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
- 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
"There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!
This thread is pretty interesting... I've just about finished the V2 rune design, just fine tuning design now... just as well I seem to have done just about everything rght according to suggestions on this thread!
This thread is pretty interesting... I've just about finished the V2 rune design, just fine tuning design now... just as well I seem to have done just about everything rght according to suggestions on this thread!
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...
FM, I couldn't agree more regarding internal cable routing. I think that anyone who has ever had to work on a bike with internal cables will agree. I've had to go through this hell a few times, and I've been driven mad by it every time.. Yeah they look clean, but to me function has to come before form.
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.
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...
Yeah, I'm cool with internal or partial internal for shifter but not for brakes. If you do go internal for shifter, it's important to make certain the finishing on the holes is very clean or uses a grommet so that the housing doesn't shred on sharp metal.
Yeah, I'm cool with internal or partial internal for shifter but not for brakes. If you do go internal for shifter, it's important to make certain the finishing on the holes is very clean or uses a grommet so that the housing doesn't shred on sharp metal.
There's just no good reason to do it though. Even if executed well, putting unnecessary holes in the side of head/top/downtubes is bad structural engineering.
This year at Mountain Bike Oregon, they had a bike toss... Todd from HLC took second. The donor bike was a Huffy- with internal cable routing! The day after the event, a few of us ended up spending some more quality time with this bike. Nobody was surprised when the frame failed, and the first area to go was the top and down tubes, exactly at the internal cable routing holes. Not really ideal spots to put holes in a bike.
It took about 4 tosses for the frame to fail (crease) at these points.. and about 25 more tosses before serious problems happened anywhere else. Food for thought.
On a positive note, the internal cable routing did hold the frame together, when the front separated off completely, cracking clear through at the internal cable routing holes!
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.
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!
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.
Lower BB: No more than 13.5" w/170 fork and external HS. 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!
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.
(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.
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.
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!
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by builttoride
Reply With Quote
. 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.
