Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 506

Thread: Banshee Prime!

  1. #1
    The Mountain Bike Life
    Reputation: mudpuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    Banshee Prime!

    Just thought I would start a new thread now that the new 29er has a name....pretty excited about this bike:

    http://bansheebikes.blogspot.com/201...hee-prime.html

    What are your thoughts good people of MTBR?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sane Fred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    130
    Keith and Jay have been really listening to what everyone has to say on this new project. I think Keith has done an amazing job with it thus far. On paper it looks to hit all of the things I have asked/wished for and adjustable geometry to boot.

    Looking forward to getting one and helping Banshee refine it to perfection!
    The other Fred........

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    141
    looking good, should be interesting to see this progress. Any guesses on frame weights? Similar to the tracer I would say.

  4. #4
    Hard funkin´ Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    865
    I have no experience with 29ers, so in general words:

    Great Design

    1. I like the new Dropouts. Easy Geometry-Adjustment and the Choice of different Axletypes/width - good Idea wich would save money on Angle-Headsets. Thank god Banshee does not jump on the Syntace X-12 Standard!

    2. Direct mount Front Derailleurs are for Nobrain Adjustment and maybe save some weight.

    3. The new Suspensiondesign sounds awesome - the Keith Scott Link ! Sounds like it is compatible with 22 Chainrings or Hammerschmidt. Far ahead the Competitors which mostly have Pedalkickback in the Granny.

    4. This Framedesign allows for a lot Standoverheight and hopefully slightly shorter Chainstays as on the VF4B Design - something I really like to have on a Frame.

    Maybe theres the possibility to get different (two?!) Travelsettings. Would be great to change Travel independent from Geometry.

    Could (must) be the Next-Level Suspension for the Scythe and Wildcard

    Greetings
    NoStyle
    Last edited by NoStyle; 10-06-2010 at 06:29 PM. Reason: Bad English ;-)

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cooch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    166
    Go the "KS Link"!!

  6. #6
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,373
    Looks incredible! No idea what "KS" means, but that linkage design looks stiff!

    I've demo'd a tall boy and $la4yEr's Paradox this season, both rocked. I have no idea why it's taken 29'er design so long to get away from steep angles, flexy QR axles, and limited tire clearance... I was really impressed though, my test rides have been at a skills park so I went straight for the log rides and jumps....the 29'ers were much better at both than I expected. And they did a lot of stuff better than my 26'ers... hmmm

    definitely interested!
    Last edited by FM; 10-06-2010 at 10:53 PM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,136
    I'm normally not a big 29er fan, but that thing looks pretty damn awesome. a bike I could not look like a clown on

    I'm half willing to toss my name in for the MK1 test too...


    things I would be concerned about:
    with that style dropout, is the derailleur hanger separate from the dropout? or is it like the intense ones, where it's integral? if the latter, it makes me sad, since that usually make your hangers cost way more (intense dropouts are like $150 )

    geo-wise:
    I would be more than interested in seeing a slightly lower BB. maybe down into the 13.2" range. that's where my spitfire sits, and I KNOW that's a pretty damn good BB height, despite wheel size. if the cranks and my body are in the same place relative to the ground, it should rail the same, and we all know it's good when it rails

    also, I'm not the hugest fan of seeing the 21" ST on the XL. I'm a very tall guy, but my legs aren't super long. seat tubes that are much longer than 20" start becoming a hassle when you're descending, or slamming the post for some fun. Seeing as this bike is aimed more at the 29er-inclined AM crowd, why not give a bit more potential saddle clearance? a 410mm post wouldn't have any trouble taking up most people's legs on a 20" ST (should support up to a 35-36" inseam before you hit the top-out mark). also means I wouldn't be able to use that 5" gravity dropper I'm eyeing...

    drops:
    I like the idea of having the replaceable dropouts for a few things. if you could offer drops that allowed the lower, more spitty-esque BB heights (lower 13's), it would be awesome (see note above on BB height). on a similar note, with that unbelievable amount of tire clearance (is that clearing a dissent 2.5?), you might even have room to offer a shorter CS option. if you're only running a standard 2.1-2.3" tire, you might be able to slam the wheel up in there and get down to a 17.4" or so CS length. keep it feeling fun like a 26er, with the rolling and traction benefits of a 29er.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,824
    I'm now having dreams of a 140/150mm coil, 36mm stanchioned fork and an Avy equipped Prime

    Did I miss the shock specs somewhere? Keith?


  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Some good opinions there Bryguy17, lets see if I can explain my reasons for doing a few things.

    Dropouts have not quite been finalised yet, but I intent to make the hangers a seperate piece to make replacement more affordable. Just got to work out best way to do it still.

    problem with dropping the B height further, sis that dropping the BB will increase the chain stretch for a given axle path, so to make the bike optimal for smaller rings that 29ers run, I'd have to have a more forward axle path, which will not carry speed as well through rough sections, and would cause potential frame clearance issues at bottom out resulting in me having to adjust the seat angle to be steeper and then wheelbase will become longer to maintain top tube length etc etc... bike design is all about compromise and optimisation. I've spent a LOT of time dialing this bike in, and started with 17.4" chainstays and 13" BB height actually opted to make them a bit longer and higher for these reasons and others. the 13.4" BB is still pretty low, and that is with a 140mm fork with external headset cup, lowering the front would drop it down a bit if desired, could combine with angle reducer set and keep the head angle slack if you wanted too... those options are there. But lowering the BB as is would result in more pedal kickback, and a less efficient axlepath.

    Shortening the chainstay much more would also result in a bike that would wonder around a bit on steep climbs. Bikes perform a lot better with a good balance and fairly even weight distribution, pretty similar to why sports cars aim to have 50:50 weight distribution, same applies in theory, although obviously it is muc harder to control on bikes, since the rider weighs more than the bike. But the chainstays are as short as I am comfortable to make them, if I went much shorter the benefits would be outweighed by negatives. Plus big tire clearance is no bad thing!

    Hope that helps explain my choices for these things.

    Oh and ST length, I'm open to suggestions there, the geometry I gave was based on feedback from another thread here, but I too like a slightly shorter seat tube, so I'm not against dropping that down a touch to 20.5" or 20"... would be nice to here some other opinions on this from some other really tall guys.

    Thanks,
    Keith
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    shock specs are on the geo chart... I've been pushing some fork suppliers for some stiff 36mm stanchioned 20mm axle 120-140mm forks... not saying it will happen, but I'm fighting your corner.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GearTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryguy17

    geo-wise:
    I would be more than interested in seeing a slightly lower BB. maybe down into the 13.2" range. that's where my spitfire sits, and I KNOW that's a pretty damn good BB height, despite wheel size. if the cranks and my body are in the same place relative to the ground, it should rail the same, and we all know it's good when it rails

    .
    IMO the problem with going with too low of a BB is that even though it will be the same height at your Spitfire the BB drop in relation to the plane of the axles will be much lower. Generally that leads to a very sluggish feeling when changing direction (yaw) and doesn't jump well. Maybe jumping would be last on the priority list for this frame but I would think that snappy handling would be high on the list.

    I experienced this phenomenon first hand when I changed my old DJer from a 100mm suspension fork to a rigid fork for use at Ray's. The rigid fork was about -30mm on the A-C and the lower BB made pumping through the pump track and berms much more of a chore and the bike had almost no pop off of the lips of the jumps. Manualling was much more difficult as well.

    So Geo-wise I would rather keep the BB drop/rise in relationship to the axle plane similar to my favorite feeling bike rather than the measurement from the ground to the BB centerline.

  12. #12
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,036
    Guess I missed this when I was browsing yesterday AM

    Anyways, very glad to see that as usual Keith/Banshee have listened to intial comments and feedback on their intial thoughts for this bike and put forth something I definitely am looking forward to riding. I really like that Keith abandoned the idea of ubber short stays in preference for big tyre/mud clearance

    The SA, well that went against what I wanted, but I can live with using a setback post again

    Like the HA and geo being adjustable, although I think I would stick to the steeper angle for most of my riding, but would definitely try the sdlacker setting for the slacker SA and lower BB as I'm accustomed to bikes with BBs under 13". Will be nice though to not have to worry about timing pedal strokes as much

    Agree about the comment/question about if the RD hanger will be integrated into them or seperate so cost of replacing a broken hanger will remain on par with most other frames - $20-30 range.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  13. #13
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,036
    Guess I was typing when you replied. Explanations on the BB height makes perfect sense now you explained it

    As to taller guys, I don't know if I really qualify, but I'm 6'2.25" with a 35.25" cycling inseam and here my thoughts/experiences.....I have no issues with standover on the P'dox or my previous 22" ST bike, I use a 410 setback post on my bikes and only have about 8"/150mm of exposed post on my 22" ST, however on the Paradox which has a 22" ST for the XL where the TT meets the ST is actually 19", so to me that's already short enough. I personally wouldn't mind more standover once I didn't have to go to the limit for the extension on the post - I like to keep a bit more than 100mm inserted past the actual ST/TT join. Don't want the TT to look like a "ladies" bike of old though - if your inseam is that short maybe a L would be better suited.

