# Ibis Ebike?



## kevjob (Jan 25, 2021)

New ebike from Ibis? Anyone hear about it?


----------



## SCFord (Jul 12, 2019)

That’s about the most info I’ve seen around on the forums. Bosch motor, supposedly being officially announced 10/4, been a few clips of it in the ews-e and ibis also has a rider in there, so pretty legit


----------



## edbraunbeck (Apr 28, 2007)

I'm surprised they didn't go the mid-power/lighter route like Orbea, Trek, and Pivot.


----------



## Redlemon (4 mo ago)

edbraunbeck said:


> I'm surprised they didn't go the mid-power/lighter route like Orbea, Trek, and Pivot.


Majority of current eMTB market consist of full power eMTBs so they made the right choice.


----------



## edbraunbeck (Apr 28, 2007)

Redlemon said:


> Majority of current eMTB market consist of full power eMTBs so they made the right choice.


Definitely, a safe bet to continue to follow the majority. The weight of the bike will be the determining factor in how much success they see.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

It'll weigh 55#s like every other large full power e- bike with real tires and pedals. 

The future is mid-power. Full power was just a weird time in between.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Suns_PSD said:


> It'll weigh 55#s like every other large full power e- bike with real tires and pedals.
> 
> The future is mid-power. Full power was just a weird time in between.


This bike was raced on the EWS-E. Competition series drove the design decisions.

Guess you're after something not competition influenced, in the trail/AM segment, and believe the majority of buyers out there are like you?

I don't know why I think this, but I'm picturing some person who feels entitled to have so many brands competing for _your_ dollars, when I read your post.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I guess I'm not looking for something e-bike 'competition influenced' as you say, because I don't want to ride 14 mph up a chunky hill, as it isn't appropriate on multi-use trails when not in the middle of an e-bike specific competition on a closed course.

Truth is, I'm looking to cheat a bit on the tough climbs, not participate in an activity that feels so different than mountain biking.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Full power is the future. In fact they will continue to get more powerful as they start racing. We are already seeing this with Bosch's race motor. Soon Brose and Shimano will have one to keep up. We will creep into the 1000 watt range. They will all have a 250watt sticker on them and still be given the green light under the law. Batteries will also have to get bigger. I see 700 as the minimum.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

alexbn921 said:


> Full power is the future. In fact they will continue to get more powerful as they start racing. We are already seeing this with Bosch's race motor. Soon Brose and Shimano will have one to keep up. We will creep into the 1000 watt range. They will all have a 250watt sticker on them and still be given the green light under the law. Batteries will also have to get bigger. I see 700 as the minimum.


I don't disagree that full power e-bikes will continue to get faster and the wattage rating will be a bit meaningless.


----------



## Ripbird (Jun 25, 2020)

So the Pivot LT has been out for a month or so now and the discussion on the EMTB forum has around 6 posts total and the Pivot SL has 5 pages. I don’t know, but it seems like a certain kind of bike is generating just a bit more interest.

I won’t bother to mention how many pages long the Trek Fuel Exe thread is.

It’s just a guess, but from what I’ve observed from your average buyer, especially Ebike buyer, most could give a rats ass about it’s competition influence and that’s the last thing on their mind when buying a new bike.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Ripbird said:


> So the Pivot LT has been out for a month or so now and the discussion on the EMTB forum has around 6 posts total and the Pivot SL has 5 pages. I don’t know, but it seems like a certain kind of bike is generating just a bit more interest.
> 
> I won’t bother to mention how many pages long the Trek Fuel Exe thread is.
> 
> It’s just a guess, but from what I’ve observed from your average buyer, especially Ebike buyer, most could give a rats ass about it’s competition influence and that’s the last thing on their mind when buying a new bike.


It depends what your friends ride. If everyone is getting SL bikes you will most likely get an SL. If everyone is on FF then SL can't keep up and you get a FF.

My experience is that it only takes a couple FF bikes to make every convert to them.

For example, in our local area we have 50+ FF bikes vs 1 or 2 SL bikes I've seen. A couple are SL curious, but only as a N+1 bike.

Where you ride and the type of riding you do will have a huge impact on which bike you chose. Here it's straight up with 40%+ climbs and 70%+ DH trails. I want a DH bike that self shuttles. Your results may vary.

Ibis's ebike is too trail for me and I bet the rear end is short. Too short for an XL bike with 500+ reach.


----------



## Ripbird (Jun 25, 2020)

alexbn921 said:


> It depends what your friends ride. If everyone is getting SL bikes you will most likely get an SL. If everyone is on FF then SL can't keep up and you get a FF.
> 
> My experience is that it only takes a couple FF bikes to make every convert to them.
> 
> ...


I get all this and it’s always brought up when a potential new Ebike rider asked if an SL bike is for them or not.

I prefer riding an Ebike that rides as much like a regular bike as possible and my Rise does that for me and the group who I ride with. It’s works even better for me when riding alone on any trails that I ride.

As far as this new Ibis goes. For me it’s not about whether it too trail, too enduro, ect, it’s just too plain ugly for me and I wouldn’t buy it any more so than I would buy a pink framed bike.


----------



## smoothmoose (Jun 8, 2008)

alexbn921 said:


> It depends what your friends ride. If everyone is getting SL bikes you will most likely get an SL. If everyone is on FF then SL can't keep up and you get a FF.
> 
> Ibis's ebike is too trail for me and I bet the rear end is short. Too short for an XL bike with 500+ reach.


Bingo, so obvious why you prefer FF being an XL. I don't want to assume your bodyweight, but I would guess it's not close to my 145lbs on my 5'5" frame. A 55lbs bike is unwieldily to handle at my weight and height - and so are full 29er hoops, but I digress.

Totally agree, you need size specific chainstays and Ibis hasn't done that in the past, I don't see them starting with this new funky swingarm - if anything it should give them the clearance they want to run shorter CS.

What I'm trying to say, is I'm looking for the bike industry to have more portionally offerings for people based on the height AND weight. These variable include:

29er, 27.5, and mullet wheel sizes
size specific chainstays
Light, medium, firm fork and shock tunes
FF and SL ebikes
Options to spec different casings on tires
Light and Heavier frame layup options
Obviously there is not one brand or bike offering that gives you all these options, it does take time to find the brand/model that hits your own personal sweetspot. That said the SL eBike market segment is still the most underserved.


----------



## smoothmoose (Jun 8, 2008)

Looks like I eat some of my words. 29er and mullet plus size specific stays for the new Ibis OSO ebike.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

540mm reach on XL puts the F/R ratio over 2. Boggles my mind. Getting any weight on the front will be a challenge on flat turns.


----------



## RBoardman (Dec 27, 2014)

Ripbird said:


> So the Pivot LT has been out for a month or so now and the discussion on the EMTB forum has around 6 posts total and the Pivot SL has 5 pages. I don’t know, but it seems like a certain kind of bike is generating just a bit more interest.
> 
> I won’t bother to mention how many pages long the Trek Fuel Exe thread is.
> 
> It’s just a guess, but from what I’ve observed from your average buyer, especially Ebike buyer, most could give a rats ass about it’s competition influence and that’s the last thing on their mind when buying a new bike.


Judging a bikes popularity and ability to sell does not correlate to the amount of discussion generated on an online forum, especially MTBR. Go into any bike shop and ask what they sell the most of, and it will be full powered ebikes by a large margin. Even shops that stock and have an equal amount of availability to both.


----------



## RBoardman (Dec 27, 2014)

alexbn921 said:


> 540mm reach on XL puts the F/R ratio over 2. Boggles my mind. Getting any weight on the front will be a challenge on flat turns.


That’s why long stems are making a comeback.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I just did an experiment with a 45,50,55 stem on my 520 reach bike. The longer stem did put more weight on the front, but it significantly slowed down the handling and I felt less centered on the bike standing. I just couldn't get along with the loss of control and it made jumping weird. I did give it a chance, have migrated back to 45mm.


----------



## Ripbird (Jun 25, 2020)

RBoardman said:


> Judging a bikes popularity and ability to sell does not correlate to the amount of discussion generated on an online forum, especially MTBR. Go into any bike shop and ask what they sell the most of, and it will be full powered ebikes by a large margin. Even shops that stock and have an equal amount of availability to both.


I agree and I I've read this first hand after being on the Ebike forums for the past 2 years. 

My other point responding to the other poster is your average Joe buying these FF Ebikes could give a crap about any competition prowess.


----------



## RBoardman (Dec 27, 2014)

Ripbird said:


> My other point responding to the other poster is your average Joe buying these FF Ebikes could give a crap about any competition prowess.


For ebikes, yes. Especially in this time right now when ebike racing isn’t really taken seriously yet. 

But for DH bikes people of all abilities tend to want to buy whatever bikes are winning world cups at the time. But that’s a bit different (and younger) crowd.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Can't figure out why are people comparing CS length to reach. What performance metric does it relate to?

Comparing CS length to WB length shows where the BB is located between the wheels, for determining weight distro for a rider standing on the pedals. For seated weight distro, you not only have to consider CS and WB, but also the distance the saddle is behind the BB. Can't exactly do math on the _effective_ STA and saddle height get an accurate read on this.

IME, 440mm CS is my personal sweet spot for 1250mm WB, for my heavy-feet and light-hands neutral riding position. Considering the battery's weight, I'd want either shorter CS or longer front end to balance out that weight on the front.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Weight balance is all about front center to rear center ratio. If most bikes have the same HTA then reach is an easy to access number to put you in the ballpark of what the ratio will be.

This bike for example has 110mm of front change and 5mm! in the back. At some point in that range it's going to be balanced the best. You can't go shorter, but you can go longer to maintain that sweet spot.

I find that bikes with over 1.8 ratio are out of balance and need excess weight on the bars to ride effectively. The XL is over 2.0 and one of the least balanced weight distribution bikes you can buy.

The weight of motor and batteries does effect this, but not dramatically. Suspension tuning and spring rates also effect this, but they are Band-Aids.

As a rider gets taller they need to move back towards the rear axle to maintain a reasonable pedaling position. You can't just move them forward or you compromise pedal power and comfort. This backwards movement of the rider needs to be compensated for by moving the rear axle back. This is just the seated portion of the ride.

For standing the seat angle and any manipulation you did for seated position doesn't matter. The only thing that maters are feet, hands and wheel axels. This is simplified. Having a 1.6-1.7ish ratio will be the sweet spot and some compromises will have to be made for handling and playfulness.

You can't simply stretch one end of a bike 110mm and expect it to handle right over the whole range. In a medium this bike is 1.78. Not perfect, but at my acceptable end of range for balance.

This is just my observations and I fully intend to ride the bike before passing judgment on it. I'm also not a pro rider or even that fast.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

alexbn921 said:


> Weight balance is all about front center to rear center ratio. If most bikes have the same HTA then reach is an easy to access number to put you in the ballpark of what the ratio will be.
> 
> This bike for example has 110mm of front change and 5mm! in the back. At some point in that range it's going to be balanced the best. You can't go shorter, but you can go longer to maintain that sweet spot.
> 
> ...


IME, that math didn't work out for me. Doing ratios is not accurate enough to be able to get reliable predictions, IMO.

I literally had access to over a dozen bikes to measure with actual scales underneath each wheel. I'd ensure I was standing on the bike in a consistent manner, balancing on the pedals so that my body wasn't tipping forward or back. Doing the weight ratio from the scale readings tells a diff story. Can argue the bike components skew these numbers, but IMO, they're standard ones found on most stock bikes (Fox/RS SRAM/Shimano, etc).

As quivers go, some of them turned out to be my favorite, and easiest to shred on. These intuitive ones are the ones I made the "sweet spot standard". When I noticed that I had some in a few different WB: Rocky Mtn Thunderbolt BC (420 1170), Niner ROS9 (425 1190), Cannondale Jekyll 27.5 (430 CS, 1210 WB), Yeti SB150 (435 1230), Spec Enduro 440 CS 1250 WB, my Marino Grim Donut 445 1275... rounded a little, mostly in size Med, but some in Lrg/S4. These all top notch over the many other bikes i've owned and demo'd. The ones that came close, like the Intense Spider 27.5 and Recluse, didn't really disappoint handling wise, when I demo'd them, but just had quirks like super long seat tubes and "HT-like" climbing that turned me off.

My predictions for good and bad handling bikes have been extremely reliable. I've been able to call out which bikes would be praised for good cornering, jumping, and general balance. Bikes like the Top Fuel and other downcountry bikes with my CS/WB combos (in the size most likely to be tested, Lg), reviewed quite well. I predicted the Meta AM's short CS causing issue, as discovered by the Enduro mtb shootout where they also found the SB150 performed better in size Med (compared to Lg). A few surprised me, like I would've expected Norco's new Shore to be criticized for its front wheel not readily wanting to leave the ground, due to the CS length being longer when sagged, but reviewers seemed to over look that. Most the bike of the year winners happened to have my CS/WB combos. The new Strive is a weird one, having super long WB for the CS, and I saw news of Jack Moir preferring a smaller size.

Anyways, this Ibis gets my approval in size M and L. Would be maybe a bit too front heavy in S, but I don't think any emtb gets size small right, so the best options would be to get ones that get size M right. People interested in size XL should consider a different emtb, as the CS are too short for it. Plenty of options for out there with CS that are quite long.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I prefer a FF relatively light ebike with excellent suspension. I ride the longest frame I can with a stubby stem. I prefer short chainstays and a little chopper set up as I am typically in attack position. But whatever floats your boat really. I’ve ridden with climbers that love the SL type ebike and they typically tend to be of a small stature. They’re really all good though!


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Fury reincarnated (26" single pivot MTB)


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Varaxis said:


> IME, that math didn't work out for me. Doing ratios is not accurate enough to be able to get reliable predictions, IMO.
> 
> I literally had access to over a dozen bikes to measure with actual scales underneath each wheel. I'd ensure I was standing on the bike in a consistent manner, balancing on the pedals so that my body wasn't tipping forward or back. Doing the weight ratio from the scale readings tells a diff story. Can argue the bike components skew these numbers, but IMO, they're standard ones found on most stock bikes (Fox/RS SRAM/Shimano, etc).
> 
> ...


I have not been able to ride enough well set up bikes to pinpoint an exact formula to determine proper handling, but I do personally find the improvement in handling/ balance/ speed with long chainstays to be tremendous. I also think the 'it's a plow bike' or 'yah but now it's no good through the trees' to be complete rubbish as for me, long chainstays handle better absolutely everywhere, including in the tight trees. Some of the things I read/ hear people claim about short chain stay bikes, indicates to me that they don't have much feel for their bike at the limit.

I won't buy a short travel bike again with less than 440mm chainstays & I won't buy a long travel bike with less than 445mm chainstays ever again.

That said, I don't know how the weight of a motor will effect this issue.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Suns_PSD said:


> I have not been able to ride enough well set up bikes to pinpoint an exact formula to determine proper handling, but I do personally find the improvement in handling/ balance/ speed with long chainstays to be tremendous. I also think the 'it's a plow bike' or 'yah but now it's no good through the trees' to be complete rubbish as for me, long chainstays handle better absolutely everywhere, including in the tight trees. Some of the things I read/ hear people claim about short chain stay bikes, indicates to me that they don't have much feel for their bike at the limit.
> 
> I won't buy a short travel bike again with less than 440mm chainstays & I won't buy a long travel bike with less than 445mm chainstays ever again.
> 
> That said, I don't know how the weight of a motor will effect this issue.


A lot of old school bikes found improvement of handling by switching to short stems. This allowed them to get their weight back more. I recall people taking corners with their ass really back. This is a riding style/habit of riding bikes that works with CS that is quite long.

