Page 4 of 89 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 2211
  1. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    508
    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...

  2. #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.

  3. #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.

  4. #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.

  5. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    508
    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...

  6. #81
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    711
    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 ...

  7. #82
    Tmh
    Tmh is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    26
    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.

  8. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,649
    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!

  9. #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.

  10. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    508
    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...

  11. #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.

  12. #87
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    711
    Sorry for asking, but why all this meassurements when there are Geo-Charts???

  13. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    508
    which, reflecting my meassurements so far, seems to be totally spot-on...

  14. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,649
    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!

  15. #90
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    711
    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

  16. #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.

  17. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,649
    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!

  18. #93
    Hard funkinī Kraut
    Reputation: NoStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    711
    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

  19. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,649
    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!

  20. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,649
    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!

  21. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: darkslide18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,059
    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.

  22. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125
    Hahah!

  23. #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.

  24. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: darkslide18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,059
    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.

  25. #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 4 of 89 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 54 ... 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
  •