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Some good opinions there Bryguy17, lets see if I can explain my reasons for doing a few things.

    Dropouts have not quite been finalised yet, but I intent to make the hangers a seperate piece to make replacement more affordable. Just got to work out best way to do it still.

    problem with dropping the B height further, sis that dropping the BB will increase the chain stretch for a given axle path, so to make the bike optimal for smaller rings that 29ers run, I'd have to have a more forward axle path, which will not carry speed as well through rough sections, and would cause potential frame clearance issues at bottom out resulting in me having to adjust the seat angle to be steeper and then wheelbase will become longer to maintain top tube length etc etc... bike design is all about compromise and optimisation. I've spent a LOT of time dialing this bike in, and started with 17.4" chainstays and 13" BB height actually opted to make them a bit longer and higher for these reasons and others. the 13.4" BB is still pretty low, and that is with a 140mm fork with external headset cup, lowering the front would drop it down a bit if desired, could combine with angle reducer set and keep the head angle slack if you wanted too... those options are there. But lowering the BB as is would result in more pedal kickback, and a less efficient axlepath.

    Shortening the chainstay much more would also result in a bike that would wonder around a bit on steep climbs. Bikes perform a lot better with a good balance and fairly even weight distribution, pretty similar to why sports cars aim to have 50:50 weight distribution, same applies in theory, although obviously it is muc harder to control on bikes, since the rider weighs more than the bike. But the chainstays are as short as I am comfortable to make them, if I went much shorter the benefits would be outweighed by negatives. Plus big tire clearance is no bad thing!

    Hope that helps explain my choices for these things.

    Oh and ST length, I'm open to suggestions there, the geometry I gave was based on feedback from another thread here, but I too like a slightly shorter seat tube, so I'm not against dropping that down a touch to 20.5" or 20"... would be nice to here some other opinions on this from some other really tall guys.

    Thanks,
    Keith
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  14. #14
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,272
    Looks great and man do I love the looks of that rear tire clearance!! Well done Keith!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    Looks great.
    I think everything is spot on.
    Just need a 150mm 36mm Stantion fork.

  16. #16
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,436
    Fantastic. I'd say keep the BB where it is, 29er geo vs 26er geo is a bit different and those big ol wheels let you corner easier anyway so not as much need for super low bb.

    Any way to pull the standover closer to 31" that 32'' on the XL, maybe drop the ST length? TT length looks good as well.

    Well done!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,136
    Thanks a bunch Keith, that's exactly the response companies should give when people like me start giving opinions on geo etc. I'm pretty green when it comes to 29er geo specs, so I just think of stuff in terms of how I like it on my 26ers, and try and emulate that as best I can.

    and I'm always forgetting that extra BB drop needs to be figured into the suspension. I admire your ability to think of all of that stuff at the same time, and come to a reasonable compromise.

    with regard to the ST length, I am a little oddly proportioned when it comes to tall people, so I'm by no means worth changing things over. I've got the torso length to need a 25.5"+ TT, but still need to have a shorter ST so I can have adequate clearance. figured I'd give you the insight from someone who could definitely benefit from the shorter ST.

    anyway, still looks great. I'm looking forward to seeing it develop.

    now all we need is a 29er lyrik...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by thefriar
    Fantastic. I'd say keep the BB where it is, 29er geo vs 26er geo is a bit different and those big ol wheels let you corner easier anyway so not as much need for super low bb.

    Any way to pull the standover closer to 31" that 32'' on the XL, maybe drop the ST length? TT length looks good as well.

    Well done!
    Oh sorry, please ignore those standover heights... they just from the rune, where I copied the base geo chart over from. Haven't yet finalised standover for all bikes. Will probably be a bit lower than those figures.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sanjosedre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    618
    This is the bike that would make me get a 29'r, would also like to see the dropout design make it to other bikes (rune). Great work as always Keith!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    shock specs are on the geo chart....
    Sho' nuff!


  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,266
    i think this bike looks awesome.
    The chainstay length looks good, geo is nice (I like the seat angle), I think the travel at 130mm is a nice sweetspot especially when paired with a 140mm fork.

  22. #22
    The Mountain Bike Life
    Reputation: mudpuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,345
    I for one was elated to see a 21" XL THANK YOU. I am 6'4" and have a really hard time finding a good bike that will fit me...I have had to put super long posts in all my bikes because of this and have run into some issues....please don't take that away.

  23. #23
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,614
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Looks incredible! No idea what "KS" means, but that linkage design looks stiff!

    I've demo'd a tall boy and $la4yEr's Paradox this season, both rocked. I have no idea why it's taken 29'er design so long to get away from steep angles, flexy QR axles, and limited tire clearance... I was really impressed though, my test rides have been at a skills park so I went straight for the log rides and jumps....the 29'ers were much better at both than I expected. And they did a lot of stuff better than my 26'ers... hmmm

    definitely interested!
    That;s because most 29er users are plum smugglers. Nothing wrong with that but IMO 29ers on buff smooth trails and 29ers on tech gnar are very different.

    I rode Mike C's Lenz Lunchbox (6" travel, 67 deg HA) on 7th on a greasy day and it was very comfortable. I'll put up some pictures of that and after I take the bike down some more greasy trails (Dales, Aftertaste, Boogieman)

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    326

    Another vote in support of a 21" seat post . . .

    Love the bike. Keep the post length on the XL right where it is or even up it by .5" or 1" . . . . I'm 6'6" and 21" is the minimum length in my opinion. Can't wait to see the final production version! Not to be vain, but any chance of an all matte black version?

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    124
    I think you have the GEO nailed! Looks to be everything that I would desire from my Lenz, but with increased pedaling efficiency, tapered fork compatibility, and a touch steeper seat tube angle. Can't wait to get one of the pre-production frames, unless I feel I can't wait any longer and go out and buy a RUNE!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    94
    shock specs are on the geo chart... I've been pushing some fork suppliers for some stiff 36mm stanchioned 20mm axle 120-140mm forks.

    Fox 36 Float lowered internally to 140mm = perfect for the Prime

    great news on the Prime Keith!

    really good to see the KS link (royalties? $$ ha ha) and the switch to ball bearings

    great direction for Banshee / Mythic bikes

  27. #27
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,036
    Hey Keith, are the wheelbase #s accurate? If they are that seems awefully long to me compared to what's out there now - most likely due to the much slacker HA raking the fork out - but still would be curious to know if this is accurate and if so could it be shortened a tad? Longest wheelbase I've riden is 45.5" on a 120mm equipped bike.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  28. #28
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Looks like I'll be looking for something else. My sweet spot for ETT is 23.75"...right in the middle of the medium and large.

    Nice looking bike though.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    wheelbase numbers are accurate for all frame sizes with 140mm forks with 50mm offset at 67.5 head angle... there is no way to avoid long wheelbase with slacker geometry and decent top tube lengths I'm afraid... just the way it geometry works I'm afraid.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    74
    Looks really interesting. Using the dropouts to adjust geometry is great, I hope you're going to apply this solution to the Spitfire mkII too.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: filbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by greb
    Looks really interesting. Using the dropouts to adjust geometry is great, I hope you're going to apply this solution to the Spitfire mkII too.
    ....and Rune mkII too

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,775
    Dig the idea of the replaceable drop-outs. It would allow someone to get some custom ones made to tweak the geo to their exact desires.

    Something like these that NSB had spun up for a Cove customer.

    http://northshorebillet.com/index.ph...roducts_id=106

    Anyone willing to give up some tire clearance could shorten up the cs length.

  33. #33
    Hard funkin´ Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    865
    Quote Originally Posted by greb
    Looks really interesting. Using the dropouts to adjust geometry is great, I hope you're going to apply this solution to the Spitfire mkII too.
    Naaa, Wildcard and maybe Scythe first because they would benefit the most - Rune, Spitfire and the other VF4B-Bikes are very dialled.
    But I really think that a lot of detailled Solutions of the Prime (Direct mount FD, Dropouts or the new Suspension) could be adapted to the others.