Can't prescribe my combos to just anyone. The heavier you are as a rider, the more you weight the rear, especially so if you are someone who intuitively gets weight back on incoming gnar and have long limbs to get weight far back. I'm short and lightweight. Handling has always improved for me by getting weight off the front tire. I figure that short CS saves me a ton of effort by doing the weight shift for me. Same goes for steep STA doing the weight shift for me, so I don't need to lean forward so hard on climbs. The bike just becomes easier to ride, and these "techniques" aren't really techniques, but adaptations to correct **** geo.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Being heavier shouldn't place more weight on the rear of the bike, unless this additional weight is centered in your rear end.
If the weight gain is proportional from general fitness, like it is with me, the ratio of front to rear balance remains the same. 

I suspect that women, more than men, need proportional chainstays because more of their weight is located in their hips with lighter shoulders. Fortunately most are on smaller bikes so it works out fine. 

Short CS lengths places more weight on the rear all of the time. Whereas steep sta places more on the front when seated. 

Short stems don't move your weight back much because they are combined with wide bars that pull you tight back up. 

BTW, years ago I experimented on motorcycles with trying to measure weight distribution from chassis changes and found it nearly impossible to measure, yet while riding the same change was huge on the track.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Suns_PSD said:


> Being heavier shouldn't place more weight on the rear of the bike, unless this additional weight is centered in your rear end.
> If the weight gain is proportional from general fitness, like it is with me, the ratio of front to rear balance remains the same.
> 
> I suspect that women, more than men, need proportional chainstays because more of their weight is located in their hips with lighter shoulders. Fortunately most are on smaller bikes so it works out fine.
> ...


I checked with scales.

My XL riding friend who weighs over 230 lbs brought his '18 SC Bronson in XL in. I got on it with scales under each wheel. I got weight distro ratios where I had 58% on the rear while standing, and 63% while on the saddle. His ratio was much much more rear biased. Like 70% ish while seated and mid 60s standing. I got along with it very well, riding it on trails, despite being 2 sizes bigger than I'm used to. He made rare comment about how eye-opening it was to get along with my med bike decently too, one I was fixing up to sell (Intense Spider 29 Comp), though I recall he broke something on it. I figure the more forward weight distro and high anti-squat appealed to him.

He said he liked his short travel bike better, but wanted to stick a beefier fork on it. The short travel bike had a much shorter front center. I wasn't able to get to measure his weight distro on that bike, since the bike was seemingly always in limbo, with parts in the mail getting replaced. He got the Bronson since he kept seeing how I was riding so much better with a longer travel bike. He didn't know why I was doing long travel bikes on trails that he could easily ride on short travel, and would often bring up this subject of me being overbiked, but I couldn't convince him that I did it since they just simply handled better for me (in size Med). I tried to say short travel stuff was too front-heavy, IMO, but he could only see that as a good thing, and that a rider couldn't get too much of it, to avoid front wheel washouts, wandering on climbs, less bashed rear tires/rims, or whatever.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

It's great that you measured, but your friend has a different body than you (possibly overweight?) & also is larger than you with longer arms and what not. 

If you gained say 15# of fit muscle your weight balance on the same bike should remain the same. 

If your buddy is fit, but dropped weight I'd expect his weight distribution to remain the same, while on the same bike.

Sometime back I did test the longer CS position on my S5 SJEVO (from 448 to 452) and there was something off about the bike for me with no upsides that I recognized so it went back. 

The only downside that I've encountered with generally longer CS length is the reduction in climbing traction.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Suns_PSD said:


> It's great that you measured, but your friend has a different body than you (possibly overweight?) & also is larger than you with longer arms and what not.
> 
> If you gained say 15# of fit muscle your weight balance on the same bike should remain the same.
> 
> ...


I actually tried your theory, adding weight to my upper body. The weight distro does change to be more rearward as I add more weight. The weight isn't being added to my legs or butt, which is behind the centerline, but on my chest. It's just that I am standing in a way where I'm balanced on the pedals, only leaning forward enough to reach the grips for steering purposes.

