Field Test Review: 2024 Ibis HD6 - Sporty and Smashy
PINKBIKE FIELD TEST REVIEW
Ibis HD6
Words by Matt Beer; photography by Tom Richards
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.
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
• 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.
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.
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.
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
The 2023 Enduro Field Test is presented Bluegrass
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
For a carbon frame and Factory suspension? Yeah I'd say it's pretty decent.
Not saying that even the $7k is build "reasonable", but I think it's competitive with other non-direct-to-consumer brands.
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.
Would be nice to hear from an insider how the price buildup is.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Kudos IBIS for giving the mullet, mullet dimensions, and please ignore the constant whine from PB reviewers about their preference for long chainstays!
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.
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.
I am happy that ibis exists as one of the few companies who have short chainstays.
This bike would have won all of the Enduro bike shootouts, in 2019.
"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."
Regardless, its a bit unforgivable for a $4k frameset (this is definitively "premium") to not make at least 2 chainstay molds.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I might be wrong though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think a bigger head tube looks nicer, but that's a matter of opinion. This bike is awesome.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Any reviews can chime in between the two if you have ever ridden the Cassidy/Blackthorne?
It's a split pivot. Very different.
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.
"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.
Split Pivot is a type of single pivot suspension.
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?
I mean you can make bolt blanket statements like that. Doesn’t make them true.
Cons for other bikes on test: It's just a long and slack plow, not terribly versatile
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.
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
And?
i think there's something to be said about those skinny steel frames in regards to cornering compliance as well. neat bikes.
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.
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.
store.ibiscycles.com/collections/parts-storage/products/bag-pork-chop-bone-in
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.
Would've been really cool to have a true enduro rig with ~34 lb. weight and sporty climbing manners.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can’t put my finger on exactly why though.
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).
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.
Got a ProPain with 445cs and I started smiling again. I care less about seat tube angle in comparison...
Make money? Surely the HD is making money and the Oso is loosing money.
That was an odd review.
Do pinkbike test riders refuse to adjust the height of their bars?
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).
Yeah, you should re-read the specs. Not the same at all.
But the SB160, the Spire & probably the Claymore all appear to be more successful at this genre than any of the current participating bikes.
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.
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.
with the raaw now, i ride better, no creaking, nor rattling and the shocks dont break. and the bearings last longer