    Keith, one question in general was left unanswered: Is it possible to get changeable Travelsettings with the KS-Link, like on the Wildcard?

    Greetings
    NoStyle

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zoorlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by greb
    Looks really interesting. Using the dropouts to adjust geometry is great, I hope you're going to apply this solution to the Spitfire mkII too.
    I guess that using that kind of dropouts on Spitfire and Rune would raise the price tag...

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    wheelbase numbers are accurate for all frame sizes with 140mm forks with 50mm offset at 67.5 head angle... there is no way to avoid long wheelbase with slacker geometry and decent top tube lengths I'm afraid... just the way it geometry works I'm afraid.
    I agree... head angle on the Prime is something like 2° slacker than any other 29er: 2 degrees with a 550mm a-to-c fork correspond more or less to 2cm (that's how much the bike is longer than others). Forgive my crappy English.

  35. #35
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Shortening the chainstay much more would also result in a bike that would wonder around a bit on steep climbs. Bikes perform a lot better with a good balance and fairly even weight distribution, pretty similar to why sports cars aim to have 50:50 weight distribution, same applies in theory, although obviously it is muc harder to control on bikes, since the rider weighs more than the bike. But the chainstays are as short as I am comfortable to make them, if I went much shorter the benefits would be outweighed by negatives. Plus big tire clearance is no bad thing!
    Keith:

    I love the bike overall. Good work on the design.

    The above sounds like marketing spew to me unless....you also use chainstays just as long on your 26" stuff. I bet you don't Wheel size does not affect weight distribution.

    Just say you did it for great tire clearance and be done with it.

    Let me reaffirm: I am glad you made this frame and welcome a new player to this game. Thanks for listening.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  36. #36
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,036
    I bet they do If you even bothered to do the slightest bit or research you would have found that the Run has 17.3" stays as does the Spitfire and let's not forget they are 26" wheeled bikes and a 29er needs another 1.5" diameter clearance, so I'd say relative to it's 26" brotherin they're damn short.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    Keith:

    I love the bike overall. Good work on the design.

    The above sounds like marketing spew to me unless....you also use chainstays just as long on your 26" stuff. I bet you don't Wheel size does not affect weight distribution.

    Just say you did it for great tire clearance and be done with it.

    Let me reaffirm: I am glad you made this frame and welcome a new player to this game. Thanks for listening.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel

    The above sounds like marketing spew to me unless....you also use chainstays just as long on your 26" stuff. I bet you don't Wheel size does not affect weight distribution.
    Actually wheel size does in a way affect weight ditribution, as the frame geometry has to be adjusted to change it. Bigger wheels and longer forks all have an effect by raising front end and pushing weight further back. Weight distribution on the Prime is almost exactly the same as the spitfire (presuming same seated position of rider).
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  38. #38
    Newt Guy
    Reputation: FrostyStruthers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    833
    ...so the 130mm travel of the Prime will generally 'feel' like more travel (150-160mm) if you are used to riding 26ers.


    Ugggggh.

    NO. WRONG.

    29 inch wheels don't create a "feel" of more travel. That is total junk science. Utter BS.



    Yes, steel is most certainly stronger than aluminum EVERY time.
    ~Frosty Struthers

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    That statement was not aimed at the Prime, it was aimed at 29ers in general.

    It will feel like you have a bit more travel when riding over high speed square edge hits if you are used to riding 26er (must used method of suspension for all mountain if you are a good fast rider) but obviously will not feel like more travel when landing drops, but this bike is not about doing big drops.

    The reason it feels like it has more travel is because the bigger wheels roll over the bumps more smoothly due to bigger diameter resulting in the tire hooking up on the hit less, and because the tire will not drop as far into holes. I had countless people tell me this before I even rode a 29er, and I too was skeptical, but I have to say once I tried one (hardtail) it felt like it had a bit of suspension when charging through high speed rough sections compared to 26er version of frame.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  40. #40
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    I bet they do If you even bothered to do the slightest bit or research you would have found that the Run has 17.3" stays as does the Spitfire and let's not forget they are 26" wheeled bikes and a 29er needs another 1.5" diameter clearance, so I'd say relative to it's 26" brotherin they're damn short.
    I stand corrected. I just reviewed the Banshee site (no time earlier) and all their suspension bikes are in the 17-17.5" range, most around 17.3 unless the bike is focused on 4X or jumping.

    So...cheers Keith for keeping consistency between wheelsizes. I think that shows a lot of integrity as a designer.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  41. #41
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Actually wheel size does in a way affect weight ditribution, as the frame geometry has to be adjusted to change it. Bigger wheels and longer forks all have an effect by raising front end and pushing weight further back. Weight distribution on the Prime is almost exactly the same as the spitfire (presuming same seated position of rider).
    Gotcha, see my reply to LyNx above....I was wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  42. #42
    Newt Guy
    Reputation: FrostyStruthers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    That statement was not aimed at the Prime, it was aimed at 29ers in general.
    And it is one of the last idiotic concepts to continue to be pushed by people that have no idea as to the characteristic of the 29er wheel in comparison to a 26" wheel.

    IT DOES NOT FEEL LIKE MORE TRAVEL.



    It also isn't more travel, nor does it equate to more travel. It is NOT more travel. It IS a bigger wheel. But 3" of travel on a 29er feels JUST LIKE 3" of travel on a 26" wheeled bike. 4" of travel? Same thing. 4" is 4" is 4" and it FEELS like 4". A 6" travel 29er DOES NOT feel like a 8" 26 inch wheeled bike.

    The entire concept is flawed and based on complete ignorance.
    Last edited by FrostyStruthers; 10-09-2010 at 12:28 PM.
    Yes, steel is most certainly stronger than aluminum EVERY time.
    ~Frosty Struthers

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Forsty... your totally entitled to your opinion, but the physics makes sense... lets blow it way out of proportion and say you ride a hardtail bike with 10m wheel diameter and ride along (if you could with wheels that big) a trail covered in 20cm deep braking bumps spaced 50cm apart, and compare this to a bike with 50cm diameter wheels at the same slow speed. Which bike is going to feel like it is moving up and down more over the braking bumps? (remembering that one of the things suspension does is minimise how much the bike moves arround vertically wile riding over rough terrain)

    The small wheels will go almost axle deep (80% the way there) into the holes and your be getting bucked around all over the place (think riding a mountain bike trail on a small wheeled kids bike). Each braking bump will cause the wheels to hook up as they hit the wheel at a 78.9degree angle from the vertical (assuiming perfectly square edge hits on ridgid wheel).

    Now on the massive wheels you'll roll acorss the holes like there is nothing there because your not even going into the holes, you roll across the top from peak to peak (same applies if riding fast) and the square edge hit contact point will be close to vertical to the hub, so will not hook up the wheels much.

    Obviously that is a very extreme case, but the basic physics still apply when riding rough trails. (this is one reason that wagons had big wheels)

    Hopefully that helps explain my statement. I'm not saying going from a 26er to a 29er makes a huge difference... but it does make a bit of a difference.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  44. #44
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    ....lets blow it way out of proportion and say you ride a hardtail bike with 10m wheel diameter....
    Sounds flexy.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  45. #45
    Newt Guy
    Reputation: FrostyStruthers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    I'm not saying going from a 26er to a 29er makes a huge difference... but it does make a bit of a difference.
    And as far as suspension goes, it makes no difference. 4 inches is 4 inches is 4 inches is 4 inches. 4" travel 29er bikes DO NOT ride like 5 or 6" travel 26" wheeled bikes. They ride like bikes with 4 inches of travel.
    Yes, steel is most certainly stronger than aluminum EVERY time.
    ~Frosty Struthers

  46. #46
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by FrostyStruthers
    4" travel 29er bikes DO NOT ride like 5 or 6" travel 26" wheeled bikes. They ride like bikes with 4 inches of travel.
    They ride like very smooth bikes with 4" of travel.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  47. #47
    small member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by FrostyStruthers
    And as far as suspension goes, it makes no difference. 4 inches is 4 inches is 4 inches is 4 inches. 4" travel 29er bikes DO NOT ride like 5 or 6" travel 26" wheeled bikes. They ride like bikes with 4 inches of travel.

    stubborn guy, eh?

    Go put 20" wheels on a 8" DH rig (take out the crankset while you're at it) and ride it back to back with a 29" -wheels equpied 5-6" bike, then report back...

