a great spec choice. Put the most drop possible on every size, and then riders can reduce the amount of travel if necessary.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: I don't disagree with all of your points. My experience since Dropper post have been the norm on bikes is that we much more often need to put a shorter post into bikes. just one example has always been with SC bikes, they come with a 170mm post and more often then not wed have to put a 150 or shorter post in. As a bike shop guy its really frustrating when at the end of the season you have a box of dropper post that are to long for 90% of people. While I want to have the longest drop I can fit in my own bikes, I cant run more then 170mm Which I feel is plenty, even on a bike with a 77 degree seat post angle.
Norco was( not sure if they still do) specking post with travel adjust.

Id still be curious to see you do a comparison between multiple bike, people and dropper posts. Maybe we could help the industry start specking the posts that make the most sense for the most people.
  • 6 0
 Looks like a Yeti.
  • 4 5
 your mum looks like a yeti?
  • 1 0
 @rookie100: The yeti looks like my mom, and so far I can live with that.
  • 2 0
 Please it is time for SRAMto update the Codes with A) smaller master piston or B) larger caliper pistons and either way, they need to solve their Caliper heat soaking causing stiction.
  • 1 0
 It’s coming - seen the Protos last few years. Guessing will come with a longer reverb as well. SRAM has a new gen of everything but those two things at the moment.
  • 1 0
 @wolftwenty1: Already went Hope Tech 4 V4....
  • 2 1
 Seems like ibis made a long travel ibis (and I like their bikes--have previously owned an HD and ripmo). I guess this is not a bad option if you wanted one bike at 165mm, but I wonder if the average rider would be better served with a dedicated brawler and a more nimble trail bike.
  • 6 0
 The HD6 can hide its long travel in a very positiv way. It feels like a light and nimble trail bike on mallower trails but when things get serious and fast and rough its shows what it is capable and offers plenty of comfort. For me its a very good allrounder. I have ridden trailbikes with much less travel which felt more sluggish. I delivers a very wide range from trailbike to super-enduro.
  • 3 0
 Funny -- for me and my trails, this would be the brawler I'd consider pairing with something shorter (e.g., a Spur)
  • 3 2
 As it relates to cost, the GX build is the way to go. You save $3,400 (!) and all you give up are the carbon rims and XX transmission. But you also get a 185mm dropper instead of the 170mm on the more expensive bike.

Otherwise, this bike strikes me as a very good "quiver killer". It's dimensions and climbing abilities put it closer to an all-mountain/aggressive trail bike, but with the extra suspension cushion to make up for mistakes and perform bike park duties.

From an all-out "enduro" standpoint, it would've been awesome too see this bike with +5mm rear travel, +10mm chainstays, +10mm stack height, -0.5 to 0.75 degrees HTA.

While I am providing suggestions: get yourself some in-frame storage. Once you've had it, you don't want to not have it. Eliminates the need to ride with a pack or strap things to your frame. Throw your spares/repairs in your frame once a year and forget about it.
  • 2 0
 I just realized that I haven't heard anything about times on any of the bikes. Are they just not doing timed testing on these bikes at all or are they saving it for a different video?
  • 3 0
 $11,199 USD for the XX build vs $10,500 for a Yeti SB160 T4 with same build. Come on, bring on the dentist jokes -- we have a new king!
  • 5 0
 So would you say this Ibis...does the job?
  • 3 0
 I am surprised had to scroll down really far to find this comment. But yeah, that's actually an accurate one sentence description of this review.
  • 1 0
 If you *let* it.
  • 3 0
 My unsolicited two cents on how these videos are edited is that it makes the reviewers seem underwhelmed by the bikes.