Yes, lack of climbing traction, esp out of the saddle, is a big deal killer for me. It's not so bad on my emtb atm, since it's easier to keep high momentum up, but if I were slow enough to be in danger of stalling out, the rear tire would be very likely to slip. That is, unless I put myself in a weird position where I had my ass hanging back, and my arms hooked onto the bars, pulling while pedaling, to drive the rear into the ground. This kind of skill/technique/adaptation is energy being squandered and extra body heat that I consider to be extra needless suffering, IMO.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

If you are using the same seat tube angle of 78 then going from 32 to 36 inseam moves the saddle back 21mm and up 110mm.
To keep the same this ability to manual you would need stays that are at least 30mm longer. That's just for the same feel.

Slack bikes with reach over 500 need 460+ rear ends just to feel the same. I would love to test a 470-500 rear end on my bike or this ibis just to see when longer becomes worse.


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

alexbn921 said:


> If you are using the same seat tube angle of 78 then going from 32 to 36 inseam moves the saddle back 21mm and up 110mm.
> To keep the same this ability to manual you would need stays that are at least 30mm longer. That's just for the same feel.
> 
> Slack bikes with reach over 500 need 460+ rear ends just to feel the same. I would love to test a 470-500 rear end on my bike or this ibis just to see when longer becomes worse.


Of course all this discussion may be moot if 'uphill tech' is your thing (dropper down and shift weight to climb etc)


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Jack7782 said:


> Of course all this discussion may be moot if 'uphill tech' is your thing (dropper down and shift weight to climb etc)


Oh I love uphill tech. Shorter stays place more weight on the rear tire standing, but give a worse loop out angle. Again it's a tradeoff. I'm local to Ibis and have a Ripmo. As soon as the hype dies down I'm taking out an OSO as UCSC. IF this came out a year ago I would have been one of the first in line to get it.


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

alexbn921 said:


> Oh I love uphill tech. Shorter stays place more weight on the rear tire standing, but give a worse loop out angle. Again it's a tradeoff. I'm local to Ibis and have a Ripmo. As soon as the hype dies down I'm taking out an OSO as UCSC. IF this came out a year ago I would have been one of the first in line to get it.


Yes me too, especially since I like Bosch


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Varaxis said:


> I actually tried your theory, adding weight to my upper body. The weight distro does change to be more rearward as I add more weight. The weight isn't being added to my legs or butt, which is behind the centerline, but on my chest. It's just that I am standing in a way where I'm balanced on the pedals, only leaning forward enough to reach the grips for steering purposes.
> 
> Yes, lack of climbing traction, esp out of the saddle, is a big deal killer for me. It's not so bad on my emtb atm, since it's easier to keep high momentum up, but if I were slow enough to be in danger of stalling out, the rear tire would be very likely to slip. That is, unless I put myself in a weird position where I had my ass hanging back, and my arms hooked onto the bars, pulling while pedaling, to drive the rear into the ground. This kind of skill/technique/adaptation is energy being squandered and extra body heat that I consider to be extra needless suffering, IMO.


In addition to CS length, suspension performance also plays a big role in rear traction while climbing as well.

IME, HL suspension has much better climbing traction than say a VPP or SI for instance. Which allows me to have the better handling of say a long chain stay with adequate rear tire traction on loose steep climbs.

I had a Foxy that only had about 80% AS at 35%-45% sag while climbing, a long front end and short 435mm CS length, and that bike could climb absolutely anything on even a Rock Razor tire. Loose and steep, no problem.

Another thing you might really notice using an HL rear suspension is that due to better traction you can run a faster rolling rear tire, which just results in a faster bike overall, and still scramble up steep climbs.

My SB5.5 needed something pretty aggressive to walk up some climbs, like a slow rolling DHRII whereas my SJEvo can do all the same climbs better with no slippage on something much faster, the Wicked Will for example (highly recommend).


----------