  48. #48
    Newt Guy
    Reputation: FrostyStruthers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by wedge
    stubborn guy, eh?

    Go put 20" wheels on a 8" DH rig (take out the crankset while you're at it) and ride it back to back with a 29" -wheels equpied 5-6" bike, then report back...
    No. No because it would be stupid and not prove a damn thing.
    Yes, steel is most certainly stronger than aluminum EVERY time.
    ~Frosty Struthers

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by FrostyStruthers
    No. No because it would be stupid and not prove a damn thing.
    of course it would proove that your statement is wrong.
    anyone who has ridden a 29" full suspension setup would describe it as "feeling more plush" over square edge hits... like a bike with 24" backwheel, which can feel somewhat harsh comperaed to the same bike with 26" back wheel...

  50. #50
    Newt Guy
    Reputation: FrostyStruthers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by MalcolmX
    of course it would proove that your statement is wrong.
    anyone who has ridden a 29" full suspension setup would describe it as "feeling more plush" over square edge hits... like a bike with 24" backwheel, which can feel somewhat harsh comperaed to the same bike with 26" back wheel...
    SO WHAT?

    That has nothing to do with suspension travel. It doesn't matter what freaking wheel you put on the bike, 4" is 4" and it RIDES like 4".

    5" FS 29ers DO NOT ride like 6" 26" bikes. They ride like 5" 26" bikes with 29" wheels.

    Let me repeat just for the sake of clarity...

    4" 29ers RIDE JUST LIKE 4" 26" BIKES. THEY DO NOT RIDE LIKE THEY HAVE MORE SUSPENSION.

    Let that sink in for a bit if you would.

    Yes, steel is most certainly stronger than aluminum EVERY time.
    ~Frosty Struthers

  51. #51
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,436
    Quote Originally Posted by FrostyStruthers
    SO WHAT?

    That has nothing to do with suspension travel. It doesn't matter what freaking wheel you put on the bike, 4" is 4" and it RIDES like 4".

    5" FS 29ers DO NOT ride like 6" 26" bikes. They ride like 5" 26" bikes with 29" wheels.

    Let me repeat just for the sake of clarity...

    4" 29ers RIDE JUST LIKE 4" 26" BIKES. THEY DO NOT RIDE LIKE THEY HAVE MORE SUSPENSION.

    Let that sink in for a bit if you would.


    Lets try this... 4'' 29ers are CAPABLE of the same speeds and technical descents as 5-6'' 26'' bikes. I invite you to ride with Siko or I, I'll bring my 29er hardtail SS too, it rides comparable to a 6'' 26er.

  52. #52
    Newt Guy
    Reputation: FrostyStruthers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by thefriar
    Lets try this... 4'' 29ers are CAPABLE of the same speeds and technical descents as 5-6'' 26'' bikes. I invite you to ride with Siko or I, I'll bring my 29er hardtail SS too, it rides comparable to a 6'' 26er.
    Yes, steel is most certainly stronger than aluminum EVERY time.
    ~Frosty Struthers

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ritopc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by FrostyStruthers
    SO WHAT?

    That has nothing to do with suspension travel. It doesn't matter what freaking wheel you put on the bike, 4" is 4" and it RIDES like 4".

    5" FS 29ers DO NOT ride like 6" 26" bikes. They ride like 5" 26" bikes with 29" wheels.

    Let me repeat just for the sake of clarity...

    4" 29ers RIDE JUST LIKE 4" 26" BIKES. THEY DO NOT RIDE LIKE THEY HAVE MORE SUSPENSION.

    Let that sink in for a bit if you would.


    haha... this is funny
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    ...es como acomodarte los calzones, seguro lo puede hacer alguien pero es mejor que lo haga uno mismo

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by thefriar
    Lets try this... 4'' 29ers are CAPABLE of the same speeds and technical descents as 5-6'' 26'' bikes. I invite you to ride with Siko or I, I'll bring my 29er hardtail SS too, it rides comparable to a 6'' 26er.
    That is a good way to put it.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    My 7" 29er feels like my 8" 26er. My 8"26er feels like my 10" 24er. Hmmmmm........

  56. #56
    Newt Guy
    Reputation: FrostyStruthers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    My 7" 29er feels like my 8" 26er.
    No it doesn't.

    \My 8"26er feels like my 10" 24er.
    No it does not.

    Hmmmmm........
    Exactly.
    Yes, steel is most certainly stronger than aluminum EVERY time.
    ~Frosty Struthers

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by FrostyStruthers
    No it doesn't.



    No it does not.



    Exactly.
    You sure?

  58. #58
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,036
    Hey Frosty, this discussion is also going on in the 29er forum if you're interested in presenting your theories to the full audience on this subject I bet they'd be interested in your thoughts and theories. Oh and just one small question.....have you ridden an actual 29er, HT or FS?

    Banshee PRIME FS 29er, initial drawings and geo released
    Last edited by LyNx; 10-11-2010 at 01:47 PM.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,518
    Quote Originally Posted by FrostyStruthers
    Seems like Frosty Struthers is a bit self absorbed, quotes himself at the bottom of his post and uses more roll eyes and madman emoticons than anything else in his posts - not just in this thread - and speaks in absolutes, no room for discussion.
    He's right.
    End of story.


    edit; I'm not disagreeing with Frosty, I'd just like to see more depth in his responses - he most likely has a point but I'd like to see it discussed rather than being ranted at.
    Last edited by MartinS; 10-15-2010 at 08:08 AM.

  60. #60
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,614
    Quote Originally Posted by thefriar
    Lets try this... 4'' 29ers are CAPABLE of the same speeds and technical descents as 5-6'' 26'' bikes.
    Not to side with Frosty - who is an unmitigated d&uchebag, but, for technical trails, I totally utterly disagree.

    and not to contradict Keith. I respect your opinion Keith but I'm one of the only people to have actually ridden a 4" 29er on the Shore. I've also ridden a Lenz Lunchbox on the Shore (Mike Curiak's Lenz with 150mm fork in front and 160mm in rear.

    A 4" steep 29er (ie the same old, same old bike that everyone seems to be making in the long-travel 29er department) doesn't ride very well on the Shore. You can get them down technical trails like Ladies, Upper Oilcan, Seventh, Dales, Aftertaste etc but if you ride them fast basically you're still riding a steep angled short travel bike. You'll have to ride them with lots of braking, at slow speed, with lots of little trials move. That's not to say that they ride poorly. Just to say that they don't ride like long-travel bikes. So I'd have to say that my experience riding 29ers on the Shore is that to say that a 4" 29er is like a 5 to 6" 26er is a fallacy.

    I know I'll catch heat for that but so be it. This is my experience with a particular sub-species of extraordinarily technical trails. Quite possibly my experience is irrelevant to the rest of the world since trails in North Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler are an aberration. I am just trying to provide a data point - based on my experience (emphasis on the fact this is a subjective opinion0

    If you want a different perspective on this ask Arthur @ Suspensionworks. He rides a Tallboy and can make it work a bit better than I made the RM Altitude and Norco Shinobi that I tried but he still sticks to the more mellow Shore trails. Stuff like say Boogieman would be outside the performance band of the more conventional 29er. I think the Prime will break the convention and I happen to think that's a good thing.

    I've posted some videos and photos in the 29er forum re Mike Curiaks 29er and my experience riding it on Shore trails.
    Last edited by LeeL; 10-11-2010 at 03:48 PM.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    233
    Just be be devil's advocate here, it seems like you are talking more about geometry than suspension travel here. The geometry that most 4" 29ers are based around is more comparable to something like a Trek Fuel EX or something of that ilk, not the average 6"-7" Shore bike.

    My experience on the Shore is limited (very limited really) but I've ridden lots of 120mm 29ers and all of them seem too steep to me for anything fast or steep or technical, especially if I wanted to try to go fast down steep technical stuff. I did spend a good bet of time riding unfamiliar terrain in BC Bike Race on RM Altitude 29 with a 140 fork this summer and that bike was a good bit of fun on the the XC stuff we rode, which had its moments of tech. That additional 20mm or fork travel really helped take away some of the nervousness I felt when riding one earlier in the year.

    So far my favorite 29er for the East Coast tech stuff that is my main stomping grounds is the Rumblefish. No surprise. It also has the slackest head angle of the bunch.

    Other than a Bootleg canyon demo a few years ago, I haven't ridden a longer travel Lenz, hopefully 2011 will rectify that. I do have the makings of a Tracer 29 in the shop right now, which seems to have the makings of a quite a trail bike. Shore worthy? I have no clue. Would love to try it.

