Page 2 of 57 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 2846
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kalkhoffpink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    147
    @AdrianoMTB

    Thanks for measuring the standover...800mm...thatīs a lot compared to the banshee tech sheet with 734mm...

    Good to hear that you have lots of fun with your new mountain gear anyway...

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Great initial impression report of the V2 Danshee! One of the things that I always like about my older Runes is how well they sprinted, pedalled and accelerated in/out of the turns and popped off of jumps.

    BTW, are you 5'10" with no shoes and 32" inseam your pants length, not actual inseam as measure with level in crotch and measurement from floor to top of level? I typically wear 32" pants, but my actual inseam is 35" when measured as above and I am 5'10.5" w/bike shoes on and have been doing much deliberating between a large or medium V2 since I prefer to run shorter stems on all my bikes and 23" Eff. top tube bikes typically are too short for me. So, if the V2 feels much longer than the V1.5 with same ETT, than a medium very well may work for me without feeling too crammed on the climbs up (thumbs up!)

    Thanks again!
    Ride On!

  3. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    Hey jgusta,

    I'm 5' 10" with no shoes and have 33.5" inside leg from floor to crotch. My other Runes have been mediums which had pretty short cockpits, the new one feels noticeably longer to me but I got used to it almost immediately. I'll take more measurements tonight if anyone wants them, right now I'm going to ride to work in the minus degree fog

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    my Rune V2 is already landed, according to the tracking number... so maybe there is a surprise at home waiting after work

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by MalcolmX View Post
    my Rune V2 is already landed, according to the tracking number... so maybe there is a surprise at home waiting after work
    Oh yeah!

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Sweet shot with raw frame and frost! Thanks for taking measurements, sounds like reach on medium V2 is much closer to reach on V1 large, despite 1" differnece in ETT between the two. If reach feels a little on the long side for ya, you can always push the saddle forward some and/or roll the bars back a bit. That's always what I did on my large frames.

    Are you running your V2 with neutral chips for 65.5 HTA and 13.65" BB as pictured?
    Ride On!

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Danshee View Post
    Hey jgusta,

    I'm 5' 10" with no shoes and have 33.5" inside leg from floor to crotch. My other Runes have been mediums which had pretty short cockpits, the new one feels noticeably longer to me but I got used to it almost immediately. I'll take more measurements tonight if anyone wants them, right now I'm going to ride to work in the minus degree fog
    Was your inseam measurement taken with shoes or not? Thanks as I have my post already slightly above the max position on current bike with 18" seat tube (375mm Thomson post) while in typical climb position and will have to get a new 410mm post for sure at the very least with medium frame. Never owned a <18" seat tubed bike as I am a bit longer in legs for my height and do fairly long'ish steep climbs on regular basis to get to the fun descents that warrants a little taller seat tube or post extension, but don't like the feeling of bigger bikes while descending as why 9'ers never had appealed to me in the past. Thanks again as I haven't ordered a frame without hoping on it first in sometime now.
    Ride On!

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    Inseam measurement was without shoes and the flip chips are in the 55.5 degree position.

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    924
    The new Rune looks great but I miss seeing the old Rune logo. Super minor complaint.. Looking forward to seeing more builds (& new Spitfires)!

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Danshee View Post
    Inseam measurement was without shoes and the flip chips are in the 55.5 degree position.
    Thanks. Would you mind taking the wheelbase (center of axle to axle), standover height (believe it's 6" in front BB from floor to top of top tube), effective top tube (mid head tube to mid post on level horizontal line) and your total bar height (top of bars to floor with bike in most vertical position) if you don't mind and have a chance to do so? Thanks as sometimes the numbers are a bit different than what is listed, epecially with different set ups and I plan to run quite similar components as yours from my current bike with neutral chips, Lyrik fork, 2.3 tires and looks like we are the exact same height/inseam sans shoes.

    Cheers!
    Jon
    Ride On!

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    without words:







  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rokesoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    21
    Awesome. Is it medium size?. Can you weigh the frame?

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    it is a large frame...

    frame plus shock plus standard dropouts weight ~3680gr... 142mm dropouts incl. 12mm axle weight about 80gr more... so, I am very pleased with the weight... total weight with lyrik coil and ztr flow wheels and 1x9, and droppost will be arround 15kg, btw. 33pounds...

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    74
    cracking pics, I look forward to seeing a full build!

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kalkhoffpink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    147
    Yes very nice, my only complaint would be that somehow ugly brown FOX-shock....

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    the brown does not really sting out in reality... so, I will judge it by it's performance... hope it delivers, else I will get myself a vivid air or something like that...

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    @jgusta

    Wheelbase 116cm
    Stand over 76cm
    Bar height 100cm
    ETT 57.5cm

    Nice pics MalcolmX !

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kalkhoffpink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    147
    And add another 300g to the rig?
    As far as I know the vivid is a very good shock, that could replace most coil shocks for DH without many limitations, but for standard AM or trail riding with serious uphill sections, there are better choices....

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    I know, but since I rode my Rue V1 with a Fox RC4 coil shock, weight is not really an issue... it's all about performance (performance is the name of the game - anyone still knows this song by MC Spandex?)

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    by the way, since this was already the case with my V1 rune...
    the seatpost delivered with the frame is useless! why is the question, and the answere is: both seatposts i received with my rune frames are labeled 30,9mm, but in fact, the real diameter is a touch under 30,8mm... you guys at banshee might wana check why this is the case... it is a pity because the seatpost itself is great!! it looks good, has a good clamp, and it is very lightweight. but that does not help... I have now 2 seatposts with 30,8mm at home that i cannot use...

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    The v2 feels pretty light when pedalling but still manages to feel planted through rough stuff. Weight really isn't a concern to me with this frame.

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kalkhoffpink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    147
    Still curious about the performance and feel in technical uphills and slow, steep sections (up and down)...

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by kalkhoffpink View Post
    Still curious about the performance and feel in technical uphills and slow, steep sections (up and down)...
    I am also very curious about this aspect of the bikes handling ability.

    It has an extremely slack HA adjustment range. The steepest setting makes to the BB too high so is useless. So basically this bike has to be run with a 65.5 HA.

    I am concerned that in low speed and flat terrain that the front end will get caught up on obstacles rather than ride over them - thus make the bike slow and awkward to keep tracking in a straight line.

    Also how is the weight balance of the bike on steep seated climbing?

  25. #75
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    842
    kalkhoffpink and horsey24, whatīs your Problem?

    Both AdrianoMTB and Danshee mentioned the Runeīs great Geometry, Pedal-efficiency, Acceleration without bobbing and Pedalkickback. That should work on slow steep technical Climbs too?!?

    Since when do slack Headangles get caught up on Obstacles, even slow and technical? How could a Bike feel awkward as your Position over the Bike is so much improved through Geometry, more centered due to the longer Reach? And since when are BB-Heights around 350 mm (in the Runes steepest (!!!) Setting) useless, when around 90 Percent of all Enduro-Bikes have BB-Heights like this?
    Should work on slow steep technical Descends too, donīt you think ...

  26. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    I am not worried at all... 350-355mm is already quite low for a 6" bike (the enduros that were really high had bb-hieght of 37-38cm!!!), I suppose, for trailriding, the lowest position will be really a challenge when it comes to clearing rocks, roots etc. on technical trails, e.g. when crossing a steep slope etc... so I think, banshee really really nailed it with the geometry positions possible... if you think that this is not right for your riding style, you are either used to weired stuff, or it is just not the bike for you...

    and that a slack headangle is a bad thing for technical terrain is the most absurd thing I have ever heared... if that would be the case, why would most vertride-oriented bikers go for the slacket headangle they can get? I have never had any issues going downh technical terrain with my legend, not at all, although it has a long wheelbase, very slack headangle and limited manoverability due to dual crown, but the slack headangle and stiffness make up for that in terms of control...

    climbing - well, it is a 6" enduro, so I dont expect it to climb like a goat on steroids... but still, the seatangle is very steep and the kinematics should provide a good, bob-free platform, which is what the users here already say, so I cant see any problems ahead in this area... slow, steep climbing is for lycra guys, and I honestly don't mind how a bike performs in that area... probably not great due to the long wheelbase...

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by NoStyle View Post
    kalkhoffpink and horsey24, whatīs your Problem?
    I don't think either of us stated a problem. We are simply are asking a question and seeking a response from someone who has actually ridden the bike.

  28. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by MalcolmX View Post
    and that a slack headangle is a bad thing for technical terrain is the most absurd thing I have ever heared... if that would be the case, why would most vertride-oriented bikers go for the slacket headangle they can get?
    both the question from myself and the other guy were specific to 'flat' technical terrain and 'low speed' when a slack head angle can get caught up on square edge hits rather then roll up and over them.

  29. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    I've only had two rides on the V2 and I can only comment on what I've experienced so far, which isn't much.

    That said, the V2 pedals suprisingly well uphill for such a slack AM bike. I imagine that this has something to do with the seat tube angle but even though the head angle is slack there is still a lot of weight over the front wheel.

    When I drop the seat post down, shift my weight back and get into a downhill attack position the bike feels slack and well planted, when I put my seat post up and sit down then there's enough weight put over the front wheel to easily keep it under control, rolling up over rocks was no problem at all and I never felt as though I was hooking up on anything. I did notice that the front was wandering a little bit on steep uphill sections but I'm running 20mm of spacers between the stem and headset so I'm going to take these out tonight.

    I've got to say that if you're someone who has concerns over 300g or think that the geometry doesn't look good then perhaps the Rune isn't best suited to you.

  30. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    for flat technical trails, I don't think a steeper headangle bike will get caught up less...
    the slacker the headangle, the more the hit comes into the direction of the fork rather than "pushing" the fork backwards...

    but I can give a detailed ride report next week... my V1 rune was sitting at 65,5° with 170mm fork and angleset, and I thought it was perfect for almost any situation I found myself in...

  31. #81
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    both the question from myself and the other guy were specific to 'flat' technical terrain and 'low speed' when a slack head angle can get caught up on square edge hits rather then roll up and over them.
    Horsey, I know it wasnīt stated as a "Problem"
    But again, I donīt see any issue there, as Malcolm has quoted: The slacker the Headangle, the more the hit comes into the direction of the Fork rather than "pushing" the Fork backwards. Another thing that could help is slightly lifting up the Front while the Rear will follow. On tight Switchbacks maybe this "Foreward-Geometry" needs a slightly Change in Ridingstyle or Technique, but in my Opinion something to get used to immediately.
    Kalkhoffpink is my Bike-Mate on a large Wildcard, and should think about what or where a Rune gives improvements over the Wildcard - letīs bet he does !
    In my Book there are some: Steeper Seatangle that should support climbing, slacker Headangle that should support descending, more subtle and maybe neutral Suspension, and and and ...

  32. #82
    Tmh
    Tmh is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianoMTB View Post
    Hi guys!!

    Iīm running a 40mm stem right now and Iīm 6,0

    I feel the bike very helpfull at geometries level, and the bike itīs a really LARGE in fact, running a 40mm stem regarding my heigh probable gives you a minimum idea about the size.. itīs perfect.
    Hi, could you take one measurement from the nose off the saddle to the middle of the handle bar. I'm wondering about the frame size as I'm always somewhere between the M and L sized frames.

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Danshee View Post
    @jgusta

    Wheelbase 116cm
    Stand over 76cm
    Bar height 100cm
    ETT 57.5cm

    Nice pics MalcolmX !
    Thanks Danshee, your the man, much appreciated.

    ETT is a little shorter than I was hoping/expecting it to be. Everything else looks good to go for me, sizing wise. Would you mind taking a reach measurement as well? (horizontal line from mid-HT to vertical line off BB).

    Thanks again
    Ride On!

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    Edited out. I'll take measurements tonight when I have more time.
    Last edited by Danshee; 11-07-2012 at 01:02 AM.

  35. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    sorry mate, but somhow, I don't believe your meassurements.
    a stack of 56cm is entirely possible with a 160mm fork (did you meassure it with a talas, traveled down to 100mm?) and the reach is not possible either with a wheelbase of 116cm... so whatever you are meassuring, think about it and doo it again, please... posting wrong numbers won't help anyone out there...

  36. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    I'll do it again tonight, admittedly I did it in a rush before work.

  37. #87
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    842
    Sorry for asking, but why all this meassurements when there are Geo-Charts???

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    590
    which, reflecting my meassurements so far, seems to be totally spot-on...

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by NoStyle View Post
    Sorry for asking, but why all this meassurements when there are Geo-Charts???
    Cause they vary to some degree base on set-up and he is running pretty much the same/very similar specs as I would on his medium V2. FWIW, my large V1 Rune geo specs listed a WB of 45.1", but was more like 45.7", then over 46" with angleset added. ETT was listed as 24", but more like 23.5" when I measured with level and tape measure three times (mid-head tube to mid post on horizontal line).

    I am a tweener' in sizing and wont be able to check out a medium and large V2 in person, so going by actual static numbers to see which size is most closest to the bike that I am on now that fits pretty well, if not a on the long side. Of course, the amount of travel, sag, tire pressure, suspension leverage rates/kinematics all effect geometry as well.
    Ride On!

  40. #90
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    842
    Hey jgusta,

    well I get your point. Iīm mostly in between M and L, too and always went fine with M. Had the same question again for the coming Spitfire V2, and decided to go with M, because it is longer overall than my medium Wildcard.

    Yes, Geometry may vary depending on Partspec, no doubt.
    As far as I can see the Geometry of the Rune V2 changed mostly in the Seatangle -> steeper, which makes for a longer Reach as the effective Toptube seems similiar to the V1, shorter Chainstays and a slacker Headangle. Together with the longer Reach the Wheelbase is significantly longer. All in all a lot more "Foreward-Geometry" than the Rune V1.

    Another question is: How do Banshee make these measurements? Some take the Toptube as you described it (the HTs real Center), others take the TT on the Topside-Center of the HT to mid post on horizontal line. This could make a difference!

    In my opinion:
    If your large Rune V1 is fine I would go with a large V2. The most noticeable change for you should be the longer Reach, wich means the Bike feels slightly longer when out of the Saddle. Staying seated and pedalling there might not be a big difference, because the Toptubelength is closely the same. Pedalling would change too, as the Legmotion will be more downward instead of foreward-downward - the (in my opinion) greatest Feature these "new-school" Geometries gives you, next to the enhanced Power and Control over the Frontend of the Bike.
    If your large Rune V1 feels more on the long side (not that much appreciated?), than the medium V2 could be the better choice, as the stretched out Reach makes for an overall "longer" Bike, at least when standing out of the Saddle.

    Many Greetings
    NoStyle

  41. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    Ok, here's the measurements that I've just taken.

    Wheelbase (axle to axle) 115.2cm
    Reach 41.5cm
    Stack 58.1cm

    Which pretty much matches the geo chart.

    I'm quite surprised by these measurements because the v2 feels longer to me.

  42. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by NoStyle View Post
    Hey jgusta,

    well I get your point. Iīm mostly in between M and L, too and always went fine with M. Had the same question again for the coming Spitfire V2, and decided to go with M, because it is longer overall than my medium Wildcard.

    Yes, Geometry may vary depending on Partspec, no doubt.
    As far as I can see the Geometry of the Rune V2 changed mostly in the Seatangle -> steeper, which makes for a longer Reach as the effective Toptube seems similiar to the V1, shorter Chainstays and a slacker Headangle. Together with the longer Reach the Wheelbase is significantly longer. All in all a lot more "Foreward-Geometry" than the Rune V1.

    Another question is: How do Banshee make these measurements? Some take the Toptube as you described it (the HTs real Center), others take the TT on the Topside-Center of the HT to mid post on horizontal line. This could make a difference!

    In my opinion:
    If your large Rune V1 is fine I would go with a large V2. The most noticeable change for you should be the longer Reach, wich means the Bike feels slightly longer when out of the Saddle. Staying seated and pedalling there might not be a big difference, because the Toptubelength is closely the same. Pedalling would change too, as the Legmotion will be more downward instead of foreward-downward - the (in my opinion) greatest Feature these "new-school" Geometries gives you, next to the enhanced Power and Control over the Frontend of the Bike.
    If your large Rune V1 feels more on the long side (not that much appreciated?), than the medium V2 could be the better choice, as the stretched out Reach makes for an overall "longer" Bike, at least when standing out of the Saddle.

    Many Greetings
    NoStyle
    Thanks NS, much appreciated. On the large V1 w/angleset, I was running a 45mm stem with bars rolled forward some and saddle rails all the way forward. I am on a medium SB-66 now that mostly reflects a medium V2, with ETT and ST more similar to that of large V2. Once again, 50mm stem w/bars rolled forward a bit and saddle rails maxed forward.
    Ride On!

  43. #93
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by jgusta View Post
    Thanks NS, much appreciated. On the large V1 w/angleset, I was running a 45mm stem with bars rolled forward some and saddle rails all the way forward. I am on a medium SB-66 now that mostly reflects a medium V2, with ETT and ST more similar to that of large V2. Once again, 50mm stem w/bars rolled forward a bit and saddle rails maxed forward.
    Hi jgusta,

    hmmm, if I understand this right it sounds like a medium Rune V2 should fit well?! On a large V1 or medium SB-66 you both have your saddle rails forward plus bars rolled foreward.

    My guess:
    1.) Sounds to me like both Frames feels slightly on the longer side in ETT, this is why the Saddle is placed foreward - to shorten the ETT?! Or to compensate the slacker Seatangles?! Not shure how to take the Bars ... This could happen on a large Rune V2, too and doesnīt sound spot-on to me.

    2.) With a medium Rune V2 thereīs maybe no need for this any more, because (as far as I know) the new Rune offers a steeper SA than the Yeti and Rune V1 (more foreward position), this could make a change in your way mounting the Bars and Saddle. And due to the slightly shorter ETT your Saddle could be placed right in the middle of the rails to get your "perfect" length in the Toptube.

    Just my opinion/interpretation - I may be wrong, but I hope it helps somehow

    Many Greetings
    NoStyle

  44. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by NoStyle View Post
    Hi jgusta,

    hmmm, if I understand this right it sounds like a medium Rune V2 should fit well?! On a large V1 or medium SB-66 you both have your saddle rails forward plus bars rolled foreward.

    My guess:
    1.) Sounds to me like both Frames feels slightly on the longer side in ETT, this is why the Saddle is placed foreward - to shorten the ETT?! Or to compensate the slacker Seatangles?! Not shure how to take the Bars ... This could happen on a large Rune V2, too and doesnīt sound spot-on to me.

    2.) With a medium Rune V2 thereīs maybe no need for this any more, because (as far as I know) the new Rune offers a steeper SA than the Yeti and Rune V1 (more foreward position), this could make a change in your way mounting the Bars and Saddle. And due to the slightly shorter ETT your Saddle could be placed right in the middle of the rails to get your "perfect" length in the Toptube.

    Just my opinion/interpretation - I may be wrong, but I hope it helps somehow

    Many Greetings
    NoStyle
    Good question and thanks for the suggestions. I push the saddle forward on the rails to max position to shorten the reach some when descending, but mostly due to offset the slacker seat tube angle to aid in climbing and keep the front wheel down more as my SB-66 has a <71 degree STA with <66 deg HTA that I use for "all trail" riding. But yes, other medium bikes I have ridden (Spec. Enduro, Pivot Firebird) with 23" ETT's and <18" ST's typically feel too crammed and short to me, but they also have a shorter reach so just trying to actualize how a bike with much shorter ETT than what I am used to and longer reach works for all trail riding duties? If I had to paint a picture of what the perfect sized "AM" bike would be for me, it would have a 18-18.5" seat tube, 23.5-23.8" ETT, 45.5" WB, <17" CS's, 13.5" BB, 16.5-16.75" reach, 23" stack with at least 6" of travel, wide bars/short stem.
    Ride On!

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Danshee View Post
    I'm quite surprised by these measurements because the v2 feels longer to me.
    Probably cause the V2 medium has about the same reach and wheelbase as a large V1, which would definitely make the bike feel longer as a whole.

    Ok, one last measurement if you don't mind to help ease my indecisive peace of mind . How about mid bars (at mid stem clamp) to tip of saddle on level horizontal line with saddle in your preferred descending position height? Thanks as this is the typical measurement I use when transfering parts over to one bike to another to get about the same feel between the two.
    Ride On!

  46. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: darkslide18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,065
    Quote Originally Posted by jgusta View Post
    Probably cause the V2 medium has about the same reach and wheelbase as a large V1, which would definitely make the bike feel longer as a whole.

    Ok, one last measurement if you don't mind to help ease my indecisive peace of mind . How about mid bars (at mid stem clamp) to tip of saddle on level horizontal line with saddle in your preferred descending position height? Thanks as this is the typical measurement I use when transfering parts over to one bike to another to get about the same feel between the two.
    Holy Crap You're anal! Ill have mine in a week or so. If you're nice ill let you sit on it.

    Wait...that didn't come out right.

  47. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    Hahah!

  48. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    338
    Anyone in the US have one yet? I keep checking Trident's web site, and they still show the old frame and no stock.

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: darkslide18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,065
    Quote Originally Posted by belljeffw View Post
    Anyone in the US have one yet? I keep checking Trident's web site, and they still show the old frame and no stock.
    A shipment of frames just got off the boat in Canada this week. Mine is among them. Couldn't say how big the shipment is.

    Hopefully my frame will arrive in a week or two.

  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    338
    I have a busted knee and couldn't ride if I had the thing. Don't know why I'm so impatient : )

Page 2 of 57 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 52 ... 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
  •