Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 506

Thread: Banshee Prime!

  1. #1
    The Mountain Bike Life
    Reputation: mudpuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,337

    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
    843
    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
    9,271
    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
    6,795
    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
    2,023
    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
    2,023
    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
    19,950
    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??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  13. #13
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    19,950
    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??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  14. #14
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,018
    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
    1,619
    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
    2,418
    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
    2,023
    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
    6,795
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    shock specs are on the geo chart....
    Sho' nuff!


  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,263
    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
    1,337
    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
    3,610
    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
    315

    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
    123
    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
    19,950
    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??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  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
    2,023
    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
    195
    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
    1,764
    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
    843
    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
    100
    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
    6,305
    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
    19,950
    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??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,023
    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
    2,023
    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
    6,305
    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
    6,305
    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
    2,023
    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
    6,305
    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
    590
    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

Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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