    Also, if you would have told me 3 years ago I'd be happy riding a bike with a 69º head angle and often wishing to was slacker, I'd have laughed at you.




    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL
    Not to side with Frosty - who is an unmitigated d&uchebag, but, for technical trails, I totally utterly disagree.

    and not to contradict Keith. I respect your opinion Keith but I'm one of the only people to have actually ridden a 4" 29er on the Shore. I've also ridden a Lenz Lunchbox on the Shore (Mike Curiak's Lenz with 150mm fork in front and 160mm in rear.

    A 4" steep 29er (ie the same old, same old bike that everyone seems to be making in the long-travel 29er department) doesn't ride very well on the Shore. You can get them down technical trails like Ladies, Upper Oilcan, Seventh, Dales, Aftertaste etc but if you ride them fast basically you're still riding a steep angled short travel bike. You'll have to ride them with lots of braking, at slow speed, with lots of little trials move. That's not to say that they ride poorly. Just to say that they don't ride like long-travel bikes. So I'd have to say that my experience riding 29ers on the Shore is that to say that a 4" 29er is like a 5 to 6" 26er is a fallacy.

    I know I'll catch heat for that but so be it. This is my experience with a particular sub-species of extraordinarily technical trails. Quite possibly my experience is irrelevant to the rest of the world since trails in North Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler are an aberration. I am just trying to provide a data point - based on my experience (emphasis on the fact this is a subjective opinion0

    If you want a different perspective on this ask Arthur @ Suspensionworks. He rides a Tallboy and can make it work a bit better than I made the RM Altitude and Norco Shinobi that I tried but he still sticks to the more mellow Shore trails. Stuff like say Boogieman would be outside the performance band of the more conventional 29er. I think the Prime will break the convention and I happen to think that's a good thing.

    I've posted some videos and photos in the 29er forum re Mike Curiaks 29er and my experience riding it on Shore trails.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TerrorFirma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    174
    LeeL...definitely respect your opinion.
    You'll agree tho that anything steep doesn't ride particularly well on the shore and anything with a longer wheelbase in the tight doesn't fair well either - i've lost a few back wheels on skinnies with turns. So yeah when things get slow and tight a 26 works pretty well.
    I think however the bigger wheels roll over roots better and feel better when the trail is armored. Especially if you're riding a hardtail. Comparing my Paradox [29] to the Scirocco [26] on say UOC the Paradox felt better. The only real difference was wheel size... logically this has to transfer over when suspension is involved as well.
    I'm not going to suggest that a 29r is better on the Shore... that's a pretty special place and each trail has its own little nuances. I would still want a 26 on some stuff but for some of the more AM style trails i would be very happy on the 29r wheel.
    Generally say the Prime for Seymour but a 26 on Cypress or Fromme.

    Basically this is the argument. Will a 26" with 4" of travel feel EXACTLY the same as a 4" 29r? At extremes would a 16" wheel feel the same with 4" of travel compared to a 29" wheel with 4" of travel going through the braking bumps at whistler?
    Ok so maybe calling a 4" travel 29r... feels like 5" 26r is slightly off....but this is the closest explanation we can come up with to explain the different feels you get from the different wheelsizes given the same amount of travel.
    Ok on dorps to falt maybe not but on anything with a decent transition, braking bumps, roots, armored trails, etc a big wheel will not sink into the "holes" as easy.

    I'm not arguing 29" wheels are better. I think anything over 5" of travel where more jumping, rotations, quick acceleration is required, strength of wheel and a whole host of other considerations make the 26" excel. This is exactly why we didn't go to a 140 or greater travel 29r as I believe the 26" is better.
    The Prime is an aggressive trail bike that borders into the AM category [like the Spitfire]. It is NOT a freeride bike, but somehow its trying to get pushed into more then it was designed to be... probably due to the angles.

    Lastly there are some strong opinions on what is being debated here. Please be respectful as me and Keith are listening, but we don't want this thread going south as there are a lot of good things getting tossed back and forth and it would be a shame to not hear from everyone.
    One of the dudes working behind the scenes at Banshee.
    Banshee main site and our Blog

  63. #63
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,614
    Here's a link to the discussion about Mike Curiak's Lenz Lunchbox including reviews and my (lukewarm) impressions of the RM Altitude and the Shinobi.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...=1#post7406635

    eMcK. Actually I agree. I think you can get away with less travel if you have appropriate geometry. And I think that 67.5 is "appropriate" geometry. I'm glad you caught my nuance when I said that a 4" steep 29er doesn't ride well on the Shore. I think that a 4" appropriately slack 29er will ride well on the Shore.

    As an aside I wasn't crazy about the stock RM Altitude (review cited in the post above re the Lunchbox). I thought that adding a 140mm travel fork made all the difference in the world not necessarily because of travel but because it added a crucial bit of slackness. However, I was committed to reviewing stock spec.

    It's good to hear your impressions. I've not ridden in the East Coast but I think that the plethora of roots in the East Coast more closely mirrors the technical nature of North Vancouver trails (minus the steepness) than perhaps many other trails I've ridden out west.

  64. #64
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,614
    D - I think you and Keith will be pleasantly surprised when you find out how hard people can ride this bike. I think that's why Mike L and I are pretty stoked about the Prime - because Banshee appears willing to break from the mold of the same old conventional close to 70 degree HA 29ers.

    Like I said to EMCK, I suspect that the geometry of the Prime will be in the sweet spot for Shore riding. Sure 140mm of travel isn't a lot on the Shore for big hits but it's plenty for small to moderate hits. Just for arguments sake, you'll now have a bike that you can ride along the Bridle Path and charge the flat rocky pedally bits and destroy those sections (that's where 29er's shine) and it'll be able to grind up Old Buck and then when you go down Boogieman you'll be able to clear the rock faces. Now you might not go 10 feet to flat off PileDriver but you'll probably ride all the steep linked rock faces without faceplanting and getting a spinal (at least I hope that's the way it'll turn out). But you see that's why I and many others are intrigued. It's because Banshee is trying to do something that only one other company to my knowledge is trying to do (Lenz) and that's to build a 29er with geometry that can be used for more than cruising around basically flat paved smooth trails.

    I really can't speak much to the whole "a 4" 29er is like a 6" 26'er thing because:

    (i) frankly my experience and personal opinion (I'm stressing it's a personal opinion and god knows I've been wrong before) is that this is simply not true; and

    (ii) I base my opinion on riding a bike in the real world; not on desktop engineering.so I can't and won't even try to refute yours and Keiths arguments. What I mean is that, analytically speaking, your reasoning makes good sense in theory but I just don't feel that extra square-hit love, in practise - if you know what I mean?

    Hope that brings this discussion back on track! Lots of love - and still more riding left in the season.

    Quote Originally Posted by TerrorFirma
    LeeL...definitely respect your opinion.
    You'll agree tho that anything steep doesn't ride particularly well on the shore and anything with a longer wheelbase in the tight doesn't fair well either - i've lost a few back wheels on skinnies with turns. So yeah when things get slow and tight a 26 works pretty well.
    I think however the bigger wheels roll over roots better and feel better when the trail is armored. Especially if you're riding a hardtail. Comparing my Paradox [29] to the Scirocco [26] on say UOC the Paradox felt better. The only real difference was wheel size... logically this has to transfer over when suspension is involved as well.
    I'm not going to suggest that a 29r is better on the Shore... that's a pretty special place and each trail has its own little nuances. I would still want a 26 on some stuff but for some of the more AM style trails i would be very happy on the 29r wheel.
    Generally say the Prime for Seymour but a 26 on Cypress or Fromme.

    Basically this is the argument. Will a 26" with 4" of travel feel EXACTLY the same as a 4" 29r? At extremes would a 16" wheel feel the same with 4" of travel compared to a 29" wheel with 4" of travel going through the braking bumps at whistler?
    Ok so maybe calling a 4" travel 29r... feels like 5" 26r is slightly off....but this is the closest explanation we can come up with to explain the different feels you get from the different wheelsizes given the same amount of travel.
    Ok on dorps to falt maybe not but on anything with a decent transition, braking bumps, roots, armored trails, etc a big wheel will not sink into the "holes" as easy.

    I'm not arguing 29" wheels are better. I think anything over 5" of travel where more jumping, rotations, quick acceleration is required, strength of wheel and a whole host of other considerations make the 26" excel. This is exactly why we didn't go to a 140 or greater travel 29r as I believe the 26" is better.
    The Prime is an aggressive trail bike that borders into the AM category [like the Spitfire]. It is NOT a freeride bike, but somehow its trying to get pushed into more then it was designed to be... probably due to the angles.

