Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 506

Thread: Banshee Prime!

  1. #1
    The Mountain Bike Life
    Reputation: mudpuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,336

    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
    128
    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
    137
    looking good, should be interesting to see this progress. Any guesses on frame weights? Similar to the tracer I would say.

  4. #4
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    719
    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
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,974
    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
    6,762
    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
    1,882
    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
    1,882
    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
    17,698
    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
    17,698
    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
    2,490
    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
    1,608
    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
    2,306
    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
    1,882
    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
    613
    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
    6,762
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    shock specs are on the geo chart....
    Sho' nuff!


  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,144
    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
    1,336
    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
    3,568
    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!

Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... 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
  •