Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 600 of 1904
  1. #501
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    69
    Build up on friday, today was first ride about 3 1/2 hours ... so far it seems very good, climbed better then expected. still need fine tuning the fork and damper and my position on the bike.

    weight: as seen on picture little bit over 14kg. But final weight will be around 14,4-14,7 with other pedals, db air und maybe a dropper post.

    few things will be changed in the near future: db air instead of fox ctd when its finally ready for shipping, other stem, other seat and other pedals.

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread-img_0102.jpg

    edit: 1 thing already annoys me. the x-12 drop outs dont have the "guides" that you can put the wheel easier in (already discussed in other thread). at least for me it is really hard to put the wheel back in and i have to dissamable the wheel every time that the bike fits in the car.
    not very nice :/
    Last edited by pinkey; 03-10-2013 at 03:16 PM.

  2. #502
    G_g
    G_g is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    143
    Took the Prime for an Enduro competition this weekend. It worked pretty well, but it needs a fox ctd spacer kit, that thing blows through the travel pretty fast when setup with 25% sag.

    Overall, the 29er experience keeps impressing me, this frame in particular. Changed to a 40mm stem, and would like to get a smaller stack height seatpost, the KS i950 doesn't quite let me lower that seat enough (keep in mind I like the saddle super low on the DH parts. Yes, our enduro went through a dh track, with the big jumps being cut out. KS Lev would fix that)

    The stock Fox CTD is what version? XV1, XV2, LV? See this: Changing 2013 FLOAT CTD Air Spring Compression Ratios

    Whatever it is, I know I want a spacer kit to make it more progressive, but it worked brilliant even considering it blew through the travel. Even then, on climb mode it was pedal feedback free
    Keith Scott: If you want to go mountain biking, then throw a leg over a new Banshee and the bike will do the talking

  3. #503
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Banshee are in the process of setting up dealers in Australia and NZ to be competative with the big brands who all go direct. So please contact dennis@bansheebikes.com if you are looking to source a Banshee in either Australia or NZ.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  4. #504
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    167
    Hi you guys..

    What would you choose, between a White Brothers fluid 150mm or a Fox 34, for your Prime?

  5. #505
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,948
    I've never used a White Brothers fork, but the Fox 34 isn't the end all 29er fork in my opinion. I like my RS Revelation as much if not more, especially like the 20mm axle. I'm really hoping that we'll see a 29er Lyrik debuted at Sea Otter next month.
    Last edited by Colin+M; 03-11-2013 at 02:31 PM.

  6. #506
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    58
    what about a 140mm manitou, for those of us on a budget?

  7. #507
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    I've never used a White Brothers fork, but the Fox 34 isn't the end all 29er fork in my opinion. I like my RS Revelation as much if not more, especially like the 20mm axle. I'm really hoping that we'll see a 29er Lyrik debuted at Sea Otter next month.
    I've had both on my Honzo and in all honesty, I've noticed more difference going from the 32mm stanchions to 34mm vs 15QR to the 20mm Maxle.
    konahonzo

  8. #508
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,948
    Quote Originally Posted by eurospek View Post
    I've had both on my Honzo and in all honesty, I've noticed more difference going from the 32mm stanchions to 34mm vs 15QR to the 20mm Maxle.
    I currently have both, fox is stiffer but I prefer the revelation damper. Bring on the lyrik!

  9. #509
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin+M View Post
    I currently have both, fox is stiffer but I prefer the revelation damper. Bring on the lyrik!
    If SRAM won't do anything stupid, like 15QR only, or market to the 3% rides like the new Vivid.
    konahonzo

  10. #510
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Any of you guys still deciding on wheels, take a look at the e*thirteen LG1+ hubs. I've got some pretty hard and chunky rides on mine, and they make for a much stiffer wheel than your typical small flange hubs. I also ride DT Swiss 240s hubs, and I like the LG1+'s much better. I built them with WTB i23's, but I've got a pair of MTX33's coming tomorrow with some straight gauge spokes, going to be even stiffer yet.

  11. #511
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    They've been out for a while, but you're right, very nice tire. Watch for the new Maxxis 29er offerings for gnarlier terrain. That's why I'm rebuilding with wider rims, I'm planning to mount up some 2.5's.

  12. #512
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    ...I've got a pair of MTX33's coming tomorrow...
    Where'd you find them?
    Last edited by jncarpenter; 03-11-2013 at 07:06 PM.


  13. #513
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    Where'd you find them?
    Universal Cycle, looks like they're out of stock right now, I ordered just in time. They do list 36 hole in stock. When I built my wheels, I considered a 36 spoke rear, but my hubs were available in 32 only.

  14. #514
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,949
    They are a stout rim. I've been pleased with mine. They certainly aren't the lightest rim around, but if you're looking at them, you have other priorities. I have heard they're a handful for a tubeless setup, even ghetto, so I've never tried. I don't have many thorns up here, though.

  15. #515
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    I'll let you know on the difficulty of tubeless, but I haven't seen any reviews in that area that really concerned me. My tubeless method is 2 wraps with quality electrical tape, 1 wrap with Stan's yellow tape, and Stan's. I've have wheels that I've set up this way going on 3 years now with absolutely no issues. The trick I feel is to get everything extremely clean, and then take your time and keep the air bubbles worked out from under the tape while you're wrapping.

  16. #516
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Prime Mini-Pro Review

    Prime Mini-Pro Review

    I like the Prime mostly. The Prime is frankly amazing blasting devil-may-care through some horrendous chunk. Stable, planted, bangity, bang, bang and it's done. The faster the better. I love the suspension downhill, and don't notice it at all braking. I feel like the thing has given me an extra gonad launching off my mini stuff.