    Lastly there are some strong opinions on what is being debated here. Please be respectful as me and Keith are listening, but we don't want this thread going south as there are a lot of good things getting tossed back and forth and it would be a shame to not hear from everyone.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL
    Not to side with Frosty - who is an unmitigated d&uchebag, but, for technical trails, I totally utterly disagree.

    and not to contradict Keith. I respect your opinion Keith but I'm one of the only people to have actually ridden a 4" 29er on the Shore. I've also ridden a Lenz Lunchbox on the Shore (Mike Curiak's Lenz with 150mm fork in front and 160mm in rear.

    A 4" steep 29er (ie the same old, same old bike that everyone seems to be making in the long-travel 29er department) doesn't ride very well on the Shore. You can get them down technical trails like Ladies, Upper Oilcan, Seventh, Dales, Aftertaste etc but if you ride them fast basically you're still riding a steep angled short travel bike. You'll have to ride them with lots of braking, at slow speed, with lots of little trials move. That's not to say that they ride poorly. Just to say that they don't ride like long-travel bikes. So I'd have to say that my experience riding 29ers on the Shore is that to say that a 4" 29er is like a 5 to 6" 26er is a fallacy.

    I know I'll catch heat for that but so be it. This is my experience with a particular sub-species of extraordinarily technical trails. Quite possibly my experience is irrelevant to the rest of the world since trails in North Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler are an aberration. I am just trying to provide a data point - based on my experience (emphasis on the fact this is a subjective opinion0

    If you want a different perspective on this ask Arthur @ Suspensionworks. He rides a Tallboy and can make it work a bit better than I made the RM Altitude and Norco Shinobi that I tried but he still sticks to the more mellow Shore trails. Stuff like say Boogieman would be outside the performance band of the more conventional 29er. I think the Prime will break the convention and I happen to think that's a good thing.

    I've posted some videos and photos in the 29er forum re Mike Curiaks 29er and my experience riding it on Shore trails.
    Hey Lee,

    (for those of you who don't know Lee, he has been riding the shore for well... lets just say he has ridden it more than you have! And has ridden and reviewed a LOT of bikes over the years, so I very much respect his opinion, as should you. You don't have to agree with him, but you should respect his personal opinion.)

    But, as eMcK correctly pointed out, (and I failed to make clear), all these statements are very much dependant on geometry. My comments about a 29er bike rolling through stuff slightly easier and feeling a bit smoother on rough trails is all theory based on 29er and 26er with identical frame geometry. Personally I'm scared to ride the shore with a head angle steeper than 69 degrees. I rode a marin quake hardtail back in 2000 on my virgin shore ride down Pink Starfish, which had a 71 degree head angle and 100mm forks... that was scary! haha, I have HUGE respect for the guys who used to ride steep full rigids up there! Slack angles certainly inspire confidence, and let you roll out of some tricky situations that may send you over the bars on a steeper head angled bike.

    I'm not saying 29ers are better for everything by any means. But they have their place, and are especially well suited to faster flowy trails (not refering to the terrain, more just not full of tight switchbacks like many trails on the shore). I must admit that at first I thought it was a fad and Jay spent a long time working on me to convince we to design a 29er. It wasn't until I rode the Paradox (which Jay has to take credit for most te design work) that I saw what it was all about. But I'd suggest that most 29ers out there are way too steep for the type of riding that I personally call trail/all mountain (my last all mountain ride involved riding down a 70 degree rock face followed by a manditory 8 foot drop albeit to good transition).

    I do believe that bike set up (as always) is key for making a 5" travel 29er capable of riding smoother down rough stuff with the same effort as a 5" 26er, but yes, components are key, and in my opinion 29er forks are generally not there yet, and most 120-150mm 29er forks out there currently are in my opinion still too flexy and 'XC feeling' to really give confidence to push it hard. Lets just hope that in the next year or 2 this changes to open up options for riders.

    The Prime is in my personal opinion what a 29er trail / all mountain bike should be. I feel that many 29ers are a bit erm... out of date, with often flexy frames and steep angles aimed at the lyrca guys more than guys who say, wear knee pads when they ride 'all mountain', like I do. I take my hat off to Lenze of recognising this before other 29er brands, and I know Mike pushed for it too, those guys took the risk of predicting and going ahead of the curve, and I hope it is paying off for them. I'd like to think we always push the curve too, although I admit we are definately not the first guys on this one in terms of head angle, but hopefully a few of the other features will show I want to design the best 29ers (and 26ers for that matter) on the market, and am working hard to do so.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  66. #66
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,036
    I think Leel is one of the guys whose opinions I take very seriously, he's a rider and a tester and has ridden and tested so many different bikes on some serious terrain, but as eMcK pointed out and he conceded to, he was talking "most" 4" bikes with "old" geo with HAs in the 70*+ range. I def think that the slack HA is what sets this apart from pretty much all the rest (excluding Lenz) and the suspension design will do the rest. I'll definitely be looking for him to get a prototype and his feedback on it. I was one of the ones asking how the Altitude handled with the 140mm fork and wasn't surprised when he said it made a huge difference because it slacked the bike out some.

    I have a Paradox (1st HT in eons for me) and had a rip9 and on descents it's just unreal how much more confident the slacker HA feels, even on a HT. The Paradox is the slackest bike I've ridden (I know, doesn't say a lot) and I was a bit skeptical about it, but after having it for a couple months now I think of it as a XC bike. Personally I think that Banshee should consider slacking out the Paradoxs' HA even more to maybe 67-68* since it gets steepened up a tad by fork SAG.

    I'll be waiting very un-patiently for the protos to be made to see if the slacker setting (to get a slacker SA) will still climb as good. I know it should descend very confidently, but also curious on the long wheelbase, as it will exceed the longest wheelbase bike I've ridden by over 2" (I know it's part and parcel of the slack angles)
    Last edited by LyNx; 10-12-2010 at 06:34 AM.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  67. #67
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,989
    Holy redemption, Batman!

    Way to pull this thread back guys. Awesome discussion, and I am so excited for this frame.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    233
    Favorite thing about BC riding? Getting over the need to try to ride everything without dropping my seat. Dropper posts for everyone!

    Because trees are so tight here and we don't have gnomes building up berms out in the middle of the woods (not that they would last for more than a day or two of rain) I still find bikes much slacker than 68º to be a bit slow handling for XC rides. I keep wanting to back them into turns, but our trails won't last long if we start pretending we are on XR750s I'm hoping with continued development of the AngleSet (Banshee guys, a straight 1.5" headtube would be a great idea on the Prime) and/or adjustable travel forks bikes can handle the gnar can also be fun to ride on terrain that is more accessible to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL
    Here's a link to the discussion about Mike Curiak's Lenz Lunchbox including reviews and my (lukewarm) impressions of the RM Altitude and the Shinobi.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...=1#post7406635

    eMcK. Actually I agree. I think you can get away with less travel if you have appropriate geometry. And I think that 67.5 is "appropriate" geometry. I'm glad you caught my nuance when I said that a 4" steep 29er doesn't ride well on the Shore. I think that a 4" appropriately slack 29er will ride well on the Shore.

    As an aside I wasn't crazy about the stock RM Altitude (review cited in the post above re the Lunchbox). I thought that adding a 140mm travel fork made all the difference in the world not necessarily because of travel but because it added a crucial bit of slackness. However, I was committed to reviewing stock spec.

    It's good to hear your impressions. I've not ridden in the East Coast but I think that the plethora of roots in the East Coast more closely mirrors the technical nature of North Vancouver trails (minus the steepness) than perhaps many other trails I've ridden out west.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by eMcK
    Favorite thing about BC riding? Getting over the need to try to ride everything without dropping my seat. Dropper posts for everyone!

    Because trees are so tight here and we don't have gnomes building up berms out in the middle of the woods (not that they would last for more than a day or two of rain) I still find bikes much slacker than 68º to be a bit slow handling for XC rides. I keep wanting to back them into turns, but our trails won't last long if we start pretending we are on XR750s I'm hoping with continued development of the AngleSet (Banshee guys, a straight 1.5" headtube would be a great idea on the Prime) and/or adjustable travel forks bikes can handle the gnar can also be fun to ride on terrain that is more accessible to me.