Can’t put my finger on exactly why though.
  • 1 0
 This bike is nearly identical to the Fezzari La Sal Peak they thought 'meh' on last year. It looks cool, minus the chainstay and actual seat tube angle. I just think that they like it because it's so normal compared to everything else. I'm all about testing odd bikes, but it's true that this round is less comparable than those in the past.
  • 2 0
 Love these bike review video's-- the video quality and content! keep them coming, and would like to see these for components as well-- even boutique components!
  • 3 0
 Only 33.4 pounds? I’ve been told Nirvana doesn’t even start these days until you’re over 38 pounds.
  • 1 0
 Oh Nevermind...
  • 2 0
 Is the seat post too short - meaning negatively impacting the performance / ride or are you guys a little stuck in the ‘longer is always better’ narrative?
  • 2 0
 Ibis went with a larger dropper diameter size for this bike (34.9), so they could have a short seat tube without adding any potential flex issues.
  • 5 1
 Yes, 170mm isn’t enough drop on a bike like this - I was much happier in the steeps on it with a 200mm post installed.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: thanks Kaz. Seems like this thing is well sorted and likely my next bike. The purple color is pretty sick too.
  • 2 1
 @mikekazimer: To be fair ("to be fair!"), it's a limitation of the Reverb AXS dropper post they spec on the XX1 build, not a limitation of the bike. All the other builds use a Bike Yoke post with either 185 mm (Size 3) or 213 mm (Size 4/5) of drop. I wish they'd put the 213 mm drop on Size 3, but at least it's fixable.
  • 6 0
 @MtbSince84, exactly - if RockShox ever comes out with a 200mm AXS Reverb we'll be able to stop complaining about these super expensive bikes that need a part switched out right away.
  • 1 0
 @wolftwenty1: Ha sorry I read "seat tube" and not "seat post".
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: Kaz, can you say something about sizing? I'm 5'11" (same as you), but somewhat short of inseam (31"), and currently ride a Ripmo V1 in size L (which I suppose corresponds to Size 3 on the HD6). Would you recommend a Size 3 for me/you as well, or would you rather be on Size 4? Thanks.
  • 4 0
 @MtbSince84, the size 3 and its 480mm reach is what I'd recommend. The 508mm reach of the size 4 is longer than I prefer - 470mm - 480mm seems to be the sweet spot for me these days.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: thanks, that makes sense to me.
  • 2 0
 @MtbSince84: yeah but it's Ibis that specs the bike with the AXS dropper so it's still reasonable to criticise the choice. There are many other posts to choose from if bike companies decided to prioritize function instead of making every component wireless.
  • 2 0
 @st-alfie: Agreed. I don't like their choice of AXS dropper in general. (You'll notice I also criticized Ibis' choice to spec only 185 mm on Size 3.)

I just wanted to make the distinction between a problem with the bike/frame (which can't be worked around), and a problem with their parts choice (which can).
  • 4 4
 Ibis pricing is insane! Their new e bike last year was a 11k ish bike too. This year it got dropped to 8ish I believe? This bike will do the same thing. Crewed over customers and shops on value that had bought into the stupidly expensive bikes. Wouldn't pay these jokers anywhere near 11k for a non motored bike.
  • 1 0
 I paid 6500€ for the GX Build.

Sure it needed some upgrades like a OneUP 210mm Dropper Post and a GX Shifter.

But the suspension and brakes are the same. Even the alloy wheels arent so bad with 2kg.
  • 3 0
 Pretty much every brand did this when they realized they couldn't sell bikes in 2023.
  • 1 1
 @mammal: Probably right. These guys obviously didn't learn though Smile
  • 5 0
 Haych Dee Six!
  • 1 0
 Am I the only one who noticed they basically just copied the outgoing mode of pivot firebird? Literally the same suspension type, same triangle and shock layout…. “Copy my homework, but change nothing?”
  • 2 0
 you are correct from 20' away! I cashed in my 2019 firebird for a HD6 and to me this is what the V2 29 firebird should have been. 1) room for a water bottle, 2) mullet, 3) better fore/aft weight distribution = better cornering, easier climbing 4) no superboost, 5) threaded BB. A definite improvement in my books!
  • 1 0
 @gonebikin09: nice! I was hoping to hear a comparison somewhere and if they made some improvements. I loved my 2019 FB but was torn on no bottle but also the inability to drop my saddle too far without tire buzz. I assume the longer stays helps with that? I was on a medium FB for reference.
  • 1 0
 @borisimobike: my FB was a medium as well, i'm 5'10". The S2 HD6 is almost exactly the same size but i decided to go with a S3 which is slightly larger. I think it was the right choice, the HD6 feels just a maneuverable as the FB and totally comfortable.
  • 1 0
 The bike looks beautiful. Just can’t understand why there are not the best Sram discs on a bike over 11k$! I wouldn’t buy it anyway but I never figured out what reason can be found for that!
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer @mattbeer I was wondering if you could compare this bike to the sb160 and the altitude, as all these bike have been “devolved by race teams” I’m interested to know the differences
  • 1 1
 I'm surprised that that chainstay size isn't criticized enough... I've owned/rode an SB150 size L (480 reach, 433cs) and it was horrible. Good only in straight and steep terrain, balance in turn was shit with the front washing out everywhere... Sitting in the middle of the top tube was the right point to get even grip between front and rear on mild fire roads or flat trails, so totally out of balance.
Got a ProPain with 445cs and I started smiling again. I care less about seat tube angle in comparison...
  • 2 0
 Be pretty darn awkward when you try to grab your water bottle and you get a fist full of shock shaft.
  • 1 0
 Hate it when that happens
  • 2 0
 I never know what to say
  • 3 0
 Tall people around the world shrug. It's not like we wanted you anyway.
  • 1 1
 How is the Oso 4g less? Is it like restaurants? where with food costing, some menu items loose money and some
Make money? Surely the HD is making money and the Oso is loosing money.
  • 3 0
 "engage the race mode", what the hell is that?

That was an odd review.
  • 2 1
 I don't see how low stack height could ever be a negative.
Do pinkbike test riders refuse to adjust the height of their bars?
  • 1 0
 Funny, that couple of seasons ago, like 2-3, a full 29er was the only racing machine acceptable. Now it seems, the mullet took over. Where is that full 29er then? Retirement?
  • 1 3
 The math is wrong when I set the Ibis bikes that I have I end up returning to the advice given by Ibis which generally ends up leaving me with a 27.5% sag both front and rear this is due to the anti sag characteristics of the DW Link suspension so if you do the maths.... the Ibis wins! If you have a 170 travel bike (pretty normal in this test group and the one that is referred to in the review) after subtraction of 30% sag 119mm of travel but Ibis at 167mm travel and 27.5% sag has an available travel of 121.9mm. So head angle and stack hight well now I am an engineer and I do build my own bikes, wheels etc. and I don't think the guy's in this interview are and if so they are not applying it well or they would not make the statements that they do, but if your really afraid that you need the extra head angle then by all means Ibis has approved the use of 190mm fork for the HD-6. Now I challenge the above to come up with all of these other bikes that have a near 63.5 degree head angle (which is pretty close to what you would have if you put a 190mm fork on it!) and the performance that the HD-6has; their not out there. Just get the Ibis I have the HD-6 and the Ripmo V2S their both kick butt fun and you will go up and down faster than the other guy.
  • 7 0
 Holy fuck, that's a difficult read
  • 6 0
 @st-alfie: I made it half way through the first sentence (?).
  • 2 1
 I'll just wait for the HD6 AF, might be a lot better value (and better looking if its raw...)
  • 4 0
 I can almost guarantee that won't happen.
  • 1 0
 @mammal: why do you say that? They did it with their last two releases that weren't XC race bikes.
  • 2 0
 @k-n-i-x-o-n: I can just copy/paste from my response above: "The AF (and Ripley) were actually a bit of a test-mule for updating the Ripmo geometry, they released it before the Ripmo V2/new Ripley. Also, with the market being where it is right now, Ibis is going to be desperate to flip as many carbon frames as possible, to amortize the new molds they've invested in. They're not going to want to produce batches of aluminum frames that will be eating into carbon sales.
  • 2 0
 First ibis ever that I actually like the aesthetics.
  • 4 6
 435 mm chainstays - fantastic if you are 172-178 cm tall and ride a medium frame!!
It looks like Ibis is remaining in the "hard NO' category, along with Pivot and Yeti, as future bike options (which I am sure they absolutely don't care about given that medium and large frame sizes represent about 80% of sales).
  • 2 2
 I find it hilarious how all these supposed 10k carbon superbikes basically get a "meh"-rating from the reviewers. Pretty underwhelming regarding their price tags.
  • 6 0
 You got “meh” from that? I took it as a pretty positive review, especially compared to the last three or so they’ve done.
  • 2 0
 That's a great looking Jeffsy/YETI SB160!
  • 2 0
 I'm out until they bring back the old head badge.
  • 1 0
 541 reach? Former NBA players take note.
  • 2 0
 I have. My custom FS is 535mm reach, 697mm stack and it's the sweet spot for a guy that's likely one of the tallest commenters on here. But you won't catch me riding 27.5.
  • 1 0
 MB's jumps near the end of the video were sick!
  • 7 5
 code rsc are rubbish
  • 3 3
 I have the GX Transmission build of this bike and its weakest feature is definitely the Code RSC brakes.
  • 1 2
 @lujoha44: realy? Im considering replacing my Saint/XT brakes for code rsc.
  • 2 0
 @Bejker: don’t
  • 1 0
 @Bejker: I have a pair from a '23 Tues I will sell you for $75.
  • 1 0
 @Bejker: I have XT on my Ripmo and I find their bite far more predictable. Might be more of a preference, but I feel like the RSC is harder to finesse/modulate because you can't feel the bite as easily.
  • 4 4
 Curious to hear the review... 435 chainstay on a size large is probably a dealbreaker for me
  • 1 0
 So it says that the Trek Slash eats bumps...interesting.
  • 2 0
 Yeti?
  • 1 0
 @mattbeer - where did the air can valve cap go on the X2?!
  • 2 0
 That's my fault. I have a bad habit of losing air caps immediately.
  • 3 0
 @mikekazimer: Wouldn't a classic schrader tube's cap work? Or is it like an artistic statement about the inevitable upcoming failure of the X2?
  • 1 1
 • Price: $11,199 USD • Who's in dentist land now bishes .... (((WakiDesigns cackle)))
  • 1 0
 The SDFA vibes continue to make these reviews even better
  • 2 0
 thats 2 JEFFSIES FFS
  • 1 1
 It's a 2018 Pivot Firebird ....look it up for your self , Ibis copied 90% of the bike
  • 1 0
 store.pivotcycles.com/en/bike-firebird-carbon-1

