Anyone else riding a IBIS Mojo SL?

[Victorian]

Hey folks,

I switched to a Mojo not to long ago. I can't believe how amazing this bike performs! Mostly riding short distances through more or less difficult trails with lots of roots and rocks... I'm now in the progress of make my bike as light as possible without investing another $$$$$ :elkgrin:

What components would you (as an IBIS owner) recommend ? Wheels, derailers, seats...

I'm currently running heavy touring wheels with a Shimano Alfine 11 and would like to change those first....

What are your thoughts?

Cheers,
Andreas

 

[brandonhedberg]

The new SRAM XX or XO 2x10 is incredibly light and shifts fast (front and rear). As for wheels, you can't beat Stan's No-Tubes Crest wheelset for price and weight.

I'm running this on my Niner.

Post pics when ready.

 

[bunduguy]

I ran both my Mojo's as light but rugged ultra-marathon rigs. Full XTR and SRAM XO. With Mavic SLR wheels and Syntace Cockpit and seatpost, Magura Marta Mag SL brakes. Best bikes I've ever ridden, and rode the 630 mile Cape Epic in South Africa on one of them.

 

[Christophe Noel]

It's worth pointing out that weight is only relative to the weight of the bike AND the rider. Plus, that's only important on climbs, and usually long steady climbs. Climbing speed is the product of watts vs. weight in total. So, the heavier the rider is, the less significant reductions in bike bike weight are. There's also no such bird as "rotational" weight as it relates to bicycle performance.

 

[Honu]

I used to ride a custom Ibis trials bike many many years ago loved their work

 

[Victorian]

Good points everyone, Thanks!!!

To clarify a bit more:
I'm not racing, just for fun riding and yes there is LOTS of climbing where we are riding... Vancouver Island British Columbia..

Question: Sram X7 Why would I want a short/long cage? http://www.mec.ca/AST/ShopMEC/Cycli...sram-x7-rear-derailleur-9-speed-long-cage.jsp

Any thoughts about those Sram X5 Triggers? http://www.mec.ca/AST/ShopMEC/Cycling/BikeParts/PRD~5020-149/sram-x5-trigger-set-9-speed.jsp

 

[Christophe Noel]

To clarify a bit more:
I'm not racing, just for fun riding and yes there is LOTS of climbing where we are riding... Vancouver Island British Columbia..

The MIT Cycling Science department sure sucked the fun out of upgrading a bike when they started publishing all of their bike studies years ago. If you and your bike weigh 200 pounds together with the bike at 30 and you at 170, you can either spend huge money to drop your bike by 2-3 pounds, or.....order fewer burgers, and lose that 2-3 pounds off your carcass. I've always got 5-10 pounds on me I can shed.

Not a fun and exciting way to squeeze a little performance out of a bike ride and get your upgrade fix, but that's the science of it.

That said, I'm a firm believer that any time you put a little bling on your bike it goes faster.

With regard to rear derailleur cage length, that is determined by how many teeth you plan to wrap. In a nutshell, the larger the cogs in the back, the greater the need for a long cage derailleur. Or, the greater the range of gears, the greater the need for long cages. Most mountain bike applications require long cages.

 

[Honu]

what MIT does not take into account would be the kinetic energy of a rotating mass and sprinting ! also that the human body is not a machine producing a perfect output of power
purely based on math and power to weight ratios sure does not matter but real world it matters a small amount !
again MIT needs to take a bike and fill the tires with sand and then have one without and put the weight on a riders back and have a sprint not a perfect condition
other sites and math have proved rotational weight does matter sometimes MIT types can be really stupid and not take things right in front of them into account
they need to study kinetic energy and the rotational weight like others have done and proven
let MIT explain then how a 100 lb wheel would be the same on a rider as a 100 lb on your pack in acceleration ?

then throw those sand filled tires and go down a hard core twisty decent and see how it effects braking and cornering ! again real world things wont be the same

I guess then we can throw 500 lb tires on our rigs and realize as long as we drop that 500 lbs elsewhere on our rig that things will be the same ?
so MIT then (have not seen just whats said) that if we have 3 people in a vehicle total 500 lbs and instead dump them and run tire wheel combo that is 500 lbs we are going to have the same performance ?

will be interesting to see their outcome with braking and acceleration ? of course some match could show that its equal but in reality we know its not


rotational on climbs does not matter really I agree when all things are perfect unless one tries to gain speed then that rotational mass can be a bit more to get going but the energy on a even climb its all about equal

heavier wheels can help in maintaining energy ? in the end its all kinda a balance for us non racer types and really depends on where when how we ride

also a 200 lb combination with a 150 lb rider put that rider on 50 lb bike or 20 lb bike and 30 in a pack and then have them go over really technical terrain where you are relying on controlling the bike and it will matter some when in the air hopping over obstacles etc..

MIT guys should do a quick test carry 20 lbs extra in a back pack then put 20 pounds on their feet and another 20 lb gloves walk around and then tell me that does not matter where that 20 pounds are !
and then do agility tests on top of that and see how it effects things !

maybe MIT guys should go back to the drawing board and realize bicycle riding is not about a static energy output and the interaction with a bicycle under you does effect things in some situations

Mavic back in the day had a test machine with wheel weights would be worth trying to find out about more for MIT guys

bottom line MIT has some serious holes in their testing if they say bicycle and rotational weight have no effect on performance of a bike and needs to do some real world testing

 

[Honu]

I will say for most of us it wont matter ? most could do better conditioning better skills etc. but its fun to have the things you want but a decent nice new bike is going to be more enjoyable to ride but shaving a small amount on wheels wont help riding a proper setup 30 lb bike or a poorly setup 27 lb bike give me the 30 for roadies I would rather take a well setup 20 lb bike than a poorly setup 17

and again real world I prefer a balance look at a road bike built for something like a TT vs something like the Paris–Roubaix

a proper balanced setup is whats important

 

[Christophe Noel]

Honu, you have to frame your physics within the realm of bicycles and bike riders. We're not talking about 10 pounds of sand in your tires. We're talking about common bicycle variables. Will a 1500 gram wheelset accelerate faster than an 1800 gram wheelset? Yes, but to what extent? My racing wheels weigh 1100 grams. My training wheels weigh 1500 grams. That seems pretty significant, other than the fact my wheel rotational mass is part of an 85,000 gram bike and rider package. The reduction of 400 grams to that 85,000 gram total is rather insignificant. This is also not linear. The heavier the rider, slower the wheel, steeper the grade, all of these things factor into the efficiency.

So, the science of it may suggest there are efficiency gains, but how much? We're probably talking a second or two over the span of an hour long climb. Probably less of a gain than you'd get if you taped your ears back.

There's a big difference between physical gains, and significant or perceptible gains. This is just like when everyone rushed out to get oval "aero" Wheelsmith spokes back in the day. Were they more aero? Yes. Probably so aero, they'd save you a fraction of a second over a 40k time trial.

 

[Honu]

It's worth pointing out that weight is only relative to the weight of the bike AND the rider. Plus, that's only important on climbs, and usually long steady climbs. Climbing speed is the product of watts vs. weight in total. So, the heavier the rider is, the less significant reductions in bike bike weight are. There's also no such bird as "rotational" weight as it relates to bicycle performance.

Honu, you have to frame your physics within the realm of bicycles and bike riders. We're not talking about 10 pounds of sand in your tires. We're talking about common bicycle variables. Will a 1500 gram wheelset accelerate faster than an 1800 gram wheelset? Your sand in the tires example is equal to probably 4,500 grams of just dead weight. Point being, variables in weight from one bike product to another are pretty similar in weight all things considered. How often do you hear of a guy deciding between a 4 pound wheelset and a 30 pound wheelset?

MIT and Yale both did studies picking apart just these very things. The one thing that was obvious was the tiny scale of accelerations in cycling. We're not talking about accelerations from zero to 60 mph. We're talking accelerations that sometimes involve up to 1000 watts of power to gain only a couple additional mph given the scenario. So, again, the weight variables are not very extreme, nor is the range of acceleration.