    Thats why it has a 1.5" head tube.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  70. #70
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    I realize the wheelbase is a function of the other geo and travel but the XL will feel too big except for the really tall riders who would normally be on a XXL.

    How bout slightly shorter TT's and a stock headangle of 69 in the steep setting, 68 in the slack setting? Folks could dial in the headangle they want with an angleset.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    233
    Duh. Like I should have even questioned that.

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Thats why it has a 1.5" head tube.

  72. #72
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,373
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    (for those of you who don't know Lee, he has been riding the shore for well... lets just say he has ridden it more than you have! And has ridden and reviewed a LOT of bikes over the years, so I very much respect his opinion, as should you.
    Not to blow smoke.... but when Lee approves of a 29'er, I know it will work for me.
    Partially cause I know Lee will beat it on steep technical trails, but also pedal the ^&*( out of it.

    I think it's awesome there's so much heated discussion on this frame.
    Keith and Jay know how to make a winner.... it's great that they appreciate input, but come on everybody, let the chefs do the cooking!

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    593
    that can be hard in a market where currently e.g. the RS reba is only offered with tapered headtube...

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    489
    I'd second rroeder's comment. I'd like to see an XL for tall people and an XXL for the really tall but maybe the really tall market isn't big enough to allow it.

    At 6' 4" I sit on the border of M and L. I had the same conundrum with the Paradox. In the end I went with an L (TT 24.2, HT 4.3 very similar to the Prime M), the XL being too big. With the Paradox I find the TT too short for me to run as short a stem as I'd like but I can run 0 degree to get the height right. Jumping to a 25.5 TT with a 5.1 HT and a longer fork would stretch me out too much and would mean a negative rise stem.

  75. #75
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,036
    Yup, but then again there those of us at 6'2" with long arms and legs that like a 25" ETT and still run stems over 100mm - I think that with the 25.5" ETT I'd be running a 90mm stem though, maybe even shorter with the steep STA I think the best thing to do would be to drop some polls on here and a few other sites and go with the concensus. Would be interesting to see how many big guys there are out there that would be looking at this and wanting a true XXL.

    Quote Originally Posted by martin_uk
    I'd second rroeder's comment. I'd like to see an XL for tall people and an XXL for the really tall but maybe the really tall market isn't big enough to allow it.

    At 6' 4" I sit on the border of M and L. I had the same conundrum with the Paradox. In the end I went with an L (TT 24.2, HT 4.3 very similar to the Prime M), the XL being too big. With the Paradox I find the TT too short for me to run as short a stem as I'd like but I can run 0 degree to get the height right. Jumping to a 25.5 TT with a 5.1 HT and a longer fork would stretch me out too much and would mean a negative rise stem.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Yup, but then again there those of us at 6'2" with long arms and legs that like a 25" ETT and still run stems over 100mm - I think that with the 25.5" ETT I'd be running a 90mm stem though, maybe even shorter with the steep STA I think the best thing to do would be to drop some polls on here and a few other sites and go with the concensus. Would be interesting to see how many big guys there are out there that would be looking at this and wanting a true XXL.
    +1. I'm 6'6", and I easily fit a 25.5" ETT. my current rides are both at 25.25", and I can comfortably run up to a 100mm stem on either of them (the spitfire gets a 50mm because I want it snappy though). I ran a 120 on the same sized bike for awhile, but i can't convey how much I hate a stem that long on the internet...

    being of that size that would warrant a true XXL, I would personally just ride the bike as-is. I could put a 50mm stem on it to make it handle nice and quick, it wouldn't be excessively long, and I know that there's a lot of room to reasonably lengthen the stem for sit without upsetting handling too much (a 70-80mm stem still handles very snappily)

  77. #77
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,373

    Very interesting post from the DH board

    Linky

    The part I found most interesting;

    Quote Originally Posted by pedro_sandchez
    So, from the perspective of a guy involved in the designing and building process, how did the bike ride?
    For starters I was pretty blown away by the performance of the bike in general. Those big wheels roll absurdly fast and they roll forever. In the wide open fire road descent that heads off to the World Cup course I could chase down anyone. While everyone else was pedaling their machines trying to pick up speed, I could just tuck in and chase them down without any trouble.
    In the rock garden that follows the bikes performance continued to amaze me. The large wheels really smoothed out the crazyness of the rocks. The big negative you would expect would be that the bike wouldn't be flickable due to the bigger wheels and such. However, I honestly believe we were able to negate this effect by achieving ~17" chainstays. The bike felt no less maneuverable than my SX trail that I would normally use for this style of riding. We shared a room at the resort with two guys who podiumed in the Duo Pro class. That night one of them made the comment that he followed me through the rock garden and couldn't keep up. He was on an 8" downhill sled and I was on a 6" All Mountain bike with big wheels.
    In the wide open chattery sections that break up the World Cup course the bike really smoothed out the washboardy terrain. and I felt like I was a charging machine.

    So the negatives?
    There are two things about the bike that I feel could be described as negatives. The first thing I noticed was that it simply didn't fly well on the big tables and the gap or two on the course. It had a tendency to drop the nose and then not respond very well to rider input in the air. No matter how much I tuned on the rebound of the fork and shock, I couldn't manage to make this go away. However, after about 10 runs I finally figured out how to properly preload the bike at the lip to get the response and flight I wanted, but it was still semi-unresponsive in the air.
    Secondly, when comes to big drops and jumps, there really is no substitute for long travel. The benefit of the 29" wheel is that it rolls over obstacles with much greater easy and thus smooths out rough chatter and more easily spans the gaps between baby heads in rock gardens. This makes it really great at plowing through rough terrain and feels more like a 7-8" bike than a 6 incher. However, at the end of the day, an 8 foot drop is an 8 foot drop and the big wheel doesn't do anything to negate the fact that that sort of stuff eats up your travel like no tomorrow.
    So... there has been a lot of discussion in this thread about how 29'ers will handle the shore, which is good stuff. But-IMHO, the evolution of trailbuilding has moved away from shore-style (i.e. wood stunts, steep tech) and more towards "flow" ( ) which to most people means berms, tables and pump-track type stuff.

    Pedro's post pretty much sums up my experience with 29'ers so far (again limited, just tallboy and paradox demos on great trails). With the right geometry, they can schralp steeps, skinnies and techy terrain, plus there are the other benefits of bigger wheels... traction, momentum, low C-of-G, etc.... But, I have to wonder, when features and trails are "shaped" for 26" wheels- like pumptrack rollers and jump lips- can a 29'er hang with the 26'ers?


    Thoughts?

    I took $l4yeR's paradox down an intermediate jump/FR line, with a few 3-4 footers, small booters and tables... the thing jumped much better than I expected, but still the landings felt flatter than on my 26'er hardtail.



    (PS- I'd lean towards keeping my Rune for these pumpy-jumpy trails...29'er potentially for AM/ tech-XC stuff....but that's without having ridden the prime yet...)

  78. #78
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    It's not about the fit for me, the XL would fit perfect as that's the same size cockpit I run now on my Sultan, it's the resulting length of the bike and poss schoolbus handling that's turning me off.

    None of the other bikes in this category have the long TT combined with slack HA, Lenz uses shorter TT's and short CS's, the WFO and Tracer use steeper HA's. I'm def curious to see how the tall guys will like the L or XL handling tho, will be watching in the coming months as I'm interested in a bike like this.

  79. #79
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    Woah, late to the party!

    Was just looking over the geo. The one number that concerns me is the head tube height on the size M. I notice that a lot of people run into issues not being able to get their bars low enough for comfortable climbing on the smaller 29'er frames. 4.725" isn't exactly "tall" but 4.5" would probably be even nicer.

    Otherwise, really like where you're going with this. Very cool project.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CRAZY FRED's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive
    Holy redemption, Batman!

    Way to pull this thread back guys. Awesome discussion, and I am so excited for this frame.
    Ya completely agree.......CF...

  81. #81
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    321

    Effective STA and Saddle Height

    Looking at the geometry charts, it seems to me that the wheelbase could be shortened by a full inch by dropping the effective seat tube angle to 72.5° and shortening the ETTs by 1/4". This puts the numbers closer to the Paradox and Spitfire's, keeping things more consistent across the line.

    I'm liking the looks of the bike so far, but what saddle height is used to calculate the effective seat tube angle? Bent seat tube bikes are always harder to fit by geometry numbers alone - people with long legs and a short torso end up with a longer cockpit than indicated by the ETT and people with short legs and a long torso end up with a shorter cockpit than indicated.