    I have found a couple things that irritate me that I can not put my finger on exactly:

    1. This thing feels like a beast to pedal uphill. Pedaling efficiency from a mini-link? I am just not feeling it. It feels dead and like it sucks the life out of me with every pedal stroke. Worse or equal to a 6" Lunchbox. The thing is just a total pig and I find myself hating it for this at times. That feeling may get worse as the higher more steady climby trails open up around here. This climbing issue may just be life with a 34+ish pound bike. I have never liked them that heavy although the Stumpjumper was 32, so not a big difference. As a steady state climber, I find it to feel worse than the Stumpjumper, worse than a Behemoth (5") about equal to a Lunchbox (which has an inch more travel).

    2. The rear of the Prime does something weird when I put the power on in the low gears. Whatever that thing is (Stiffening? Falling deeper into the travel? Extending out of travel? I don't know.), it causes an instant and unexpected loss of traction in loose over hard stuff. I notice it when I transition from a seated to standing position up a steep, short rise in lower gears. Of course any bike will struggle for traction in this sort of situation with small gears and standing rider, but I have done these moves many times with the my single pivots and the FSR. All my other bikes did not do this...whatever "this" is. Mostly it is the unexpectedness of the loss of traction that gets on my nerves. It is very abrupt when I hit the power transitioning from a seated spin to standing high power uphill sprint. I have a pretty decent sense of standing traction from a bunch of single speed riding, and this bike catches me off guard a lot.

    That being said, I have also cleared some pretty amazing tech climbs I did not think I could possibly make on the bike. Don't know if that is fitness, new bike stoke, luck or what. All in all, I would say the more tech the climb, the better it likes it so long as the surface is not low traction. As a tech climber except for that one aspect, I would put it equal to the Stumpy, or Behemoth. All of them are pretty good.

    It will be interesting to put this thing through the paces more on steeper, higher, lower traction trails and see if I notice the same. I guess my issue is that I don't feel like the bike is helping me find traction in a traction challenged situation and the wheel slips. My other bikes have given me traction at the expense perhaps of some pedaling efficiency. I was okay with that. I am still coming to terms with whether I am okay with the compromises the Prime makes in this area.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  17. #517
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Nice review, Enel. I agree completely on all points, except the loose over hard sitting/standing traction thing. I'm riding in similar terrain as you are, and have not noticed it, maybe I'm just not that in tune with how my bike feels. I whole heartedly agree with cleaning tech climbs that I never have before. As far as sustained uphills, mine is over 35 lbs, it doesn't feel excessively heavy, but I can definitely feel it. I consider it the price to pay for the "devil-may-care" downhill ability. This bike, IMO, is scary capable of hauling ass through chunk that you definitely don't want to fall down in. Hopefully this spring I can get up your way, I've been wanting to ride up there for a few years now, I hiked around in the Dells one time, looks like a blast to ride.

  18. #518
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post
    Prime Mini-Pro Review
    Hey Enel-
    I would be very interested to hear your thoughts after trying a different rear shock. Specifically something with a lot less volume. From the sounds of your post I wouldn't be surprised if the two issues were related, both sound to me like symptoms of a rear shock that goes through rear travel too easily under power. Adding LSC is not the ideal solution if the air spring is too linear.

    You have a production bike and I have a proto, but I can say for my proto... I tried several rear shocks and they were all different flavors of Meh...until I picked up a cheap used rp23 and sent it off to PUSH along with the leverage curve chart. Interesting conversation with them, they reccomended a small volume can with very light compression damping and good bottom out control. With this shock my prime is very active but only goes deep into the travel on bigger hits. I can honestly say it climbs great with this shock (except for the frame weight.. which was offset nicely with some stiff carbon wheels).

    Maybe a different can or some shims on your CCDBA?

  19. #519
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Cane Creek is recommending MORE volume for the Prime. I've settled in with my LSC @ 85%, LSR is up there a bit, HSC is down around 15%, HSR around 50%. Nice and squishy in the ruff stuff, decently firm yet responsive in the slower stuff. I'm pretty much out at the extremes of the adjustments for compression, CC claims the HV can will get this into the middle part of the scale.

  20. #520
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,349
    Of course Cane Creek's HV could ride like Fox's LV, and also the production bike might ride nothing like the proto.

    But- anytime I feel like the bike is climbing sluggishly, despite plenty/excessive spring pressure and LSC, that says to me "too linear", which is usually too big of an air can. Too linear / not enough LSC could also explain loss of traction (blowing through travel while climbing).

    Interesting that Cane creek's recommendations are so much different than the proto feedback. Small can, light tune was definitely the recommendation from both PUSH and Banshee for my prime proto.

  21. #521
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    What sag are you running at the shock in mm?
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  22. #522
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Hey Enel-
    I would be very interested to hear your thoughts after trying a different rear shock. Specifically something with a lot less volume. From the sounds of your post I wouldn't be surprised if the two issues were related, both sound to me like symptoms of a rear shock that goes through rear travel too easily under power. Adding LSC is not the ideal solution if the air spring is too linear.

    You have a production bike and I have a proto, but I can say for my proto... I tried several rear shocks and they were all different flavors of Meh...until I picked up a cheap used rp23 and sent it off to PUSH along with the leverage curve chart. Interesting conversation with them, they reccomended a small volume can with very light compression damping and good bottom out control. With this shock my prime is very active but only goes deep into the travel on bigger hits. I can honestly say it climbs great with this shock (except for the frame weight.. which was offset nicely with some stiff carbon wheels).

    Maybe a different can or some shims on your CCDBA?
    FM. You make a lot of sense. Agree with your assessment and treatment. I will try the big old shim that came with the CCDBa and report back.

    I thought the while idea of mini link bikes was that one did not have to mess around with shocks so much? Set up the LSC light so it is supple on the little stuff and let the linkage worry about climbing.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  23. #523
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride View Post
    What sag are you running at the shock in mm?
    I don't remember in mm, but it was 25% exactly. 13-14 mm if memory serves.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  24. #524
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    I'm a bit perplexed by the high volume air can suggestion as well. There is little mechanical advantage to the linkage design, given it is a falling rate. With the stock Fox CTD at proper sag, I can easily bottom the shock by simply compressing the suspension with my legs just coasting along. I have been waffling back and forth regarding what shock to replace it with, but I think it will be hard to find a readily available solution, apart from a custom tune.


  25. #525
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    Cane Creek is recommending MORE volume for the Prime. I've settled in with my LSC @ 85%, LSR is up there a bit, HSC is down around 15%, HSR around 50%. Nice and squishy in the ruff stuff, decently firm yet responsive in the slower stuff. I'm pretty much out at the extremes of the adjustments for compression, CC claims the HV can will get this into the middle part of the scale.
    More air does not make sense to me. If anything, the current set up is too linear.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  26. #526
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    E, regarding your climbing/traction observations...do you notice a difference depending on which ring up front?


  27. #527
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    E, regarding your climbing/traction observations...do you notice a difference depending on which ring up front?
    The issue I notice is primarily small ring. I sort of live in it though.

    I think the Prime is happier in the middle. I also can't put as much torque into the wheel in the middle so I have not noticed it. Any long climbs are usually steep enough I want to be in the small.

    So definitely small, and I have not tested the middle enough to know.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  28. #528
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Sounds like it may be a combination of what FM suggests, that is being compounded by the additional anti-squat/ kickback of the smaller ring. The KS Link has alot less of that feeling than the DW Link, but it is still there. Also one of the reasons Keith doesn't recommend the Hammerschmidt for the KS Link...I think his ideal ring size was recommended as a 28-30T; IIRC.


  29. #529
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,349
    I hadn't really considered chainring size... mine is a 1x9 with a 30t front ring, 12/36r. I think Keith mentioned the Prime was optimized for a 30t front ring.

    Enel, you're a candidate for ghetto XX1!!! These ebay cogs will pedal better than a small front ring and could give you the same range... working great for me. That and some suspension tuning and I bet you'll be much happier with the climbing performance.

  30. #530
    G_g
    G_g is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    143
    I have added a 10 cm^3 of suspension oil to my Fox CTD. That is the size of the middle spacer from Fox. It should fix the way too linear feeling it had.
    Keith Scott: If you want to go mountain biking, then throw a leg over a new Banshee and the bike will do the talking

  31. #531
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brisco Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post
    Prime Mini-Pro Review
    Nice write up. I went from a Turner Sultan (about 29.5lbs) to The Prime (31lbs) because I wanted something that kills it on the downhills. The Prime definitely delivers. The suspension really comes alive on the downs. And with the awesome downs, come the not-so-awesome climbs. I actually had my first few rides on the Prime at the 24 hours at the Old Pueblo race. It was probably one of the worst testing grounds for a bike like this. Pretty much no technical downhills, no technical climbs, but all the long steady climbs you could want (depending upon the number of laps you do). That being said, it only climbed slightly worse than my Sultan.

    As for the issue you are having with the loss of traction, I havenít experience it. The Prime seems to grip pretty well on all the rides I have had. As other have suggested, maybe it is your shock. I ordered mine with a RockShox Monarch Plus RC3 so I wonít be much help on the Fox low volume/high volume debate.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Production Prime Photo/Build thread-prime1.jpg  


  32. #532
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Brisco, how'd you do at Old Pueblo?

  33. #533
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brisco Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    Brisco, how'd you do at Old Pueblo?
    Well I would have won if it weren't for the other 1600+ riders. On the bright side, I didn't crash into a cactus, suffer any real malfunctions, or go OTB on the rock drop. Since it was my first time there, I wasn't expecting much. I'm probably one of the few riders that elected to do the bypass. It was actually much more fun than the b*tches.

  34. #534
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    I semi-seriously considered entering it last year, single speed, but freezing my berries for 24 hours and riding myself into the ground ended up just not sounding that fun. Kudos to you for having the motivation to race it.

  35. #535
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brisco Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    278
    Oh, I don't deserve any praise. I was on a team of 5 people and only 1 person completed more than 2 laps. I actually choose to sleep for 3.5 hours while it was my turn to race. The weather for the race was actually really nice compared to other years.

  36. #536
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisco Dog View Post
    Oh, I don't deserve any praise.
    Sure you do. How many people never even attempted it?

    But, riding your Prime, why in the world did you take the bypass? That's kinda like never going over 55 mph in your Ferrari.

  37. #537
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisco Dog View Post
    Well I would have won if it weren't for the other 1600+ riders.
    Awesome!

  38. #538
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,169

    Prime suspension characterisitc graphs

    Maybe some answers can be had from these charts and graphs of the Primes suspension characteristics. Very efficient pedlar for sure but the swoop up at the end of the leverage ratio curve would indicate it might be better with a lower volume can or shim.

    Google Translate
    Last edited by skidad; 03-14-2013 at 09:50 PM.
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  39. #539
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    I hadn't really considered chainring size... mine is a 1x9 with a 30t front ring, 12/36r. I think Keith mentioned the Prime was optimized for a 30t front ring.

    Enel, you're a candidate for ghetto XX1!!! These ebay cogs will pedal better than a small front ring and could give you the same range... working great for me. That and some suspension tuning and I bet you'll be much happier with the climbing performance.
    I would love to go single, but I actually prefer my 20x36 combo for the high days. Let me know when there is a 43 for the rear

    I think part of my Lenz love came fro the fact they are so active in the small ring. They squat a bit, but tons of traction and no pedal feedback

    I forgot to mention that I have felt zero pedal kickback on the Prime. Very nice.

    In tossing around Keith's question: when I notice the loss of traction it mainly occurs during steep ups where I just can't sit and push the gear anymore. It is very possible I am more sagged into the shock than usual due to the upward angle.

    The Prime climbs tech very well indeed if I can stay seated.

    Off to shim the CCDB
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  40. #540
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,948
    I shimmed mine already, it definitely makes it more progressive... to the point where I wasn't getting all the travel out of the shock. YMMV but I prefer it un-shimmed and have a XV can coming from Cane Creek to see how that performs. Of course I don't have anything similar to the terrain you do out there and I am running 1x10 with a 28T chainring.

    So in short, shim away It's terribly easy to do.

  41. #541
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5
    Dears,
    I'm going to buy a Banshee Prime 29 in next days and I need urgently a support from you (Keith??)
    I am 5' 11" tall, with 2' 9.3" inseam. Could you kindly tell me which is the correct size for Prime for me? I saw some relationship between height and frame, but they were related to the pre-production frame.
    thanks in advance! Bye
    Cate

  42. #542
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    I would suggest that a medium Prime with a long seatpost post would probably be the best option for you. You may need the long seatpost to get correct saddle height, but you will benefit from the shorter top tube given your length of back.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  43. #543
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5
    perfect, thansk for the soon reply bye
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride View Post
    I would suggest that a medium Prime with a long seatpost post would probably be the best option for you. You may need the long seatpost to get correct saddle height, but you will benefit from the shorter top tube given your length of back.

  44. #544
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5
    But, keith can you please clarify one point. I'll use the bike maily on level or climbing, so mainly pedalling. So I'd expect that considering that the top tube difference between L (610) and M (580) is 30 mm and considering an "higher" seat position (483 vs 445), I will have a more extended position which will facilitate me in pedalling. So I'd expect that the L is more suitable for me. Moreover I'm not a pro, so some grams more (L size) are not a problem. Based on such conditions, do you think that L can be also suitable, or M is still the best? If M is still the best, can you explain why?
    Thanks
    cate

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride View Post
    I would suggest that a medium Prime with a long seatpost post would probably be the best option for you. You may need the long seatpost to get correct saddle height, but you will benefit from the shorter top tube given your length of back.

  45. #545
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,838
    Cater, I think Keith's suggestion was based on assuming you'd be using this bike more towards it's intended purpose and hence wanted a more nimble bike that getting the Medium would give. I'm like you, do a lot of flat roads and connectors and climbing and don't get much air time, and I went with an XL. I'm 6'2.25", 35.25" inseam and very long arms, run a 70/6 stem with 785mm wide bar. I think for your intended purpose a Large might suit you better, but as he said, a Medium could most likely work fine as well, just depends on the intended purpose and the person physical make up - I recon myself like an orangutan with those super long arms, so I fit an XL, even at only 6'2", but do sometimes wish I had a shorter WB and bike for the tighter spots.

    Quote Originally Posted by caterpoller View Post
    But, keith can you please clarify one point. I'll use the bike maily on level or climbing, so mainly pedalling. So I'd expect that considering that the top tube difference between L (610) and M (580) is 30 mm and considering an "higher" seat position (483 vs 445), I will have a more extended position which will facilitate me in pedalling. So I'd expect that the L is more suitable for me. Moreover I'm not a pro, so some grams more (L size) are not a problem. Based on such conditions, do you think that L can be also suitable, or M is still the best? If M is still the best, can you explain why?
    Thanks
    cate
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  46. #546
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,349
    Not to interfere, but in my experience it's a myth that larger frame will climb or pedal better than a smaller frame with a longer stem & seat post.

    Caterpoller- lets say you went large, used a 50mm stem, no spacers underneath.
    Or you could do a medium, 75mm stem, spacers underneath if you like, and a longer seatpost...

    Both set-ups would put your hands, feet & bum in the same place.
    • The medium will be better standover clearance.
    • The medium frame will corner easier (both up & down) with it's shorter wheelbase. It will also give you the ability to run your bars lower, something which generally benefits climbing.


    It would be good to know your seat height (center of bb to top of saddle)... based on that your seatpost length could be determined.

  47. #547
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,838
    Based on his stating his inseam is 33.3", that's 2" off mine, so with the Large frame he'd need the same amount of post out the frame as me. Now on my XL, with my saddle to optimum pedaling height I maxed out the stock 350mm post and had to switch to a 410mm post, actually had to have the post out past the max mark for the 350mm that comes with the frame. Now he could as you and Keith say go for the Medium over Large frame, but then the post would need to be another 1.5"/38mm out of the frame, which should still be well within a 410mm posts range, however, if he happens to have really long arms like myself he might need a longer stem than the 75mm you suggest. Now, not saying the Medium wouldn't work, nor that a 75-90mm stem would be too long, but for me, since I moved to a 70mm post and much wider bar on the Prime, I'm not going back to anything over 80mm for a frame like this.

    Either way, FM and Keith are giving good advice, you'd definitely have a more nimble bike, but if you're accustomed to a more XC setup you might want an even more stretched out cockpit which could be hard to achieve with the Medium frame - I'd love to try a Large with 85mm stem and my 785mm wide bar to see what the 1.5" shorter WB handles like on both the tight and open high speed.


    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    It would be good to know your seat height (center of bb to top of saddle)... based on that your seatpost length could be determined.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  48. #548
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,349
    I am just always skeptical about inseam since there are so many variables.... measured with or without shoes, pants inseam or leg length, flats or clipless pedals, shoe thickness, chamois or not.... Two people with the same inseam rarely have the same saddle height...

  49. #549
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    I will chime in, not with an opinion, but with my results. 6'0" tall, 32" inseam, 30 1/2" BB to saddle top, 10 3/8" from seat tube top to saddle rails. As you regulars know, I debated fairly heavily between a large and a medium. I've been riding the crap out of my medium and have absolutely no second thoughts about choosing that size.

  50. #550
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    My recommendation for medium was based on the info you gave me, however every rider has different preferances, and my suggestion was just a recommendation based on what you told me (you seem to have long legs and shorter back)... however you may well have long monkey arms like I do, in which case a large with short stem could work for you too... The choice is yours to make based on your personal preferances and riding style and what you want from the bike.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  51. #551
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Once again, I think riding style & intended purpose need to be considered here with regards to "proper" fit. If one is looking to build a more xc-ish frame, I'm not sure the Prime is ever going to be considered ideal. And you certainly can't select a frame size for the Prime based off of the fit of a previous xc style bike. Sure, if you're a clyde, and simply want the extra burly chassis (as well as the corresponding weight), it would be possible to get by with the Prime pressed into xc/trail riding....however, once again, I can't see the overall ride being ideal.

    If Trail/AM riding is more your intended purpose for the bike, there is a lot of benefit in riding the smallest frame you can fit...


  52. #552
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    8
    What does the prime ride like with a 140mm fork??

  53. #553
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,838
    Fantastic ! It's what most have been riding them with, very few have used 150mm forks, mostly been a wide variety of the 140mm travel - RS Rev, Marz , F34. Handling seems very balanced. I had planned to drop my F34 to 130mm to test, but the handling was just so spot on and the rest of the geo so sweet I never bothered, only thing I've done is try it in both geo settings, currently running it in the "slack" setting of 67.5* and liking it, previously had basically ran it in the "steep" setting of 68.5* for most of the time previous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Judders View Post
    What does the prime ride like with a 140mm fork??
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  54. #554
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post

    If Trail/AM riding is more your intended purpose for the bike, there is a lot of benefit in riding the smallest frame you can fit...
    Ditto. 6'1", massive inseam on a Medium.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  55. #555
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    I shimmed down the shock with the largest air spacer, set the sag at 25% (same pressure), kept the damping settings identical and now have a couple technical rides under my belt.

    FM: I have to hand it to you, the bike rides distinctly better. The difference isn't massive, but absolutely noticeable. I don't feel like I am fighting the frame as much on the uphills.

    I don't use nearly as much travel. Prior to the shim I was using full travel any time I dropped something. Now I use all but the last 5-10mm of travel fairly routinely (this is on rough ground with lots of sharp square but lower speed hits). I can bottom the shock, but it takes and extremely hard hit. I pretty much have to try to do it landing like a sack of potatoes off a three foot to flat will do it.

    I am wondering if I should just leave the thing be at this point. Options would be: decrease the size of the shim, increase sag, start backing off on damping, or just live with it. I like the way it rides currently in tech, so I am leaning towards the last option. Achieving full travel is over rated IMO. I need to get it out on a real trail ride with some longer climbs. My feeling is that out on the trail, I will never enter the last 10mm of shock shaft travel the way it is set up now.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  56. #556
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    8
    What does it ride like uphill with 140mm, or even 130mm?

  57. #557
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,349
    Right on Enel! Glad you are seeing improvement. I think you are dead on, using full travel every ride is not ideal. Some like suspension for comfort, others for performance...personally I ride better & have way more fun with my suspension sprung pretty firm & progressive... Then I can run less LSC and get more active ride without using too much travel or bottoming out.... Counter intuitive but all good!

  58. #558
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Enel, that seems almost completely opposite of my results. I'm about 210ish fully geared for riding, sag @ 25%, HSC 1/2-3/4 turn from full open and I very rarely get into the last 10% of travel, and I tend to only use about 75% on a typical ride. I'm not doing quite the rocks and drops that you are, but I'm tearing it up all over the valley, and I'm not being very gentle about it. I'm not implying that either of us is right or wrong, it just seems odd that we get such different results.

  59. #559
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    Just to make sure you guys are on the same page as this discussion continues, check that you are indeed all running exactly the sag you think you are. 25% sag = 13.0mm of shock compression.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  60. #560
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride View Post
    Just to make sure you guys are on the same page as this discussion continues, check that you are indeed all running exactly the sag you think you are. 25% sag = 13.0mm of shock compression.
    Right on the money.

  61. #561
    G_g
    G_g is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    143
    So we are back to the charts?
    I used 57 * .25 = 14.25 mm to set 25% Sag.

    I remember on V1 rune there were charts relating the shock compression to wheel travel.
    Maybe make a similar one for the Prime (my phone doesnt handle your website very well, it might be there, but I don't remember it).

    Anyone ridden the Prime with a coil? Or does it just blow through the travel? I mean, I needed to put volume spacing on the ctd, so I guess we need progressiveness from the shock
    Keith Scott: If you want to go mountain biking, then throw a leg over a new Banshee and the bike will do the talking

  62. #562
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    There is a difference between shock sag and rear suspension sag, as the suspension does not have a constant leverage ratio throughout range of travel. It is important make sure you are setting suspension sag (%of wheel travel), not shock sag (% of shock compression). This is the reasons that I really dislike the Fox app that tells you what sag to run, as I don't believe it asks you what bike you are on.

    I need to make some shock sag charts for the new bikes... thanks for reminding me.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  63. #563
    G_g
    G_g is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride View Post
    There is a difference between shock sag and rear suspension sag, as the suspension does not have a constant leverage ratio throughout range of travel. It is important make sure you are setting suspension sag (%of wheel travel), not shock sag (% of shock compression). This is the reasons that I really dislike the Fox app that tells you what sag to run, as I don't believe it asks you what bike you are on.

    I need to make some shock sag charts for the new bikes... thanks for reminding me.
    I know there is a difference, but it shouldn't be that huge when we end up measuring it in the shock (like 1 or 2mm). I'd say some users even end up eye-balling the sag...
    Just integrate the compression curve, see where the integral gives us 25% of 130 and that is where the sag should be set. Or make a graph, your cup of tea.

    I'll give a shot to the coil for a ride, the bike just looks plain mean in full black with the coil
    Keith Scott: If you want to go mountain biking, then throw a leg over a new Banshee and the bike will do the talking

  64. #564
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by G_g View Post
    Anyone ridden the Prime with a coil?
    I ran my Elka coil on my proto for a bit. It was valved for a Rune, although I put the correct spring on it for my weight & the primes lower leverage ratio. It didn't ride great- in fact my rp23 rides way better- but only due to the fact that the elka wasn't valved incorrectly. I basically had the compression and rebound backed full out and the shock still felt sluggish in both directions, although sag & travel were about right.

    Builttoride, great info!

  65. #565
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    The 15mm sag on the Cane Creek site, is that suspension sag, or shock? At risk of sounding like a dumbass, why the o-ring on shocks if we are to be measuring suspension sag and not shock sag?

  66. #566
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,838
    Optimus, please tell me how we easily measure suspension travel/SAG, the o-ring is there because the good engineers, like Keith can tell us what those numbers should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    The 15mm sag on the Cane Creek site, is that suspension sag, or shock? At risk of sounding like a dumbass, why the o-ring on shocks if we are to be measuring suspension sag and not shock sag?
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  67. #567
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,948
    15mm of shock stroke on a 57mm shock is 26.3%, so I'm assuming they are talking about 15mm on the shock.

  68. #568
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Optimus, please tell me how we easily measure suspension travel/SAG.
    That was kind of my point, LyNx.

  69. #569
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,099
    OK, lets see if I can make it clear the difference.

    Lets do some simple expamples on a 200mm travel bike


    Linear bike - Perfectly linear bike that has a constant 2:5:1 leverage through all travel.

    25% of shock sag = 25% of suspension sag. = 50mm of travel used by sag.


    Progressive bike - Imagine you had a bike that was constanty progressive starting at 3:1 and ending at 2:1

    25% of suspension sag = about 29% of suspension sag = 58mm of travel used by sag.


    Regressive bike - Imagine a bike that was constantly regressive, starting at 2:1 and ending at 3:1

    25% shock sag = about 21% suspension sag = 42mm of travel used by sag.


    These are very realistic leverage ratio numbers, so you'll see that suspension sag can vary significantly for same shock compression depending on bike leverage curve.

    The sag that is important is suspension sag, NOT shock sag. When setting shocks with suppliers, most ask me how much shock compression (in mm) corresponds to 25% suspension sag, as they use this as a base for tuning.

    For the Prime I recommend running between the following values depending on your needs and preferances:

    13.0mm shock sag = 25% suspension sag.

    14.7mm shock sag = 28% suspension sag.

    The shock sag is the distance between the shock seal and the closer edge of the rubber oring after you have sat on your bike in a balanced riding position without over compressing the suspension getting on or off.

    Hope that helps
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  70. #570
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride View Post
    Just to make sure you guys are on the same page as this discussion continues, check that you are indeed all running exactly the sag you think you are. 25% sag = 13.0mm of shock compression.
    I am running 14mm on the shaft. I had no way of knowing what the suspension sag is, so I needed to go off the shaft. Will bump to 13mm and report back. That will likely make enough difference for me to de-shim the shock a little.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  71. #571
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride View Post

    I need to make some shock sag charts for the new bikes... thanks for reminding me.
    These would be helpful because the only real way of measuring sag in the garage accurately is on the shock shaft. You could add it to the Geometry or Tech or FAQ pages at the prime site:

    Banshee Prime: All Mountain

    I originally went with the 25% number due to reading the specs on that site. Usually I use 30% on the shock shaft.

    It's pretty clear my issue is due to being a bit under-sprung.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  72. #572
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    Enel, that seems almost completely opposite of my results. I'm about 210ish fully geared for riding, sag @ 25%, HSC 1/2-3/4 turn from full open and I very rarely get into the last 10% of travel, and I tend to only use about 75% on a typical ride. I'm not doing quite the rocks and drops that you are, but I'm tearing it up all over the valley, and I'm not being very gentle about it. I'm not implying that either of us is right or wrong, it just seems odd that we get such different results.
    No idea. You will just have to come up and ride sometime
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  73. #573
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post
    No idea. You will just have to come up and ride sometime
    I have been extremely busy at work lately, but I really want to try to get up there sometime soon. It's hard to imagine 1mm of stroke on the shock shaft making that much difference. That's what, maybe 3 or 4 psi? I kind of doubt that I would notice much difference in performance. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that my suspension is set up all wrong, LOL.

  74. #574
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5
    Guys, the story for the frame is closed, so thanks to all.
    Now there is another issue: I saw the frame I'm going to buy. There is one problem. I measured in rough way the alignment of the frame using the the string method, running it from the dropout faces around the steering head and checking clearances with the seat tube.
    Here after the difference of distances between leftstring and seattube and rightstring and seattube:
    - naked frame: 4 mm (which means misalignment 2 mm);
    - suspension installed: 2.5 mm (which means misalignement 1.25 mm).
    I know that such method is rough, but it is clear that there is a misalignment. Do you have any info about this, can you check what is the same delta measurement in your Primes? The seller told me that it is not a problem to get another one (it is just a matter of time....), but now I would like to understand if this deviation is standard or not.
    If it is abnormal, i can expect another frame would be better, if it is standard, another frame could be better but even worse ...
    I kindly ask you to support me (maybe measuring on yours) as soon as possible!Please help!
    Thanks a lot to all
    cate

  75. #575
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    39
    Some pics of my new XL Prime in black - not great quality but I figured this thread could do with pictures regardless of quality.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Production Prime Photo/Build thread-img_20130323_194321.jpg  

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread-img_20130323_193522.jpg  


  76. #576
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,169
    My back aches looking at those pics. What's the seat height to bar height difference?
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  77. #577
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by skidad View Post
    My back aches looking at those pics. What's the seat height to bar height difference?
    The photo was taken after the build but before I rode it, so not the right height. Having said that, I'm 6ft5 so it's not far off.

  78. #578
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,169
    Ah, ok! You really tall guys have it rough sometimes.
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  79. #579
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,838
    Man, I don't know if I'm getting old or already there, but I have to agree with Skidad on this one, loads of drop there, reminds me of when I was younger and into more endurance type riding. Looks to be about 3" drop between saddle and bar. Almost forgot, sweet looking ride. What was your previous bike?

    Quote Originally Posted by skidad View Post
    My back aches looking at those pics. What's the seat height to bar height difference?
    Quote Originally Posted by thematthewjones View Post
    The photo was taken after the build but before I rode it, so not the right height. Having said that, I'm 6ft5 so it's not far off.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  80. #580
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    5
    Nice bike....the same I would like to biy....same color....
    can you help me about this misalignment.....
    please...