Yeah, you should re-read the specs. Not the same at all.
  • 2 0
 @tuskenraider: I think he really means the 2019 FB, the first gen with 29" wheels, Ibis and pivot have always shared a lot of design elements due to the use of DW, in my opinion Ibis took the newest DW layout, that is common to the G1 FB and made it significantly better. Much more attractive to me than the V2 FB 29
  • 1 0
 Whoa, an ibis that isn't ugly as hell. Nice.
  • 1 0
 So editors, do you think it would make a good park bike?
  • 1 0
 How does it compare to yeti sb160?
  • 1 0
 I'll take a purple one
  • 1 1
 Can Matt ride all the bikes for the video shots, that table!
  • 2 2
 630mm is "Low Stack" now? Really? Seems pretty dead-on average.
  • 2 2
 Right? I didn’t think it was possible for a 180mm 29” to ever be too low.
  • 1 1
 We have our winner here. Looks like a fantastic racer and it looks good
  • 1 1
 looks like a 2019 firebird
  • 4 5
 2019 called and wants it's pivot Firebird 29 design back.
  • 13 16
 After 5 bikes,3 field tests and 4 years none of them are still not better than the Specialized Enduro.NICE!
  • 10 0
 Did you not know about Henry’s Spire?
  • 2 0
 Big leap to that conclusion.
  • 3 1
 I'd probably pass on the E29 just because it's about to be updated and the STA is a bit slack.
But the SB160, the Spire & probably the Claymore all appear to be more successful at this genre than any of the current participating bikes.
  • 6 13
flag ratedgg13 FL (Oct 26, 2023 at 8:41) (Below Threshold)
 "none of them are still not better than"
  • 7 1
 @ratedgg13: I saw that, too, but maybe give the guy a break here.. He’s flying a Portugal flag. Maybe English isn’t his first language.
  • 4 0
 @TheR: thanks, only read what I wrote after
  • 4 2
 @ratedgg13: how many languages do you speak bud?
  • 1 0
 the raaw madonna is better than the enduro. in every way
  • 2 0
 @Korbi777: The Raaw Madonna (while a very cool bike) is not objectively "better" than the Spec. Enduro.

The Enduro (which was released in 2019!) offers: more rear travel (+10mm) in stock configuration, a more rearward/vertical axle path, in-frame storage, 1.0 degree slacker HTA, higher antisquat at sag, and a higher and more progressive overall leverage curve.

Both bikes have very similar anti-rise of between 30-50% throughout - so they'll offer similar braking performance in the mid and later stroke.

Overall, the Raaw is a great bike - and the price ($5.6k for full builds) is solid. But there is not objective reason to say that the Raaw V2.2 is "better than the enduro in every way." In fact, it would be fair to suggest that the Enduro is slightly better than the Raaw - in terms of suspension travel, climbing manners, and features.
  • 3 0
 @SunsPSD: The SB160 is going to be quite different than the Enduro. Fundamentally, Yeti and Specialized design for quite different suspension characteristics (Yeti = lower/less progressive leverage, much higher antirise, digressive antisquat across the suspension curve). I've owned both bikes, and they have fundamentally different characters.

The Spire is cool and frankly somewhat similar to the Enduro. Definitely some tweaks to geometry between the two - but decidedly similar bikes with similar suspension designs (both rocker/horst link with lower anti-rise). That said, the Spire still falls into the category of less progressive/lower leverage than the Enduro. Henry loved this bike, but other reviewers liked the Enduro in the Field Test from a few years back.

The Deviate is a really interesting bike. In fact, I drool over it in the moss green color. The one hesitation I have about it (personally) is the high anti-rise. Not a deal breaker, but I prefer a bike that stays responsive on the brakes.
  • 2 0
 @KJP1230: but everything you stated doesnt make the enduro better, either. i rode it for 2 years. it was great, the sta was not good though and it started creaking after 2 weeks and never stopped. shocks failed several times. in frame storage is just a gimmick.
with the raaw now, i ride better, no creaking, nor rattling and the shocks dont break. and the bearings last longer
  • 7 10
 why ruin it with mixed wheels?
  • 9 2
 So true, it would have been way more fun without that 29 up front
  • 4 6
 Looks like a Jeffsy
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.062202
Mobile Version of Website