Your heavy boot example is about leveraged weight, not rotational weight, and is again, more extreme than you'd find with bike part variations.

Another way to look at is like this. What's a heavy XC mountain bike weigh? Probably not more than 30 pounds. What's a light XC mountain bike weigh? I'd say 24 pounds is "light." Now, apply that to riders. A light rider might be 135 pounds and a heavy rider can easily tip 200. Bike weight is less important than we'd like it to be as it serves for great justification for upgrades, and who doesn't love upgrades.

By the way, the MIT elite cycling team is hardly a bunch of hacks who've never pedaled a bike in anger. Having their cycling science lectured to me by a Cat 1 elite was pretty convincing.

I just went off what you said ?

chances are the MIT riders are not the techs that came up with the stuff ? and never said they were hacks ?

and yes used extremes ?

and if you read my second post if not go back read it its kinda saying weight is not the main issue it is a factor though and agree it really does not matter

lets say two 30 lb bikes one with wheels twice as heavy ? if you do a lot of sprinting you will notice charging corners and coming out of those corners you will notice (being a good rider pushing hard like in a race)
and will a 1500 accelerate quicker ? yes !
will it matter ? most likely not for any of us but will it matter to a world class racer ? yes it might and again this is where the guys get bikes built with that balance in mind

I would love a link to the MIT cause that has me curious and curious if they really say rotational weight has no effect ? or the effect is so small for most it wont matter and in some cases of 500 grams can hardly be shown ?
cause others say it does and I believe their are math theories/equations of kinetic energy and rotational that prove it matters ! the question would be how much ? and again agree not much in the end for most people

I tried to find links to the Mavic study they did in the past and cant ? I am not in the industrty anymore not sure if you have any connections in Mavic that might know of the past study and it was pre internet days when I was involved in the industry

 

[Honu]

I think we are on the same page ?

I never worried about weight I worried about the right tool for the right job but on that level all things are pretty good
when I owned my shop cost was also never a issue and getting comps from the reps was easy

so again its the fact of saying it does not matter when it does ? its the fact of for most it wont matter and if so small gains but some notice it

back to the great IBIS Mojo


I do love the looks of that bike


one thing also on Ibis I liked was their attention to detail and the small finishes they used to do did not know they were still in business I remember talking and hanging out with them some back in the day at the BDS shows

 

[Christophe Noel]

There is no distinction between pro riders and regular Joe riders. Physics don't care. Watts are watts, whether you get a paycheck for them or not. As a regular Joe, you may be able to churn out 300 watts for an hour. Mr. Pro Cyclist will simply be able to do that longer, or at times in excess of that number. As it relates to wheels, weight and speed, doesn't matter.

If you go to analytic cycling's site you'll see that the science does support there is such a thing as inertia in rotation, and weight is measurable, but they also say the real world examples don't yield anything very exciting.

So, to the OP, so he doesn't think we totally hijacked his thread, the only way to make weight reductions noticeable is to make them extreme. They also have to be paired with extreme wattage values and steep grades.

For what it's worth, most pros in road racing settings are no longer after uber light hoops, they're going for uber aero where the advantages are not just measurable, they're very, very perceptible.

 

[tacollie]

Perceived speed and actual speed are different. If you feel faster you have more fun even if you aren't actually faster and in reality you probably are not. I keep my wheels, frame, and cranks at reasonable weights. Everything else I buy what will last the longest.

To Victorian I have had good experiences with X7 though I usually run X9. You will most likely want a long cage unless you are running a road cassette.

 

[Victorian]

No matter of what studies are out there and what not... my bike is almost twice (yes twice!) the weight of my friends Mojo's!!!! I had the pleasure of riding with two others today and they where just flying up those hills! Downhill doesn't matter :sombrero:

In any case, I'm about 150lb and after investing in this great bike I want to get it lighter, basta.

here is pic of todays ride...