    I would also suggest providing several plate style dropouts (as used by Knolly, Cove) for geometry adjustment rather than adjustable clevis links pieces (Intense style). Plate style dropouts may allow the CS length to be more consistent between geometry positions and should be inexpensive enough to eliminate the need for a separate derailleur hanger.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    593
    is there actually a real reason against making all headtubes 1/2" shorter?
    to liitle space for the tubes to bind in?
    gives you just many more options...

  83. #83
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    Quote Originally Posted by MalcolmX
    is there actually a real reason against making all headtubes 1/2" shorter?
    to liitle space for the tubes to bind in?
    gives you just many more options...
    When you make the head tube shorter you have to account for fork crown clearance on the down tube and brake lever clearance on the top tube. Dropped top-tubes and "S" shaped down tubes usually solve these problems.

    Other than that, aesthetically, really short head tubes can lead to lots of ugly spacers for taller folk but that's not usually an issue with a 29er. Most folks are fighting to keep their bars low due to the extra 1.5" of height gained by the big wheels.

  84. #84
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,036
    Very interesting link FM, quite cool to be able to get you own designs built up, sounds like the bikes rocked I'd say that he described perfectly what people have been trying to get across as far as 29er vs 26ers go in terms of travel and feel - on the chatter you'll get a smoothed out ride that'll make it feel like more, but on the actual jumps/drops, there's no replacement for displacement.

    Hope that HH Bikes keeps it's Fox dealer status after clearly flaunting that they do not head the warning that Fox issued on doing the 36 mod I know the guy who was originally doing it lost his status, maybe being an actual shop which might have decent turn over they might just get a warning, but I highly doubt Fox will be pleased to see an authorized shop so blatantly going against them.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  85. #85
    JB
    Reputation: Nevada 29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Phatass
    Love the bike. Keep the post length on the XL right where it is or even up it by .5" or 1" . . . . I'm 6'6" and 21" is the minimum length in my opinion. Can't wait to see the final production version! Not to be vain, but any chance of an all matte black version?
    +1, I'm 6'6" and need a 21"-21.5" min ST. Or, you could add an XXL...

  86. #86
    JB
    Reputation: Nevada 29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Yup, but then again there those of us at 6'2" with long arms and legs that like a 25" ETT and still run stems over 100mm - I think that with the 25.5" ETT I'd be running a 90mm stem though, maybe even shorter with the steep STA I think the best thing to do would be to drop some polls on here and a few other sites and go with the concensus. Would be interesting to see how many big guys there are out there that would be looking at this and wanting a true XXL.
    At 6'6" I'd like the XXL option, but if not, keep the ETT at 25.5" min. Anything less is pretty cramped if you have to actually pedal the bike. My Moth is 25.6" ETT with a 90mm-100mm stem works out about right.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Err
    Woah, late to the party!

    Was just looking over the geo. The one number that concerns me is the head tube height on the size M. I notice that a lot of people run into issues not being able to get their bars low enough for comfortable climbing on the smaller 29'er frames. 4.725" isn't exactly "tall" but 4.5" would probably be even nicer.

    Otherwise, really like where you're going with this. Very cool project.
    Bear in mind that the Prime will have a full 1.5" head tube, so stack height will be reduced compared to most 29ers out there right now, which cancels up to 20mm out depending on stem choice (and fork steerer type). Reason I don't want to go with shorter head tube is more than anything else a matter of strength. I can achieve a higher second moment of area with a slightly longer HT which helps keep that area of the bike very strong. and it needs to be strong due to the long lever of 29er forks. Yes fork and bar clearance is obviously also considered, but strength comes first.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  88. #88
    Newt Guy
    Reputation: FrostyStruthers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Bear in mind that the Prime will have a full 1.5" head tube, so stack height will be reduced compared to most 29ers out there right now, which cancels up to 20mm out depending on stem choice (and fork steerer type). Reason I don't want to go with shorter head tube is more than anything else a matter of strength. I can achieve a higher second moment of area with a slightly longer HT which helps keep that area of the bike very strong. and it needs to be strong due to the long lever of 29er forks. Yes fork and bar clearance is obviously also considered, but strength comes first.
    I think I might have to get one. How much will it be and when will it be out? It would be sort of cool to have the main HT/FS part of my stable Banshee, and the frame sounds tight.
    Yes, steel is most certainly stronger than aluminum EVERY time.
    ~Frosty Struthers

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    2011 will be a year of testing a pre production batch under testers from around the world, and if all goes well, then 2012 will be release year of production version that will have taken into account all testing feedback..

    When we feel ready, we will start taking names for test riders... but we need to make a few prototypes to test first to get rid of any unforseen issues.
    Last edited by builttoride; 10-14-2010 at 07:41 AM.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  90. #90
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    Looks great.
    I think everything is spot on.
    Just need a 150mm 36mm Stantion fork.
    Ditto, without that, the whole package is really not completely integrated. I'm hoping Manitou can bring something to the table that takes something like a 36mm 29'er Dorado Pro, and shrinks it down and puts it on a single crown fork.

  91. #91
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by mudpuppy
    I for one was elated to see a 21" XL THANK YOU. I am 6'4" and have a really hard time finding a good bike that will fit me...I have had to put super long posts in all my bikes because of this and have run into some issues....please don't take that away.
    Agreed, at least on the XL, keep that seat post at 21", you don't want folks getting warranty frames or crash replacements from snapped seat tubes at the top tube junction, because they couldn't insert enough sea tpost, even with a 410mm. Us tall Clydes with our legs and 180mm cranks can really leverage / lay into pressing that seatpost back with the need to loft the front end while sitting and mashing sometimes, to clear big logs, steps and rocks.

  92. #92
    bog
    bog is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,239
    Oh and ST length, I'm open to suggestions there, the geometry I gave was based on feedback from another thread here, but I too like a slightly shorter seat tube, so I'm not against dropping that down a touch to 20.5" or 20"... would be nice to here some other opinions on this from some other really tall guys.

    Keep the seat tube between 21 and 22" Keith. I'm 6'5" with legs that are a bit on the short side and anything under 21" leaves too much seatpost hanging out. It not only looks dumb but I need to run a 400mm post.
    Tallboy3 CC : Nomad3 CC: Highball2 CC : Stigmata2 CC

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    XL seat post will remain at 21" due to popular demand.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    XL seat post will remain at 21" due to popular demand.
    Thats dope yo. I need the 21"

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,136
    oh well, I tried s'all good though. I THINK I can still fit that 5" gravity dropper I've got my eyes on in there...I'm just one oddly proportioned man anyway

    I'm liking how this is coming out though. good to see Keith was able to drop the BB a little too. if it's actually at 13.25, that's super close to where my spitfire is. any chance you know what size tire (roughly) you're basing those BB measures on keith?

  96. #96
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Bear in mind that the Prime will have a full 1.5" head tube, so stack height will be reduced compared to most 29ers out there right now, which cancels up to 20mm out depending on stem choice (and fork steerer type). Reason I don't want to go with shorter head tube is more than anything else a matter of strength. I can achieve a higher second moment of area with a slightly longer HT which helps keep that area of the bike very strong. and it needs to be strong due to the long lever of 29er forks. Yes fork and bar clearance is obviously also considered, but strength comes first.
    Well then, I'm on board with the HT as it is. I know you were just waiting for my approval, right? Agreed that the stack height allowed by flush headsets will have a significant positive impact. A Cane Creek XXC II flush is just over 10mm stack height vs over 29mm for a traditional 1 1/8" headset so that's 19mm saved right there.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryguy17
    oh well, I tried s'all good though. I THINK I can still fit that 5" gravity dropper I've got my eyes on in there...I'm just one oddly proportioned man anyway

    I'm liking how this is coming out though. good to see Keith was able to drop the BB a little too. if it's actually at 13.25, that's super close to where my spitfire is. any chance you know what size tire (roughly) you're basing those BB measures on keith?
    BB height measurements are always rough, but this is roughly based around 2.3" tires... BB drop would be better standard for the bike industry to use in my opinion (BB drop for prime will be 33mm for low and 20mm for high).
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    You're definitely right about BB drop vs. BB height. Some manufacturers will post both because of that.

    So, how much longer then before you settle in on the drawings and kick off some proto's? We're all pretty excited here (in case you haven't noticed).

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Got some manufacturing stuff to sort out before protos can get started, but hopefully they will not take too long to be finalised and we can make a few protos to test to check for basic things before going ahead with pre production test bikes.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sikocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,624
    So everything is good to go. Just put my name on a XL please

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 9

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •