Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Rune V2- what is your wishlist?

78K views 451 replies 94 participants last post by  Dirk77 
#1 · (Edited)
I'm hoping that we will have a the Rune V2 ready sooner than initially planned as a reaction to this thread, as we want our customers to be happy.
Now that Banshee has acknowledged they're working on a the next generation of Runes, what would be your wishlist of new features for the V2?

Here's mine:

- High quality sealed bearings like the Prime
- Increased strength (gusseting) around the bottom bracket
- Slightly longer top tube
- Replaceable rear dropouts (w/ ability to run multiple rear hub setups)
- Adjustable geometry like the spitfire
- 10-15mm more of rear travel
- Beefed up frame- I honestly don't mind a slightly heavier frame if it means the Rune can be ridden that much harder
- Carbon offering
 
#11 ·
Super cool.
My own personal wish list:
  • some sort of invisibility cloaking
  • scabard for my galactic sword
  • cupholders

Seriously- great suggestions here. Although I can say from experience, internal cable routing SUCKS. It makes hydraulics very difficult to bleed, requires thicker tubes (more weight), provides another way for water and crap to get inside the frame, and means swapping out a busted hydraulic brake or seatpost can't be done without dis assembly.

Maybe OK for road bikes, but no good on a mountain bike that might be shuttled, crashed, and have frequent crash damage to hydraulic brake levers and remotes...
 
#13 ·
Lots of great suggestions here. I still have the Rune in my stable, although the wifey has long since claimed it as her own and loves it. Every once in a while I get to throw a leg over it but mostly it's her rig now. I'll chime in with a couple thoughts.

- Dropped top tube - I have to run my levers at a weird angle to keep them from hitting the top-tube when doing x-ups.
- Shorter chainstays - The Rune is almost too planted, especially when running angle cups. A slightly more playful feel and easier manuals would be appreciated
- Obviously a revised bushing/bearing system
- 142x12 rear axle
- A touch lower BB, but lets not make this into a sled
- Top links that use narrow shock mounting hardware
- Any small strength enhancements that do not come with a serious weight penalty


Some things to specifically keep
- 150 mm rear travel
- Short head tube
- ISCG mounts
- Seat tube lengths
- Tire clearance
- Long top-tube (22, 23, 24... or greater, no 22.75/22.8 Mediums)

And lets face it a carbon version of the Rune at around 6 lbs would be killa. I'm sure it has long since been on Banshee's radar, but just restating that it needs to happen.
 
#161 ·
I can pedal my 30x36t 1x9 climbing gear at walking speed.
I don't really need or want gears to go lower than that... if it's faster to walk, I'll walk.
Sorry if this comes off wrong, I'm not trying to be condescending here- simple fact is that %85 of the gears on a 2x or 3x drive train are redundant and the other 15% aren't that useful unless you're road riding downhill or riding slower than you could push.

We have plenty of big climbs here too. I didn't quite riding them when I ditched my granny gear (I just got easy gears another way)
 
#214 ·
+10...:thumbsup:

4yrs ago I would have told you this was crazy talk and I needed a 3 x 9, but over time I went to a 2 x 9 and now I can't recall the last time I used the granny. Next bike will be a 1 x 10 or whatever is available at a reasonable price with a wide range cassette.

My tech riding got a lot better when I stop using the granny. The torque led to loss of traction and there wasn't enough speed to get me over sustained tech before I ran out of juice. I'm climbing better than I ever have.

I can spin fast enough in the middle ring to out ride my ability to turn on the downhills which is faster than I need to go.
 
#5 ·
- High quality sealed bearings like the Prime
- Increased strength (gusseting) around the bottom bracket
- Slightly longer top tube
- Replaceable rear dropouts (w/ ability to run multiple rear hub setups)
- Adjustable geometry like the spitfire
- 10-15mm more of rear travel
- Beefed up frame- I honestly don't mind a slightly heavier frame if it means the Rune can be ridden that much harder
- Carbon offering
Well you started out great, especially with the longer top tube (and resultant slightly longer wheelbase), but I have no use for more travel nor a beefed up frame (tho carbon fiber would be stronger and lighter but certainly pricier); just ride smoother! I think the frame will be fine as long as it finally gets the BB gusset which is a no-brainer. I also like bailouts suggestion - needs 17" chainstays. But the biggest two things it needs, by far, are a slacker HTA (66 or even 65.5) and lower BB (13.75" would be nice) IMHO!

Have FUN!

G MAN
 
#22 ·
(tho carbon fiber would be stronger and lighter but certainly pricier); G MAN
When you look at current companies that offer frames in both Carbon and Alum normally the price difference is only around $400. The 2012 Rune with Monarch is selling for $1600, so a Carbon version should be around $2k. Compare that new Knollys new AM Chilcotin which stores are advertising for $2450 W/ Fox Kashima RP23 here in Canada and that is not Carbon. Compared to that the Banshee seems like a steal.
 
#17 ·
What I would like to see:

ISCG mount compatible with 2x front setups ( basically - tabs recessed 2.5-3mm from the 73mm shell plane )
Slightly slacker
THe same length of headtube for each size
Longer. I am 6'6 and would like to use 40mm stem, not 60mm. I use 60mm on 635mm bike.
BIG bearings in the suspension. I am thinking 62001 bearings.
Bearings in shock mounts.
Lastly 150mm rear and 73mm front ( friendly chainline rocks ). Or interchangeable dropouts.

Basically - move the bike away from Spitfire :)
 
#18 ·
Funny how the trend is now lower and slacker. Far cry from the old SC Bullit!

For me...

1) ST could be a hair longer as I have a long inseam and dropper posts BARLEY work. (although less of an issue)

2)Thru axle rear

3)Travel is good. Maybe a hair more.

4)Bushings/Bearings (deadhorse)

5)Any sort of "stiffening" is always welcomed.

6)Carbon would be cool, but realistically, I doubt I'd pay the upcharge.

7)I always have to run a Setback Post and the rune is no different. While I realize I am in the minority here, I wonder if a slacker ST would remedy this.

8)Since I ride a setback and consequently ride it a little further back, I actually like the CS length for climbing. Low Long and Slack. :)

So really, not a whole heck of a lot. Just got my Rune this rear. And assuming feedback is good for V2 and mine hold up, a rune v2 would be high on my list. Unless I get sucked into a ~5inch 9er of sorts - wich seem to be coming more and more common!
 
#19 ·
I guess my suggestion for internal cable routing was a bad idea. I will take advice from people with experience with it and avoid it. I have had no experience with it at. It just that those dropper seat post with the hidden hose look so clean. I can see this is one of those "form follows function" situations.

The biggest thing I would like to see is the prime dropouts! I like the ability to ajust geo. it could be one of those things like my talas fork that I never use, I am so dam lazy. It looks really innovative.
 
#20 ·
Lower BB: No more than 13.5" w/170 fork and external HS:thumbsup:. The Rune rides fairly high in it's travel with <30% sag that it can go much lower and why the Spitty rips with a 13.1" BB. I had my fork stuck down to 115mm for a couple of weeks resulting in about 13.3" BB on my Rune w/160 fork external fork and it railed on trail with mixed terrain with no pedal strikes at all.

BB gusset

160mm rear travel

Lower standover: 30" max for a large, so drop it at least an inch from current sizing

12mm thru axle compatible

Revised bushing or implement bearing pivot system as needed of course

Shorter CS's: 16.9-17.1"

Ideal sizing for 5'11" rider with longer inseam: 23.5" TT, 18" ST, 30" SO,

Slacker stock HTA: I am currently running a 65.5 HTA w/170 fork and slacker cups and I am still able to climb pretty much everything I did before then when I rode it with an adjustable fork and steeper HTA. The bike just rails better and more stable for the descents now, uplifting it's super bike potential!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
#21 ·
I understand all you guys that want a low BB, but don't forget about the people who live in areas where a super low BB isn't ideal. Here in AZ, a low BB is just a magnet for pedal strikes on rocks. We have no shortage of rocks here.
 
#23 ·
So an adjustable geo feature like on the Spitty would be the way to go then. One setting for low and slack and one for steeper and higher for you "rockheads" and slacken with head angleset as needed. I live in buff singletrack land in OR with only some roots and rocks, that a lower BB with this supsension design will work great!
 
#32 ·
I'd love to hear what the plans are for the Scythe (or whatever the next bigger bike than the rune will be).

With the spitfire, prime, and rune, the trailbike area is pretty well covered...

I'd love to see a 160-170mm, ~66 head angle, designed for use with a 180mm fork bike... basically a Scythe with the KS link. More of a Park/Shuttle bike than the rune....but with the square-edge performance of a mini-link...
 
#54 ·
I'd love to hear what the plans are for the Scythe (or whatever the next bigger bike than the rune will be).

With the spitfire, prime, and rune, the trailbike area is pretty well covered...

I'd love to see a 160-170mm, ~66 head angle, designed for use with a 180mm fork bike... basically a Scythe with the KS link. More of a Park/Shuttle bike than the rune....but with the square-edge performance of a mini-link...
Patience FM... ;)
I know this is about the Rune, but I would love to see a slacker Scythe with a lower BB. Don't worry about the KS link, I think the suspension is dialed. Great climber, unreal on the DH.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top