    Quote Originally Posted by caterpoller View Post
    Guys, the story for the frame is closed, so thanks to all.
    Now there is another issue: I saw the frame I'm going to buy. There is one problem. I measured in rough way the alignment of the frame using the the string method, running it from the dropout faces around the steering head and checking clearances with the seat tube.
    Here after the difference of distances between leftstring and seattube and rightstring and seattube:
    - naked frame: 4 mm (which means misalignment 2 mm);
    - suspension installed: 2.5 mm (which means misalignement 1.25 mm).
    I know that such method is rough, but it is clear that there is a misalignment. Do you have any info about this, can you check what is the same delta measurement in your Primes? The seller told me that it is not a problem to get another one (it is just a matter of time....), but now I would like to understand if this deviation is standard or not.
    If it is abnormal, i can expect another frame would be better, if it is standard, another frame could be better but even worse ...
    I kindly ask you to support me (maybe measuring on yours) as soon as possible!Please help!
    Thanks a lot to all
    cate

  81. #581
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread-imageuploadedbytapatalk1364165349.325189.jpg

    Okay, I am officially in love. I carefully set sag to 13mm last night with all my gear on, full water, etc. To get 1.5mm less sag took 15-20psi more in the shock, at least a 10% difference.

    I got a big ride in today with about two hours of climbing followed by an hour of descending. I have not been able to get on the higher level trails with the bike before today due to snow. I expected the Prime to make me suffer badly, but the Prime pedaled great. I didn't notice that small bump compliance was worse, at least at lower speeds. I was able to clean a brutal climb that I rarely clean on any bike, and I didn't even have the super granny gearing I usually run. I absolutely did not feel like I was fighting the bike like I did before resetting sag.

    This is mostly a trail ride, so I didn't expect to bottom the shock, and I didn't. Not even close, maybe 2/3 of shock travel was used. It was pretty clear to me, after a couple intermediate descents that the rear was too progressive and I was never going to bottom the thing. It was skipping around a bit as well. At the peak, I decided to get the shim out of the shock which was not too big a deal trailside after doing it in the garage once.

    Then I pointed the Prime downhill.

    Lead. Sled.

    I set a best time ever on a pure, fast downhill section. Fast, cornering singletrack. Nothing technical, just keep it on the trail with tight turns to keep you on your toes. The stiffness of the rear is very confidence inspiring when things get out of shape a bit.

    The short climbs on the long descent were handled well, and I didn't miss the shim.

    So, long story short:

    1. I am loving this bike. I thought it would be a chore on non-tech trail ride and it is not at all.
    2. Set that sag to 13mm The suspension is fairly sensitive to this.
    3. At the shock shaft
    4. I intend to ride it until I break it at this point.

    Bike Ride Profile | BAAAAANNNNSSSHHHHEEEEE near Prescott | Times and Records | Strava

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread-imageuploadedbytapatalk1364165367.506664.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  82. #582
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,949
    Sweet! I'm glad you were able to dial it in.

    Let us know when/if you do, because I don't want any part of what I think it would take to break mine.

  83. #583
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    389
    Yes, i could do 45+min climbs with it on fireroads on Spain, with XX1 32t ring and XX1 cassette, and i got noodles for legs.

  84. #584
    G_g
    G_g is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    143
    Production Prime Photo/Build thread-p4pb9358141.jpg

    The bike is a blast with a coil, but blows through the travel even faster than with the fox CTD. My van R isn't the most adjustable thing in the world, so that shock will stick to the rune. I'd love to try a CCDB coil, a properly valved elka, an avvy, something similar. My guess is that speed sensitive damping is a must, so that it can be setup not to go to deep unless the impact is really high speed. I have never been a fan of position sensitive damping, but the Prime just flat out screams not to use the wrong shock.

    Anyway, prime time(s) around here. Next up should be to give the dhx air a try. This bike is making me sell the Rune, there is no need for both, the prime does it all (except jumping, manualing and air time, lifting that front end is much harder work, and it's not a strength issue, it's related to geometry/inercia of wheel. It feels like I shoved a dual ply with DH tube on the 26" xc bike, it just feels sluggish; maybe I'll just get used to it. )

    Oh, shock reducers are not the same size as the Rune, only on the front, so it is not a direct swap (had to press out those new CTD polymer eyelet things, much better design than what was used on previous shocks). Funny how people around here rave the polymer bushing on the shock eyelet but complain about them on the older rune/spit/whatever...
    Keith Scott: If you want to go mountain biking, then throw a leg over a new Banshee and the bike will do the talking

  85. #585
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Enel, now that sounds a little more like the results that I'm having.

  86. #586
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zoro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    323
    29ers look 1000x better in a large/xl size. That black Prime by Jonesy looks proper that's for sure.

    And for that bar to saddle diff, I'd say it's pretty common, especially if you got a large inseam and shortish torso like I do. My bikes look exactly like that in climbing mode.

  87. #587
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,518
    So for those of you running the CC DBAir, how many of you have upgraded to the (recommended by CaneCreek) XV can and did it make a big difference (especially if you are a bigger rider)? I'm still waiting for the snow to melt (and a headset) before I can get mine out on the road to start dialing it in, so I've got the time to order one if it's worthwhile.

  88. #588
    G_g
    G_g is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    143
    It is funny how some go for larger volume air cans in air shocks and others need to reduce the chamber volume.

    I'd say the heavier riders need higher pressures for 25% sag, which would lead to a very progressive shock, hence going for larger volume air spring.
    On the other hands, the lighter folks run less pressure for the same 25% sag, making the shock blow through the travel too fast, sometimes requiring air can spacing to get less volume.

    Am I right?

    On a coil shock, could a more pyramid like compression shim stack avoid using too much travel? Ideally it should let the spring act the way it did in the beginning of travel, but start ramping up earlier. Or boosting the IFP pressure would net the same? Such a pity the van R doesn't have a schrader valve on the piggyback so I could tinker with it's inwards
    Keith Scott: If you want to go mountain biking, then throw a leg over a new Banshee and the bike will do the talking

  89. #589
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Colin+M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,948
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinS View Post
    So for those of you running the CC DBAir, how many of you have upgraded to the (recommended by CaneCreek) XV can and did it make a big difference (especially if you are a bigger rider)? I'm still waiting for the snow to melt (and a headset) before I can get mine out on the road to start dialing it in, so I've got the time to order one if it's worthwhile.
    I ordered the XV can from Cane Creek direct about a month ago and haven't gotten it yet, so there might not be many people out there with one on their bike.

  90. #590
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,518
    Colin, how does it ride now, and what do you weigh?
    G_g, you make some good points, it's not too uncommon for different sizes of riders to run different air cans, not too much different than different spring weights in coil shocks. The can on the DB Air seems pretty big now, especially compared to the DHX Air on my proto, but I realize it is a very different shock.
    Unfortunately without a headset (still a couple of weeks away) I can't jump on the bike to check sag etc, so any input is appreciated.

  91. #591
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3

    Re: Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    My prime with cane creek coil.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Production Prime Photo/Build thread-uploadfromtaptalk1364288608744.jpg  

    Last edited by chullas; 03-26-2013 at 08:47 AM.

  92. #592
    Bnerd
    Reputation: RideEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by thematthewjones View Post
    Some pics of my new XL Prime in black - not great quality but I figured this thread could do with pictures regardless of quality.
    Have you sorted out your seat height yet? If so could you take some more pictures? You're right, this build thread is seriously lacking in actual pictures of the bike that the thread is about!

    I'm 6'6" and seriously looking at the Prime as my next bike. There aren't many photos out there of the XL size.

    Oh, and, sweet looking bike!
    I'm leaning towards the black frame myself.

  93. #593
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MartinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,518
    There are definitely pics of XL proto's around, check the Prime Participation thread. I posted several there.
    At 6'6" you should fit an XL well. I'm 6'4" with a long torso (I'd be around 6'6" - 6'7" if my legs were proportional) and it fits like a glove. One thing to note, the headtube on the proto is significantly longer, I had to run a wide flat bar to get it where I wanted, I'm planning on running a riser bar on my production frame.

  94. #594
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread-imageuploadedbytapatalk1364346399.734781.jpgProduction Prime Photo/Build thread-imageuploadedbytapatalk1364346522.217660.jpg

    I continue to be impressed. Climbs tech insanely well.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  95. #595
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post
    1. This thing feels like a beast to pedal uphill. Pedaling efficiency from a mini-link? I am just not feeling it. It feels dead and like it sucks the life out of me with every pedal stroke. Worse or equal to a 6" Lunchbox. The thing is just a total pig and I find myself hating it for this at times. That feeling may get worse as the higher more steady climby trails open up around here. This climbing issue may just be life with a 34+ish pound bike. I have never liked them that heavy although the Stumpjumper was 32, so not a big difference. As a steady state climber, I find it to feel worse than the Stumpjumper, worse than a Behemoth (5") about equal to a Lunchbox (which has an inch more travel).

    2. The rear of the Prime does something weird when I put the power on in the low gears. Whatever that thing is (Stiffening? Falling deeper into the travel? Extending out of travel? I don't know.), it causes an instant and unexpected loss of traction in loose over hard stuff. I notice it when I transition from a seated to standing position up a steep, short rise in lower gears. Of course any bike will struggle for traction in this sort of situation with small gears and standing rider, but I have done these moves many times with the my single pivots and the FSR. All my other bikes did not do this...whatever "this" is. Mostly it is the unexpectedness of the loss of traction that gets on my nerves. It is very abrupt when I hit the power transitioning from a seated spin to standing high power uphill sprint. I have a pretty decent sense of standing traction from a bunch of single speed riding, and this bike catches me off guard a lot.
    Still experiencing this, Enel, even with your new and improved lessened sag?

  96. #596
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    Still experiencing this, Enel, even with your new and improved lessened sag?
    No, the spring rate was the issue. I have no beefs with this frame right now.

    Get the sag right and it will
    Love you well
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  97. #597
    live long and huck
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel View Post
    No, the spring rate was the issue. I have no beefs with this frame right now.

    Get the sag right and it will
    Love you well
    Glad that you're having better results now. Even though mine's up around 35 lbs, I still choose it over my Paradox or El Mariachi for everything. Just built up my MTX33's this past weekend, probably 36 lbs now, the new Maxxis 29ers will probably push it up to 37. Still gonna ride the crap out of it.

  98. #598
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309

    Production Prime Photo/Build thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus View Post
    Glad that you're having better results now. Even though mine's up around 35 lbs, I still choose it over my Paradox or El Mariachi for everything. Just built up my MTX33's this past weekend, probably 36 lbs now, the new Maxxis 29ers will probably push it up to 37. Still gonna ride the crap out of it.
    I am starting to notice a couple things:
    1. Wheel flex.
    2. I am more regularly flatting my beloved FR3 tires primarily through the casing. I thought these were indestructible, but I am hitting stuff harder I think and sort of slowly killing them.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  99. #599
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Quote Originally Posted by RideEverything View Post
    Have you sorted out your seat height yet? If so could you take some more pictures? You're right, this build thread is seriously lacking in actual pictures of the bike that the thread is about!

    I'm 6'6" and seriously looking at the Prime as my next bike. There aren't many photos out there of the XL size.

    Oh, and, sweet looking bike!
    I'm leaning towards the black frame myself.
    Looking at the XL size? The Large is more on par with the regular 20" Honzo, I remember you saying a while back how the 20" Long Honzo is something you can't imagine fitting you properly, or being playful to ride. Reach on the XL Prime is even longer than the 20" L Honzo.
    konahonzo

  100. #600
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,349
    FWIW I have to throw down a solid endorsement for the easton haven carbon wheels. I picked up a used set in august, they dropped a bit of weight off compared to my 32h flows, but the difference in stiffness was incredible. Even after tons of use they are true as new. They also work great tubeless.
    The original hubs were kinda meh, but the most recent *free* easton hub upgrade basically disables the pre-load adjustment and makes the hub a press-together design, similar to Hope Pro 2's. Great product support by easton!
    The MSRP is stupid, but not hard to find these for $1k-1500usd & well worth it IMO.

Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast