Claymore- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 329

Thread: Claymore

  1. #1
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,816

    Claymore

    Just curious if there is any info available on this future frame??

    Any possible geometry numbers or anything yet??
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Not fully set yet... I'll be working on it a lot this month, and will be looking for a lot of ideas and feedback (like spitfire thread).
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  3. #3
    Fo' Bidniz in da haus
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Not fully set yet... I'll be working on it a lot this month, and will be looking for a lot of ideas and feedback (like spitfire thread).
    Nice! I will help you out by clarifying which MTBRetards are worth listening to as info starts to come in from them

    I am also willing to give Banshee free advertising on my blahg

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    I think I've provided what I'm thinking about for a nice 5" travel AM bike and what I've read from Keith seems to imply he has a damn good idea how he thinks it's going to be, so I'm looking forward to seeing the first rough drafts of what it could be like. But those guys at Banshee are pretty smart and who better to ask for feedback than the actual people who will be buying the product If by chance they need Caribbean final proto testing I am volunteering myself now for it Let's not forget the most well timed intro of the year, the new RS 140mm fork, this will definitely open up the possibilities now.

    I think I can hold out and make do with the bikes I have until 2012

    You Fo'Sho have been missed around here It gets a bit dull without you around
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    Nice! I will help you out by clarifying which MTBRetards are worth listening to as info starts to come in from them

    I am also willing to give Banshee free advertising on my blahg
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  5. #5
    Fo' Bidniz in da haus
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    I think I've provided what I'm thinking about for a nice 5" travel AM bike and what I've read from Keith seems to imply he has a damn good idea how he thinks it's going to be, so I'm looking forward to seeing the first rough drafts of what it could be like. But those guys at Banshee are pretty smart and who better to ask for feedback than the actual people who will be buying the product If by chance they need Caribbean final proto testing I am volunteering myself now for it Let's not forget the most well timed intro of the year, the new RS 140mm fork, this will definitely open up the possibilities now.

    I think I can hold out and make do with the bikes I have until 2012

    You Fo'Sho have been missed around here It gets a bit dull without you around
    haha...thanks LyNx after all, I can't let you be the only one giving people grief

    as for the Claymore I agree with you and with the new REBA it would of course imply the need for tapered headtube which while people may say they dont "need" it, it certainly wont hurt and from a marketing perspective like it or not, its a must for such a bike

  6. #6
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,816
    How about-

    Tapered Head Tube
    ISCG Tabs
    5" travel
    69-70 degree HTA
    Hopefully sub 18" CS
    cable guides for dropper seat post
    around 13" BB height??
    Similar sizing to the Paradox
    Tire clearance to fit a true 2.4" tire (maybe even 2.5)
    Sub $1000 price tag would be nice too (realize that might be stretching it)

    What ya think Fo?
    Last edited by nitrousjunky; 04-24-2010 at 11:54 AM.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,849
    I'm excited

  8. #8
    Fo' Bidniz in da haus
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky
    How about-

    Tapered Head Tube
    ISCG Tabs
    5" travel
    69-70 degree HTA
    Hopefully sub 18" CS
    cable guides for dropper seat post
    around 13" BB height??
    Similar sizing to the Paradox
    Tire clearance to fit a true 2.4" tire (maybe even 2.5)
    Sub $1000 price tag would be nice too (realize that might be stretching it)

    What ya think Fo?
    as painful as it is to admit thats about right IMHO but would add that 140mm fork at 68 deg would be my choice. will be interesting to see this story develop! no doubt Lenz lovers and the such will preach for stays at 17.3mm or so while while nice, is not a dealbreaker for me but certainly under 18 should be a design goal me thinks

    Definitely agree regarding rear tire clearance....use 2.4 Ardent perhaps as baseline to ensure proper clearance.

    I also love Hammerschmidt-specific cradles along the downtube (or under downtube would be tolerable).

    your pricepoint is WAY off and unrealistic but it sounds like you realize that

  9. #9
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,354
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    no doubt Lenz lovers and the such will preach for stays at 17.3mm or so while while nice, is not a dealbreaker for me but certainly under 18 should be a design goal me thinks
    Keith gets it on this issue.

    Thankfully he won't be listening to you.

    If this bike will climb with tons of traction in the itty bitty ring, I will be sold.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  10. #10
    Fo' Bidniz in da haus
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    Keith gets it on this issue.

    Thankfully he won't be listening to you.

    If this bike will climb with tons of traction in the itty bitty ring, I will be sold.
    Like I said Banshee management...you must filter retards and even psuedo-tards like Enel who have nightmares about stays longer than 17.3 and in fact believe such stays to be designed by the Devil himself

    I am humble enough to assume Banshee knows how to and will make a bike that rides great, period. If it also has short stays then great! If not, I suppose the market who thinks in one dimension may then miss out on a great bike

  11. #11
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,354
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    Like I said Banshee management...you must filter retards and even psuedo-tards like Enel who have nightmares about stays longer than 17.3 and in fact believe such stays to be designed by the Devil himself
    I never said DT was the Devil.


    Hmmmm, he does have an interesting goatee now that you mention it.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Far as what Keith has been saying it's somewhere around 68-69 degrees for the HTA, 5-5.5" for travel and loads of tyre clearance. Can't see why he wouldn't do the ISG tabs since he's done them on the Paradox. Under 18" chainstays, heck doesn't everyone do this already? Maybe not Lenz short type, but at least under 17.75" for most bikes these days.
    Love the $1k price thing, man you know how to throw out a good joke I'd be guessing somewhere around current price for a Spitfire/Rune ($1600-1800) would be a reasonable asking price and cheap enough to allow you to pick up a good fork with the frame for about the same as a lot of the "big boys" are charging for their frames alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky
    How about-

    Tapered Head Tube
    ISCG Tabs
    5" travel
    69-70 degree HTA
    Hopefully sub 18" CS
    cable guides for dropper seat post
    around 13" BB height??
    Similar sizing to the Paradox
    Tire clearance to fit a true 2.4" tire (maybe even 2.5)
    Sub $1000 price tag would be nice too (realize that might be stretching it)

    What ya think Fo?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  13. #13
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,816
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Love the $1k price thing, man you know how to throw out a good joke
    Glad it was taken the correct way. Us poor family men gotta try.
    Last edited by nitrousjunky; 04-24-2010 at 02:28 PM.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,849

    Weight?

    All the above looks just what I would I would like to see in the new Claymore, married to banshee's suspension platform.

    Only thing not mentioned so far is some idea of target weight?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TerrorFirma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    174
    So far we're shooting for a Rune-esq type bike in a 29r.
    I can pretty much guarantee the following,
    guides for HS, and GD posts, ISCGs, Taper HT, VF4B suspension, def. 68-69 HA so slackish, 5" travel with 17.5" CS I think was the shortest we were able to go while still maintaining the travel and a normal seattube angle... this is the hardest one to acheive but we feel there's no point doing the Claymore if its going to drive like a truck.
    Talking to Keith this bike is even more of a design challenge then even the Legend, but thankfully we have the Paradox to point us in the right direction.
    For me this is the most anticipated bike because I WANT ONE!!!! super bad.
    Anyway just to let you know were listening to you guys and I'm sure there will be a few debates back and forth as we get further into development.
    So let me preemptively thank you for input.
    One of the dudes working behind the scenes at Banshee.
    Banshee main site and our Blog

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OK, strange ? for you guys at Banshee or should I say Mythic How come you're dual marketing your brand, i.e. Banshee in the US and rest of the world and Mythic in the UK? Just found it strange in having 2 names, which could hurt brand regonition is all
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    OK, strange ? for you guys at Banshee or should I say Mythic How come you're dual marketing your brand, i.e. Banshee in the US and rest of the world and Mythic in the UK? Just found it strange in having 2 names, which could hurt brand regonition is all
    The Mythic bike brand name has been in use by a large UK chain store (Halfords) for some years for a range of bikes they sell. Presumably they have the name pretected

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,593
    One thought if possible - have different HT lengths for different sized frames so that way smaller riders can have lower bars, but really tall folks don't have to use a ton of headset spacers or a super high rise stem to get their bars where they want them.

  19. #19
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,928
    Quote Originally Posted by MMcG
    One thought if possible - have different HT lengths for different sized frames so that way smaller riders can have lower bars, but really tall folks don't have to use a ton of headset spacers or a super high rise stem to get their bars where they want them.
    Thanks for that one MMcG The spacer stack is about my only complaint on my Paradox.
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    I already have everything in my notes that you guys are suggesting, so that is nice to know.

    I would have had this bike ready for prototyping earlier this year, but just don't get much design time around e-mails any more... I've got 233 e-mails to try and plow through today due to having a few days away from computer while traveling back from California. The basic design came together pretty easily, and the fine details aren't too tricky. Front derailleur is only real issue. If I got to spend my whole time on this design for the next 2 weeks I could have it finished, but it isn't going to happen I'm afraid... unless Jay wants to handle all my e-mails, team sponsorship, marketing, forum work and media stuff etc?? (haha ... thought not).

    Now that spitfire and legend frames are out there I should be able to find some time here and there to work on the design. I'll post it up as soon as it is getting to the stage while I'm ready fro feedback.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  21. #21
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,816
    Thanks builttoride! We'll be watching for updates.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  22. #22
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    I'd like to see a full 1.5 head tube so that we have more options to tune bar height with headset cups. Being able to run a flush mount top cup is real nice for us folks that treasure low bars for shreddy cornering. Especially on a 29er where the front ends tend to be tall.

  23. #23
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,691

    Sweet

    Quote Originally Posted by TerrorFirma
    So far we're shooting for a Rune-esq type bike in a 29r.
    I can pretty much guarantee the following,
    guides for HS, and GD posts, ISCGs, Taper HT, VF4B suspension, def. 68-69 HA so slackish, 5" travel with 17.5" CS
    And assuming the end result is a Rune-ish 29er, I can pretty much guarantee this will be my next frame.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Tapered or 1.5 headtube
    ISCG Tabs
    over 5" travel. 5.5 to 6" would be the teets
    69-70 degree HTA
    Hopefully sub 18" CS
    cable guides for dropper seat post. 30.9
    around 13" BB height
    Make sure there is an XL
    Tire clearance to fit a true 2.4" tire (maybe even 2.5)
    150mm maxle rear and 83mm BB I like strong 150mm rear wheels. Make sense for a 29er. Plus I have 2 sets of them
    7.875 x 2.25 shock so I can use my CCDB

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    All right, set your client to forward all e-mails to me and then I'll delegate them out to the other guys and you can go about finishing off the design

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    I already have everything in my notes that you guys are suggesting, so that is nice to know.

    I would have had this bike ready for prototyping earlier this year, but just don't get much design time around e-mails any more... I've got 233 e-mails to try and plow through today due to having a few days away from computer while traveling back from California. The basic design came together pretty easily, and the fine details aren't too tricky. Front derailleur is only real issue. If I got to spend my whole time on this design for the next 2 weeks I could have it finished, but it isn't going to happen I'm afraid... unless Jay wants to handle all my e-mails, team sponsorship, marketing, forum work and media stuff etc?? (haha ... thought not).

    Now that spitfire and legend frames are out there I should be able to find some time here and there to work on the design. I'll post it up as soon as it is getting to the stage while I'm ready fro feedback.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    764
    I can't wait for this frame. Maybe just make it HS compatible and forget the FD, people can run HS or none. FD problem solved Banshee. Any more issues I can clear up?

    Keep up the good work.
    I like to ride Bikes. This might be turning into an obsession, not sure?

  27. #27
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    How about the shimano bolt-on front derailers? (basically an e-type, without the BB part)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Claymore-fder.jpg  


  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    NEGATIVE GHOST RIDER, THAT PATERN IS A NO GO!!

    Seriously, this will be an AM bike that will if I guess right be built all the way from somewhere around XC 27-28lbs all the way up to heavy duty AM/Light FR 35+lbs, so the ability to run an FD is critical IMHO. Keep working on the FD Keith
    Quote Originally Posted by jjcools
    I can't wait for this frame. Maybe just make it HS compatible and forget the FD, people can run HS or none. FD problem solved Banshee. Any more issues I can clear up?

    Keep up the good work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    NEGATIVE GHOST RIDER, THAT PATERN IS A NO GO!!

    Seriously, this will be an AM bike that will if I guess right be built all the way from somewhere around XC 27-28lbs all the way up to heavy duty AM/Light FR 35+lbs, so the ability to run an FD is critical IMHO. Keep working on the FD Keith
    I agree with Lynx. I have to run a FD. Probably wont do HS but its still a good idea for it to be HS ready

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    It has to be FD compatible... S type FD is currently looking like the best option.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    I would say a BB height of around 13.2 or 13.3. I had a FSR with a 12.9 and had alot of pedal strikes.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OK, I've thought of something I don't think anyone else has mentioned and IT IS 29er specific to an extent.........RD hanger Yes, look and laugh, but here's my reasoning and thoughts.

    Right now there's basically 2 rear axle width options, 135mm and 150mm (that other 142.5mm BS with flanges no further aprt is utter crap) and I think this bike can fall into using either one of those. Now a lot of folks have 135mm spaced wheels and wanted something stiffer/stronger so went with an SS hub to build a dishless wheel which is stiffer and stronger and then fitted as many cogs on there as possible per each manufacturers hubs, normally 5,6 or 7 - I have 7 on my Hope Pro2 SS hub.

    Most have opted to use the easier/bigger cogs (since we ride MTBs and not roadies) i.e. starting at 34 and working their way down smaller/harder. Right now a lot of us running this setup have issues running stock RDs and B-tension screws to achieve this because in essence, where the granny cog is now is actually where the 3 or 4th cog would normally be on a 9 spd hub, so the pulleys are sitting in a space where a 26t cog used to and rubbing.

    Now onto my point......I think it would be FANTASTIC if this was taken into consideration when offering up the RD hanger and possibly have an option that is thicker and thereby hold the RD off the frame a bit further so as to not have as much interference between the pulleys and cogs, but not so much as to move it too far into harms way of rocks, bushes and other trail crap.

    Thoughts? I (of course) think it's a brilliant idea. Oh and could you please make the lip for the B-tension screw "enough" to not have the screw slip off if you need to crank the RD all the way back using it
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    217
    Looks like most of my design choices have been mentioned above, except a few. I like the idea of the slacker head angle, and really like the way Intense is using a 1.5" with the ability to run some of the new K9 Reducer cups. This gives people a lot of options for HT angle, but unfortunately looks like it would preclude us from using the new tapered only 140mm Reba, so that's probably out. Also, I really like the modular dropouts option on the rear end that allow both different hub widths (135, 142, 150mm) AND changing wheelbase and chainstay length (longer/shorter) based on dropout size used.

    And yes, being a proud Paradox owner I am willing to "sacrifice" my Paradox riding time to be a prototype tester for the new Claymore. Someone's gotta take one for the team.....might as well be me.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    I really like the idea of a modular style drop out but did not say it because none of their other bikes has them so i thought it would be a stretch.
    Last edited by sikocycles; 04-27-2010 at 11:19 AM.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    (that other 142.5mm BS with flanges no further aprt is utter crap)
    Have you used thru axle hubs? I find it funny to hear people call this system BS but it actually serves a great purpose for thru axle drop outs.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    I really like the idea of a modular style drop out but did not say it because none of their other bikes has them so i thought it would be a stretch.
    Agreed, but it doesn't hurt to let the designer know our thoughts. Clearly a number of new, longer travel bikes will be using some sort of new dropout design (Intense Tracer, Norco Shinobi, etc), so I think it's something Banshee would want to look at.

    Fingers crossed......

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    I agree. I hope for a 150mm rear thought. I love the maxle rear on my Lenz bikes. It works very well plus the 150 will build a stiffer and stronger 29er wheel.

  38. #38
    Fo' Bidniz in da haus
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Oh and could you please make the lip for the B-tension screw "enough" to not have the screw slip off if you need to crank the RD all the way back using it
    agree 100%. i like your bandaid as i noticed the same exact thing where it B-A-R-E-L-Y makes contact when backed out all the way

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    No I have not used this new fix for a non-existing problem. Right now as I said I run the Hope Pro2 hub with 10mmm bolts and have no issues if you want wider 150mm is only 15mm wider and AFAIK the hub flanges are actually spaced wider giving a reason for using the wider spacing. If you have any more info to conivnce me otherwise please feel free to share it with us, oh and BTW, I think the designer will agree with me on the 142mm new standard - just a wild guess

    Quote Originally Posted by shirk
    Have you used thru axle hubs? I find it funny to hear people call this system BS but it actually serves a great purpose for thru axle drop outs.
    Once again, thanks for the regognition and here's hoping that maybe my suggestion be taken into consideration for this new design
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    agree 100%. i like your bandaid as i noticed the same exact thing where it B-A-R-E-L-Y makes contact when backed out all the way
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    I think the designer will agree with me on the 142mm new standard - just a wild guess

    Don't bring me into this! haha

    oh ok then... personally I'm not really sold on the 142mm spacing. The only purpose it serves in my eyes is to make wheel insertion easier. But it also increases cost of the bike slightly and reduces the number of wheel options for the customer. I'm definately thinking I might maybe the claymore 150x12mm spacing tho...
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  41. #41
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,691
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Don't bring me into this! haha

    oh ok then... personally I'm not really sold on the 142mm spacing. The only purpose it serves in my eyes is to make wheel insertion easier. But it also increases cost of the bike slightly and reduces the number of wheel options for the customer. I'm definately thinking I might maybe the claymore 150x12mm spacing tho...
    Well, coming from someone who already has a 150x12mm rear wheel, that sounds awesome.

    It would be nice to be able to run a chain guide/tensioner. I wasn't able to get the e13 DRS on my WFO frame, although I've since heard that the MRP works. I know it's a busy area down there, but... I might take the leap into internally geared cranks at some point, but I'm in the 'wait and see' camp right now.

    I don't remember reading what you're thinking re: BB height, but as I'm not going to be racing buff singletrack so much as bashing through rocks on joyrides, I'd like a skoosh more height to cut back on pedal strikes.

    I really like the idea of the Claymore as a burly, rowdy bike. I've been away for a month, but I don't remember seeing any Rune builds that would weigh in under the mid-to-low 30s. There are plenty of lighter 4-5" travel 29ers on the market already, so I'm really excited to read the way you're thinking of taking the Claymore. All ears and eyes...

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Don't bring me into this! haha

    oh ok then... personally I'm not really sold on the 142mm spacing. The only purpose it serves in my eyes is to make wheel insertion easier. But it also increases cost of the bike slightly and reduces the number of wheel options for the customer. I'm definately thinking I might maybe the claymore 150x12mm spacing tho...
    Thats fantastic news. I really like the Maxle design. I have it on my Lenz and it works very well.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    764
    This is one of the most worth while threads on this whole forum. Rider input - designer feedback without all the BS.

    This is going to get really good when some protos are mocked up and CF gets his hands on one to brag about.
    I like to ride Bikes. This might be turning into an obsession, not sure?

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Claymore....

    my stance on this bike is that the bike should be capable of all things that the rune is... and being a 29er frame which is stiff and 150x12mm spacing, it will not be a super light frame (extra stiff ness results in a more efficient ride than less weight generally) but the frame will not be heavy! I'm not going to purposefully mAKE IT HEAVY BY ANY MEANS, IT WILL BE AS LIGHT AS POSSIBLE, BUT WILL BE DESIGNED TO BE STIFFER AND MORE CAPABLE THAN ANYTHING OUT THERE (wow sorry caps attack).

    I plan to make it chain guide compatible with ISCG 05 as well as front derailleur compatible as prevously mentioned, and HS compatible too... but this all might be a bit tricky with VF4B linkage and 17.5" chainstays (originally I was planning to go 17.3" but 17.5" will actually fell better on the trail)

    BB height is still up in the air a bit... I may even make it adjustable like spitfire. thinking maybe 2 geometry options, and they might even adjust travel slightly too (5" and 5.5")? but I'm getting ahead of myself a bit there.

    1.5" head tube like the rune... gives lots of fork and headset options as well as angle reducer capablilities if desired. HA may be around 68degrees roughly with 140mm forks. but again that needs tuning in.

    Seat angle will likely be around 73-74 degrees (unsagged) nice and steep to help climbing position.

    head tube length will change between sizes...

    it will fit a 29x2.5" rear tire

    30.9mm seat post (frame will have remote post cable guides)

    73mm BB

    2.25" stroke shock for low leverage ratio most likely, but still playing around with these things.

    So in short, the Claymore will be like a 29er rune in terms of strength, between rune and spitfire in terms of geometry... and actually have a touch of legend thrown in there as well...

    Again this is still early days, but I know you guys like to get the inside scoop, and provide great feedback and ideas, so I'd be daft not to throw some info at you early on to hear opinions on it.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  45. #45
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,354
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    So in short, the Claymore will be like a 29er rune
    Interesting decision. Originally I thought you were shooting for a 29"er Spitfire. Certainly that is where 29" forks are right now IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Sounds like a winner to me. As i said before I thikg the 150mm rear wheel is great.
    Will the frame be ok to use the 175mm Dorado upfront for some lift acess fun?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    So to sum up for BTR...............

    Stiff a$$ frame, as light as possible, without compromising integrity of frame
    Climb like a Mountain Goat, Descend like a hillbilly being chased by the wrong clan
    150x12 Maxle Lite Rear
    Built around a 140mm fork
    You'll have a Swiss Army knife BB area
    2 : 1 leverage ratio

    In essence, this wil truly be a Do-it-ALL bike Oh yeah when again are we talking? Dang 2012 seems a while away and I certainly don't want it to come any faster than it does cause that's 2 years less I have on this globe, but the MTBer in me does want it to hurry up and get here.

    On an aside regarding angles and SAG Never quite understood why angles are given UN-sagged I've wondered about this from time to time and today I was thinking about why my FS29er pedals better/nicer than my rigid one. So I decided to check cockpit measurements and see how closely I had them set up, since I'd only gone roughly by total cockpit length and rough feel on saddle position and by looking down at my knee over th pedal while seated on them. The measurements were fairly close, in a building a home maybe sort of way, but off actually by about a 1/4", then I got to wondering, what if I let the air out of the shock and compress the suspension to the 9mm of SAG well the saddle then went back another 1/2" or so is what. So in reality when I thought I was pretty close with my setups, in actuality I was off by more than about 3/4" - I can feel when I lower or raise my saddle 3mm.

    thoughts off

    By the time this gets to market, someone would have introduced a 140mm travel adjust fork with 36mm stanchions
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    Interesting decision. Originally I thought you were shooting for a 29"er Spitfire. Certainly that is where 29" forks are right now IMO.
    Last edited by LyNx; 04-28-2010 at 09:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  48. #48
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,691
    Thanks for the from-the-source info. Sounds awesome.

  49. #49
    Delirious Tuck
    Reputation: thefriar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,437
    I'm with evasive on the BB height... something in the mid 13 range would be great or maybe 13.25 with 5'' and 13.75'' with 5.5'' sub 13.25'' in New England rocks and roots is just a no go.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    98
    sounds like an awesome frame. gotta start saving, and when i thought my wildcard will be my last bike, now i'm riding a spitfire and too thinking that the SF will be my last frame change, you guys have to wet my appetite for another bike!

    and getting info straight from you guys, i feel, is the best thing!
    rather than having to dig through rumors and scratch of info from all over the internet, then getting disappointed when the final product is nothing what i hoped it to be.

    kudos to you guys! companies should learn to engage their customers more.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    124
    Keith - What is a realistic timeframe?

    This sounds like my dream AM frame. I was considering a Rune to get me through the next couple of years when a true AM fork is released (Fox 36 29er). Sounds like the Claymore with a real 140-150 fork is the ticket. Do I need to get a Rune because this frame will not be out until 2012, or are you thinking early to mid 2011?

    I currently own a Lenz Lunchbox. I think all of your design points are spot-on.

    1.5 Headtube
    17.5 Chainstays
    Anti-Squat suspension
    Chainguide/HS and FD compatibility

    I do love my high BB - 13.5 - 14 is ideal in the rocks.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Realistic date is 2012. I need to design the frame, and always like to spend at least a year testing the frames in machines and under multiple riders before release so that I get it right first time. I'm not prepared to release a potentially second rate product into the market just to make a quick buck... testing is very important!

    Earliest possible it will be out is mid to late 2011... but 2012 is far more realistic.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    It is good that you will get it right but bad that we have to wait that long.

  54. #54
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,691
    Good for me- I can't afford a new frame for a while anyway, and now I don't have to pine away.

  55. #55
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,691
    Afterthought- besides, the fork market should be improved by then.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    98
    haha honestly i think it's really awesome that you guys came out early to share what you guys have planned on the road map. i felt really cheated when i received my wildcard frame and news of the spitfire came out shortly. i really wanted the spitfire frame.

    but now knowing that there's gonna be a 29" "rune", it'll greatly affect any frame purchase decisions i'll have for the next 2 years.

    btw, i love totally love the wildcard, mainly used it for my local trails, 90% climbs... most of the time i manage to keep up, if not out run others on sub 12kg bikes. and when i threw my legs over a spitfire, i was just on steroids, from all the "weight" training i went through with the wildcard...

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Same boat as you right now and thankful it'll take till then and doesn't cause me to have to sell any organs if it was an earlier release, cause I'm sure not stoked on my what I'm riding now and would love something new
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive
    Good for me- I can't afford a new frame for a while anyway, and now I don't have to pine away.

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Realistic date is 2012. I need to design the frame, and always like to spend at least a year testing the frames in machines and under multiple riders before release so that I get it right first time. I'm not prepared to release a potentially second rate product into the market just to make a quick buck... testing is very important!

    Earliest possible it will be out is mid to late 2011... but 2012 is far more realistic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    I was hoping for more of a spitfire 29er myself. 4-5" with real trail geo. ( I know there is alot of 4-5 bikes out but they are all full XC rigs) Keep it flicky like a rampant with big wheels and the low slung feel of the spitfire. If you start getting it overbuild its going to looses a lot of apeal and be labled as a big hit rig. Which would be fine, but if thats the case, go 6". 150 spaced and make it a freeride bike. The whole 4" 29 = 6" 26 is a crock. a drop is a drop and my knees cant tell the difference in wheels size Im just thinking you would apeal to a larger range of riders but still be in its own nitch ( true trail 29 ripper, not a XC frame with strong parts) and that, as we know, equals sales.

    I say:
    Tapered HT
    135 spacing ( or maybe replaceable drops so you could go both 150 or 135 and lower the bb for us guys that dont smack pedals)
    4-4.5 travel built around a 140mm fork
    Sexy trail shreding machine

    Just my random thoughts.
    Enjoy every ride!

  59. #59
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,354
    Quote Originally Posted by m-dub
    I was hoping for more of a spitfire 29er myself. 4-5" with real trail geo. ( I know there is alot of 4-5 bikes out but they are all full XC rigs) Keep it flicky like a rampant with big wheels and the low slung feel of the spitfire. If you start getting it overbuild its going to looses a lot of apeal and be labled as a big hit rig. Which would be fine, but if thats the case, go 6". 150 spaced and make it a freeride bike. The whole 4" 29 = 6" 26 is a crock. a drop is a drop and my knees cant tell the difference in wheels size Im just thinking you would apeal to a larger range of riders but still be in its own nitch ( true trail 29 ripper, not a XC frame with strong parts) and that, as we know, equals sales.

    I say:
    Tapered HT
    135 spacing ( or maybe replaceable drops so you could go both 150 or 135 and lower the bb for us guys that dont smack pedals)
    4-4.5 travel built around a 140mm fork
    Sexy trail shreding machine

    Just my random thoughts.
    I agree with pretty much everything you say, and hope the Spitfire replaces the Rune as the goal for the Claymore. Not to say Runish 29"ers are bad, I already have one though
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    interesting ideas... originally my idea was a 29er spitfire... but I was convinced towrads the rune... I think it will fall in the middle at the end of the day.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    I think something in the middle would be best but a little closer to the Rune.
    There is a need for a heavier duty longer travel 29er and this will hit the mark.
    I think a type of modular drop out would be best but I would opt for the 150mm spacing.
    135 QR
    135 Maxle
    150Maxle would be great options.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,799
    Did I mention how much I HATE waiting for stuff? This may prove to be to painful for me...... CF......

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by CRAZY FRED
    Did I mention how much I HATE waiting for stuff? This may prove to be to painful for me...... CF......
    I agree. This will be painful.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HotzKiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    199
    more like a spitfire on steroid with tall legs
    :P

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083

    ... and if we just ...

    Well enjoy your sufferin, because I for one am glad it won't be out until 2012 (maybe very late 2011) since by then I'll have the $$$ saved up for it and will appreciate it even more because of the wait AND knowing it won't be "updated" anytime in the next couple years after release

    Quote Originally Posted by CRAZY FRED
    Did I mention how much I HATE waiting for stuff? This may prove to be to painful for me...... CF......
    What I meant to say was......make sure that it uses bushings and not bearings in case there was any doubt along those lines, as bearings don't seem to handle wet weather conditions too well, like stream crossings that submerge the pivots etc.
    Last edited by LyNx; 05-05-2010 at 10:12 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  66. #66
    Fo' Bidniz in da haus
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    I agree with pretty much everything you say, and hope the Spitfire replaces the Rune as the goal for the Claymore. Not to say Runish 29"ers are bad, I already have one though
    why are you still interested? isnt it going to be 0.2" longer in the stays than your completely arbitrary 17.3? maybe they should just call it 17.3 so you will love it no matter how it rides, knowing or thinking its 17.3.

  67. #67
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,698
    That was a good read. THx for pointing me to this thread shirk
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  68. #68
    Blanco
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,332
    Lee pointed me at this thread: I like it. Thoughts:

    -Why bother with anything less than 5.5" travel? Plenty of those bikes already.

    -Don't be afraid of slack HTA. I ride a custom with 67 HTA and notice no wheel flop, "slow steering", or other downsides...what I do notice is that the bike tracks through anything and is happier on steep downhills. Maybe the steering feels slow if you've got gram-shaver handlebars that look like two hotdogs stuck into your stem, but with the sort of big wide bars this bike will ask for, I guarantee it doesn't matter.

    -Steep STA is tits. I ride 74 STA on a softail (= perhaps a few mm sag) with a straight post, and I would go even steeper if I had it to do over. 74 will sag to perhaps 72 when seated: I'd like to see 77 sagging to 75. Maybe if I were pedaling seated on buff Midwest singletrack with low bars I'd want a slacker STA, but on this sort of bike you'll either be grinding uphill or standing on the pedals as you rip downhill.

    Plus, steep STA means you can have a slack HTA and still climb steep stuff without the front wheel wandering around, and you can have shorter chainstays without looping out.

    -I like the adjustable geometry on the Spitfire.

    -Different HT lengths: yes, please. Tall people are taller!

    -Cable guides for a remote seatpost: yes, please.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OK, I thought I'd bring this over here this time and keep the spitty threads clear.

    Keith, I'll take it that the Claymore will have the same suspension and pedalling characteristics as the Spitfire, is there anything that will be done diffferent to help minimize this effect? I'm currious, because I enjoy earning my downs as much as the downs, the techier the better i.e. I am not one to compromise climbing ability for descending capability.

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Anti squat = pedal kickback, especially when combined with active suspension under braking and a low BB. Bike design is all about optimisation and selective compromise.

    Having proper damping tune on the shock as well as correct sag setting (12mm at shock) will help reduce pedal kickback for most situations. But chain stretch and rearward axle path (which will always result in pedal kickback) have massive benefits which outweigh the negatives once you get used to the ride. I noticed a bit of pedal kickback on first few rides, but have adapted and and now riding harder and faster than ever before, and really enjoying it.

    I know the design will not suit everyone, but it tends to suit the more agressive and faster riders, and the harder it is pushed the better it performs.

    I think that a lot of people will end up running 1x10 on this bike in time, you might need slightly stronger legs for the steepest of climbs, but it will be lighter and more efficient.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Claymore will be a bit different to spitfire or rune. It will be a bit more progressive so that it can take some abuse from bigger guys and protect both frame and shock. The axle path will not be quite as rearward due to less need for this with bigger wheels, and as such the chainstretch will be reduced a bit with a touch less any squat designed to work with slightly smaller chainrings used for 29ers.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    488
    Rock Shox to release a 140mm fork for 29ers

    http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...rst-look-26196

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    yup... 3 models all weighing in a 4.1lbs with adjustable travel internally between 130/140mm from what I can see.

    RLT Ti Dual Air Thru Axle
    RLT Dual Air Thru Axle
    RL Dual Air Thru Axle
    Last edited by builttoride; 05-18-2010 at 04:31 AM.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OK, that's cool, thanks for the response So according to your description then I should be good since I don't need those wussy gears
    Keith. Oh and please don't buy into that farse created by weak legged individuals who couldn't push a stroller up the mall ramp I found that when I moved to the 29er platform I found I could climb in a harder gear and as such changed my gearing up 2 teeth per ring. Was running a 22/32/44 tripple on the FS when I did Laramie and Leadville, then moved to a 24/34/4/6 amd currently run a 24/38 double on the FS and 34/46 on the rigid/roadie.

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Claymore will be a bit different to spitfire or rune. It will be a bit more progressive so that it can take some abuse from bigger guys and protect both frame and shock. The axle path will not be quite as rearward due to less need for this with bigger wheels, and as such the chainstretch will be reduced a bit with a touch less any squat designed to work with slightly smaller chainrings used for 29ers.
    Another small question for you Keith..have you decided roughly on a shock i2i and stroke?
    Last edited by LyNx; 05-18-2010 at 07:09 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    yup... 3 models all weighing in a 4.1lbs with adjustable travel internally between 130/140mm from what I can see.

    RLT Ti Dual Air Thru Axle
    RLT Dual Air Thru Axle
    RL Dual Air Thru Axle
    This new 140 Reba is just going to be a PERFECT match for the Claymore....This thing is going to own the AM/FR 29er market..Yes I said OWN......I freaken HATE waiting for stuff like this..This one is just killing me bad....However the good news is a Spitfire should be showing up on me doorstep any time now..I'm DYING to ride this bike..Hope that I can, I swear I've gotton and am still getting at least 3-5 PM's / e-mails a week from guys (mostly in New England) asking when and where will I be riding this bike, and can they try it, borrow it, HAVE IT.. Hey it's all good right? Claymore,Claymore, Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claym ore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,C laymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymo re,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Cl aymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymor e,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Claymore,Cla ymore,Claymore.. .........CF.....................Yes I know, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME........

  75. #75
    Double-metric mtb man
    Reputation: Psycho Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,482
    Just a couple things.

    1) I'm in agreement with some of the "ballpark" numbers Fo was throwing around. Short CS's are nice, but don't overdo it.

    2) I'd say lean more to the AM side of things. With Fisher putting out the Rumblefish and others following suit in the trail/light AM areas, going more Rune-esque would be a good idea IMHO.

    3) If you need a clyde class rider to torture test, I'm available

    4) I'd lean toward a 68-69 degree HA. More slack and it could get a little mushy, steeper and it could get twitchy....I find that seems to be the sweet spot for an AM bike.
    As if four times wasn't enough-> Psycho Mike's 2013 Ride to Conquer Cancer Page

    Moran? Let your opinion be free -> F88me

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx

    Another small question for you Keith..have you decided roughly on a shock i2i and stroke?
    thinking currently an efficient 140mm travel suspension system with 200x57mm shock.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  77. #77
    Gear Whore
    Reputation: mudpuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,352
    Holy carp..I want this bike...trade you my rune when it comes out....if you want husky test riders in BC just let me know...haha...

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    thinking currently an efficient 140mm travel suspension system with 200x57mm shock.
    Great that is the size of my CCDB

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Since everyone's offering up testing services, if you want some Caribbean testing on nasty coralstone with clay layden mud then just shoot me a note and send down an XL frame, I'll deal with the fork to put on it
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    OK, I want to get this thread kickstarted back into action, because I've finally been able to find some good design time and have been working away on the claymore.

    I actually had to completely scrap my initial design even tho I was haf way through it... there were clearance issues and front derailleur issues, that I'm sure I could have fixed, but would have been tight and generally would have been like trying to save a sinking ship... so have an all new design, with different suspension playform (although still VF4B, just not quite as you know it).

    In the process I've managed to create a lot more room for tire clearance and FD clearance (going direct frame mount E type).

    I've set travel at a highly efficient 140mm (trust me it will pedal as well as most 120mm bikes).

    Currently I've gone with following rough overall geometry, but a lot will nodoubt be tweaked as things progress...

    Head angle - 67.5 degrees eith 140mm fork, (about 68.5 degrees with 120mm)
    effective seat Angle - 74 degrees
    CS length - 17.4"
    BB height (with 140mm forks and avaerage 2.3" tires) - roughly 13.6"

    I'm going to go with full 1.5" head tube... this opens up most fork options as well as angle reducer cups if desired.

    Shock will be 7.875x2.25" (designed around large volume air shock, like rune, and leverage curve will be kind of similar)

    The designs has been optimised around a 32 tooth chainring (normally I got around 34-36 for 26ers, but obviously for a 29er the gearing drops at the front on average). Less chainstretch and antisquat than most my 26" designs (although similar curve profile), due to larger wheels requiring a less rearward axle path to roll fast over the rough stuff.

    the normal 30.9mm seat post and will have cable routing for remote posts.

    Standard shock hardwear with 8mm bolts front and back.

    ISCG 05

    Fully sealed INA bearings throughout (probably running on full titanium axles and bolts like the legend).

    I plan to have some sort of dropout adjustibility, but haven't quite got to the rear traingle part of the design yet (is currently just a triangle in my model... haha)

    I want feedback on what I've said above, plus I want to hear opinions on rear hub spacing and axle options. do you want regular 135mm, or solid axle options... what about 150mm? The BB will be 73mm for reference.

    Over to you guys... hit me with your feedback and suggestions. I'm all ears!
    Last edited by builttoride; 06-04-2010 at 05:28 AM.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,884
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    The designs has been optimised around a 32 tooth chainring (normally I got around 34-36 for 26ers, but obviously for a 26er the gearing drops at the front on average). Less chainstretch and antisquat than most my 26" designs (although similar curve profile), due to larger wheels requiring a less rearward axle path to roll fast over the rough stuff.
    I like this a lot! If there is one thing I would change on the Spitfire is the amount of anti-squat in little ring. It's not even a pedal feedback thing, it just feels funny climbing technical stuff with a suspension that wants to stay so high up in the travel. I don't know if it is even possible to maintain the axle path of the middle ring and its awesome ability to smooth out the terrain, while reducing chainstretch below sag in 22-26t.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971
    I like this a lot! If there is one thing I would change on the Spitfire is the amount of anti-squat in little ring. It's not even a pedal feedback thing, it just feels funny climbing technical stuff with a suspension that wants to stay so high up in the travel. I don't know if it is even possible to maintain the axle path of the middle ring and its awesome ability to smooth out the terrain, while reducing chainstretch below sag in 22-26t.
    Not really unless I introduced an idler puller (shudder at the thought!) or massively increase the brake squat.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OK Keith, here's my thoughts........I've never riden a bike with that slack a HA before, except around a showroom and it felt weird, slackest I think I've riden is 69-70, but I guess it depends on what your final design goals are for the bike - more Agro XC/AM I'd think a bit steeper angle around 69 static would work, more AM/Light FR then I guess the slacker angle. For me it's all about the climbing, a bike has to climb well for me as I enjoy paying for the downs

    As to the suspension design around a 32t ring I think that says it all for me. From what you've said so far I envision this will be a dual ring setup type bike and most dual rign setup these days is something like 22-24/34-36 and being that you feel pedal feedback/kickback when climbing in the granny/smal ring and knowing that most aren't superman and would be peddaling in the granny I wonder how it will ride/climb like this - I personally run 24/38 so I have enough top end for long road or smooth stretches, so there's not much chance once I hit a real trail that I'll stay in the 38 ring. Have no clue what ring size my current ride is designed around, but it does climb well.

    As to actual travel....if the rear is designed around 140mm, don't even mention a 120mm fork angle or even think about it IMHO. In the few years riding, I have never been one to think of running less travel on the front than rear, always more, if the travel is to not be matched, let the rear be less, fron is normally where you need more.

    Replaceable drop outs on both side for normal 10mm/QR and then 12mm I think would be a great thing. I already know your stance on the silly 142mm standard so know you won't be going there but I'm wondering if an option of either 135 or 150 is a plausable thing? Thinking along the lines that depending on what/how you want to buld it up and what parts you might already bhave and want cross compatability it might be a nice option. Me personally I'd think a 150mm rear would be the way to go if only 1 option, since on 29er wheels you want to take as much advantage to get the stiffest wheel possible to offset those longer spokes.

    How come bearings and not bushings?

    Hope maybe someof this was/is helpful.
    Last edited by LyNx; 06-04-2010 at 05:57 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Head angle - 67.5 degrees eith 140mm fork, (about 68.5 degrees with 120mm)
    Wow, this is probably the slackest 29er world!

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Fully sealed INA bearings throughout (probably running on full titanium axles and bolts like the legend).
    Why bearings and not bushings like Spitfire/Rune?

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    I've set travel at a highly efficient 140mm (trust me it will pedal as well as most 120mm bikes).This is a perfect place to be in travel. One of the longer travel 29ers out there.

    Currently I've gone with following rough overall geometry, but a lot will nodoubt be tweaked as things progress...

    Head angle - 67.5 degrees eith 140mm fork, (about 68.5 degrees with 120mm)67.5 is what my Lenz Lunch box is and that is perfect for climbing and all around riding. I never feel that it is too slack
    effective seat Angle - 74 degreesPerfect. I hate being way over the rear tire
    CS length - 17.4"Great and flickable
    BB height (with 140mm forks and avaerage 2.3" tires) - roughly 13.6"Would like it a little higher. Maybe around 14" but I can live with it. Lots of rocks in the east coast. Hate pedal strikes

    I'm going to go with full 1.5" head tube... this opens up most fork options as well as angle reducer cups if desired.Great. Not much to say here but perfect

    Shock will be 7.875x2.25" (designed around large volume air shock, like rune, and leverage curve will be kind of similar)My cane creek will fit plus all other great air shocks will fit.

    The designs has been optimised around a 32 tooth chainring (normally I got around 34-36 for 26ers, but obviously for a 29er the gearing drops at the front on average). Less chainstretch and antisquat than most my 26" designs (although similar curve profile), due to larger wheels requiring a less rearward axle path to roll fast over the rough stuff.Great I pedal most in my 32 but has to pedal great in a 22.

    the normal 30.9mm seat post and will have cable routing for remote posts.

    Standard shock hardwear with 8mm bolts front and back.

    ISCG 05Just make sure Hammers will fit just in case

    Fully sealed INA bearings throughout (probably running on full titanium axles and bolts like the legend).


    All in all it sounds like a perfect bike.
    Just make sure the XL has a 25.25 or 25.5 top tube and around a 20" seat tube with alot of clearence over the TT.
    I would like it to be 150mm maxle rear end. I think it builds a little stronger wheel. But a 135 option is also good for the people with 135mm rear wheels

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    One more thing. Make it strong enough so I can slap my dorado on the bike and take it to lift access places.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    The pedal kickback is not that significant in 22tooth chainring (about half that of the rune for reference). I'd rather make a bike pedal well in a wider range of chainring sizes, than focus on 22 tooth chainring, and make it AWFUL for larger sizes. It will pedal well in 22toother, maybe not optimum, but certainly not badly.

    The slack head angle will help with climbing (yes I know it goes against all you have been told (marketing BS), but think about it... it makes the front lower and puts weight further forward to keep the front wheel on the ground... ) only place where there is a down side is on tight switchbacks... but 2 degrees on a tight switchback really doesn't make that much difference. But I'm willing to adjust if thats what everyone wants... I will not go steeper than 68.5 tho, as the bike will not climb as well or descend as well... or be as much fun!

    Ask a spitfire owner about how well their bike climbs with 66 degree head angle... you may be surprised... but bear in mind that the antisquat characteristics I design into all VF4B bikes keeps them high in the travel when under power, which when combined with 74 degree seat angle makes then climb a LOT better than full sus bikes that sag backwards putting your weight way over the back wheel.

    This bike is aimed at agressive trail - all mountain riding. (bit of a cross between spitfire and rune but with big wheels).

    I can make BB height slightly higher if that is what people want, but don't want to go as high as 14" maybe 13.8" max. BB height has such a massive effect on how a bike performs that I want to keep it in my planned range, but am open to your suggestiongs to adjust within range (13.6 +- 0.25").

    Bearing v's bushings: We have had a lot of sucess with our bushing systems, but they rely very heavily on regular maintenance to keep them running peachy. Our experience with this has told us that although most of you guys are nicely on top of that, our average customer wants less maintenance time and more ride time. Seems fair to me, so I have been listening to what feedback we have been recieving and adjusting acordingly. I'm using very common bearings so will be cheap to replace if needed, but they really should last years without any issues as I'm actually specing proper sized bearing for the loads... I know... in this industry that seems like madness! haha
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    The pedal kickback is not that significant in 22tooth chainring (about half that of the rune for reference). I'd rather make a bike pedal well in a wider range of chainring sizes, than focus on 22 tooth chainring, and make it AWFUL for larger sizes. It will pedal well in 22toother, maybe not optimum, but certainly not badly.This sound great. Most of my pedaling is done in the 32 so make it pedal better there. Can deal with slight pedal kick in the 22.

    The slack head angle will help with climbing (yes I know it goes against all you have been told (marketing BS), but think about it... it makes the front lower and puts weight further forward to keep the front wheel on the ground... ) only place where there is a down side is on tight switchbacks... but 2 degrees on a tight switchback really doesn't make that much difference. But I'm willing to adjust if thats what everyone wants... I will not go steeper than 68.5 tho, as the bike will not climb as well or descend as well... or be as much fun!
    Keep it slack. Make the bike much more fun. People will get used to how to ride it on tight switch backs.
    Ask a spitfire owner about how well their bike climbs with 66 degree head angle... you may be surprised... but bear in mind that the antisquat characteristics I design into all VF4B bikes keeps them high in the travel when under power, which when combined with 74 degree seat angle makes then climb a LOT better than full sus bikes that sag backwards putting your weight way over the back wheel.

    This bike is aimed at agressive trail - all mountain riding. (bit of a cross between spitfire and rune but with big wheels).

    I can make BB height slightly higher if that is what people want, but don't want to go as high as 14" maybe 13.8" max. BB height has such a massive effect on how a bike performs that I want to keep it in my planned range, but am open to your suggestiongs to adjust within range (13.6 +- 0.25"). All I know is the problems I had with my Spec with the 13" BB. I had so many crank and pedal strikes. So 13.6 to 13.8 would be fine. Just want the bike to carve turns well

    Bearing v's bushings: We have had a lot of sucess with our bushing systems, but they rely very heavily on regular maintenance to keep them running peachy. Our experience with this has told us that although most of you guys are nicely on top of that, our average customer wants less maintenance time and more ride time. Seems fair to me, so I have been listening to what feedback we have been recieving and adjusting acordingly. I'm using very common bearings so will be cheap to replace if needed, but they really should last years without any issues as I'm actually specing proper sized bearing for the loads... I know... in this industry that seems like madness! haha
    Bearing please
    I think this bike you have here will be a winner. I cant wait for it.

  89. #89
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,816
    Thanks for the update!

    Sounds great to me! I think the HT angle probably will work well with what the bike is intended for. I've never been on anything slacker than 69, but that is a HT too.

    I personally don't think I'd want the BB height any higher than where you have it, DEFINITELY not lower.

    I agree also that 150mm rear probably will suit the bike the best, but I also would like to see it offered with a 135mm or 150mm option.

    Everything else looks just dandy!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  90. #90
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,691
    Awesome- thanks for the update, and for listening. This is probably my favorite thread on MTBR at the moment.

    I guess you don't know anything more than any of us do about bigger forks coming down the road, huh?

    I like everything you've laid out. I'm currently on a WFO9, and the HTA (~70 with a 44) is a bit steep for my liking, particularly in babyhead piles.

    I have a 150mm rear hub, and want to see the Claymore have that option. This bike is going to invite abuse from bigger guys, and it just makes sense.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Bearing v's bushings: We have had a lot of sucess with our bushing systems, but they rely very heavily on regular maintenance to keep them running peachy. Our experience with this has told us that although most of you guys are nicely on top of that, our average customer wants less maintenance time and more ride time. Seems fair to me, so I have been listening to what feedback we have been recieving and adjusting acordingly. I'm using very common bearings so will be cheap to replace if needed, but they really should last years without any issues as I'm actually specing proper sized bearing for the loads... I know... in this industry that seems like madness! haha
    Does this mean you're going to use bearings with future batches of Spitfire and Rune?

  92. #92
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    The bike sounds good all around. I just hope that by 2012 there will be some 35-36mm stanchion forks to keep up with it!

    I've never really been convinced that a 150mm hub is a good match for a 73mm BB shell - especially with two rings and a bashguard. A 135mm rear end convertible between QR and solid is the best option in my mind. Lots of people mention the Maxle, but how about some kind of tapered system?

    Since an effective seat angle and e-type front derailleur are mentioned, I imagine some sort of curved or interrupted seat tube is going to be used. How much seatpost adjustment is going to be possible?

  93. #93
    Cracker
    Reputation: thecrackerasscracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    963
    The Rune needs bearings !!!!!
    It might get a little steep from here

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Blofeld
    The bike sounds good all around. I just hope that by 2012 there will be some 35-36mm stanchion forks to keep up with it!

    I've never really been convinced that a 150mm hub is a good match for a 73mm BB shell - especially with two rings and a bashguard. A 135mm rear end convertible between QR and solid is the best option in my mind. Lots of people mention the Maxle, but how about some kind of tapered system?

    Since an effective seat angle and e-type front derailleur are mentioned, I imagine some sort of curved or interrupted seat tube is going to be used. How much seatpost adjustment is going to be possible?
    Never had a hint of a problem with my 150mm rear and 73mm BB shell on my LunchBox or on my Knoll V-Tach. More if a myth if you ask me.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Calhoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,234
    please don't change the HA, if it is too slack for some they can use the K9 cups to steepen things up.

    the only other input I really have is that I hope this bike comes out soon. I am sick of my RIP.

  96. #96
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,698
    Keep the HA slack. Too many steep HA 29ers already. Break the mold and challenge the conception that 29ers can't be ridden in technical terrain - don't build a bike for plum-smuggling paved trails
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  97. #97
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    Never had a hint of a problem with my 150mm rear and 73mm BB shell on my LunchBox or on my Knoll V-Tach. More if a myth if you ask me.
    I've got a Socom that works fine 73/150, only real issues are with initial setup and faster chain wear. Knolly, Santa Cruz and Intense have recently changed or gotten rid of 73/150 bikes in their lineups, does anyone other than Niner and Lenz even sell bikes setup that way?

    You're talking about running a Dorado on this thing...maybe an 83mm shell is a better answer??

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    Sounding good!

    Head angle sounds spot on. Im running a 68.5 on my 29 HT and I do wish for more at times. For an aggressive trail bike, slack it out ( i.e. Spitfire) This also helps with toe overlap.

    BB: PLEASE don't go any higher! Lower if anything! The Spitfire shines because of this! Combine a low BB with the axle drop of 29" wheel and you have unbelievable stability and low CG. A cornering machine. I have no problem with pedal strikes on my 13" bb 6" bike. I realize people will have different onions on this, but this is what make a 29er work so well. Put a 14" bb on the thing and your just riding so darn high. You will have to run a taller front end to get the same reach and stack. Having a lower front end is just another piece in the puzzle of a well handling bike. I guess it just depends on what your after. I say your after a bike that not intended to win a marathon race or mellow XC through the woods ( although Im sure it could do it well) but a bike that is intended be ridden aggressively.

    Not a fan of steep seat tubes but I understand you have to make room for the big rear wheel. The plus of a suspension design that has some rear wheel path, is that it moves away from the seat tube and allows for more clearance and shorter stays (the SC tallboy can run 72 seat tube with a 120 fork because of this) plus small bump is oh so good.

    Bushings/ bearing: ???

    I vote for tapered HT. Its becoming the standard and just looks better ( in my onion.) Now that flat, wide DH bars are out, we are all good.

    Tabs: YES!

    Direct mount der: cool!

    Remote seat post tabs: Thank you

    And I think Im the only guy in North America that still loves at least one set of bottle mounts 
    Enjoy every ride!

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Dont get me wrong I think a 83mm BB would be great but if he want to run a 135 and 150 rear i am not sure if 83 would be ok for the 135.
    If it is a dedicated 150mm rear then 83mm is the way to go.

  100. #100
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,691
    Quote Originally Posted by m-dub
    BB: PLEASE don't go any higher! Lower if anything! The Spitfire shines because of this! Combine a low BB with the axle drop of 29" wheel and you have unbelievable stability and low CG. A cornering machine. I have no problem with pedal strikes on my 13" bb 6" bike. I realize people will have different onions on this, but this is what make a 29er work so well. Put a 14" bb on the thing and your just riding so darn high. You will have to run a taller front end to get the same reach and stack. Having a lower front end is just another piece in the puzzle of a well handling bike. I guess it just depends on what your after. I say your after a bike that not intended to win a marathon race or mellow XC through the woods ( although Im sure it could do it well) but a bike that is intended be ridden aggressively.
    Yeah, and fair enough, but personally I don't want a cornering machine. I want an aggressive bike for bashing through chunk.

    But obviously it's Banshee's call as to what they want the frame to do, and what meets the needs of their market.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL
    - don't build a bike for plum-smuggling paved trails
    Lee hit's it.

    Those specs sound great. Also don't fold to 1x10 being the future, it's a poor trend. If someone is only going to do either fairly flat riding or only ride with fresh legs it's a farce to say they can ride everything with a single 32/34 front ring.

    Anyone doing daily back to back 2/3 hr rides on real trails will agree that a 2x front is needed.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    I agree I need a granny

  103. #103
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,354
    Keith:

    Overall, I like it. Personally, I like:

    1. The unsagged BB slightly higher (but your suspension rides high in travel, so it might make up for it)

    2. The unsagged HTA a little steeper, maybe 68-68.5 (but your suspension rides high in travel, so it might make up for it)

    3. Absolutely get the chainstays shorter if possible. After spending a bunch of time on a 16.8" bike, going back to 17.3" makes them seem like barges. I understand this may not even be possible, but 17" would be ideal in my book. Shorter stays just give me more options as a rider. Light front when I want it, and I have never missed the longer stays at high speed or climbing a 29" wheeled bike. With the long fork, slack HTA, and heavy wheel and tire this bike is asking for, I can use all the help I can get getting the front in the air.

    4. For me: It has to pedal well in the small.

    All of the above to say: I think you probably have it nailed, and probably you shouldn't listen to a bunch of E-experts and change the design.

    Thanks, looks like a winner IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive
    Yeah, and fair enough, but personally I don't want a cornering machine. I want an aggressive bike for bashing through chunk.


    I had a 13.5 bb on my DH bike with 8.5" of travel and had no problems flying through chunk I realize that is an important aspect of riding, but I would give up a random pedal strike over a ill cornering bike anyday. As we have agreed " different strokes "

    "But obviously it's Banshee's call as to what they want the frame to do, and what meets the needs of their market.
    Very true....a 14" BB would take me, and I would guess many others out of this market. Thats why so many have flocked to the Spitfire. It works, its what people wanted and its not the same as all others. Maybe do something adjustable to make us both happy, like intense has done with their dropouts
    Last edited by m-dub; 06-04-2010 at 09:50 PM.
    Enjoy every ride!

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    Dont get me wrong I think a 83mm BB would be great but if he want to run a 135 and 150 rear i am not sure if 83 would be ok for the 135.
    If it is a dedicated 150mm rear then 83mm is the way to go.
    83 limits your light crank choices a bit also.
    Enjoy every ride!

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    I'd say that the argument against a BB higher than or even 14" is valid, BB shoudl stay below 13.8", personally I think even 13.5" is plenty high as most everything on a bike is a trade off and I'd gladly trade watching a few pedal strokes to have lower COG and an in the bike feel.

    BB width, definitely max 73mm, as m-dub says, sure limts crankset options if you go to 83mm. I've never run a 150mm rear, but I do run a 135mm SS rear using 7 cogs and I have no issues running it with a 68mm BB and the flanges on that hub are 1cm wider than a standard 9 spd hub and build a dishless wheel and I have no issues using all 7 cogs with both rings.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    595
    also, a 83mm crankset produces a poor chainline for climbing even with a 150mm rear end.
    it has been shown a couple of times that 73mm bb width mixes quite well with 150mm rear end...
    83mm is leaning towards more space for linkage and bearings, in my opinion...

  108. #108
    Blanco
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,332
    14" BB is circus bike territory and is no fun to ride IMO. Sagged it should hit just over 12", meaning 13.5" unsagged (with real tires, not 2.1" plum-smuggler rubber bands) is much more reasonable.

    I like the geometry numbers. The steeper the STA the better: setback seatposts are easy for those who like slacker angles. Everyone loves the Rocky "Straight Up" geometry, and it's 76 STA unsagged (which sags to more like 74). Plus it lets you run a slack HTA and still not have the front wheel lift on climbs. Seriously: a bike like this isn't for sitting and pedalling buff singletrack, it's for struggling up (when you want a steep STA) and bombing down (when you're standing up anyway).

    (My personal bike is 67/74, and I would go steeper if I had it to do over again...more like 67/77).

    Enel is obsessed with tiny chainstays. "ooh, it's hard to pull the front end up..." Man up, Alice. I have a BMF with 19" chainstays and the first thing my trials-riding buddy did was ride a manual for 60 seconds straight. And any effect you feeling on turning quickness is PLACEBO EFFECT. There, I said it. You're obsessing over something that doesn't even matter. If someone told you a bike had 16.8" chainstays and it actually had 17.4" chainstays, you wouldn't know the difference until someone told you.

    But what is undeniable is the fact that tall guys like me loop out backwards with short chainstays and slack STA. There is no upside to this.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    QUOTE=El Caballo]14" BB is circus bike territory and is no fun to ride IMO. Sagged it should hit just over 12", meaning 13.5" unsagged (with real tires, not 2.1" plum-smuggler rubber bands) is much more reasonable.

    I like the geometry numbers. The steeper the STA the better: setback seatposts are easy for those who like slacker angles. Everyone loves the Rocky "Straight Up" geometry, and it's 76 STA unsagged (which sags to more like 74). Plus it lets you run a slack HTA and still not have the front wheel lift on climbs. Seriously: a bike like this isn't for sitting and pedalling buff singletrack, it's for struggling up (when you want a steep STA) and bombing down (when you're standing up anyway).

    (My personal bike is 67/74, and I would go steeper if I had it to do over again...more like 67/77).

    Enel is obsessed with tiny chainstays. "ooh, it's hard to pull the front end up..." Man up, Alice. I have a BMF with 19" chainstays and the first thing my trials-riding buddy did was ride a manual for 60 seconds straight. And any effect you feeling on turning quickness is PLACEBO EFFECT. There, I said it. You're obsessing over something that doesn't even matter. If someone told you a bike had 16.8" chainstays and it actually had 17.4" chainstays, you wouldn't know the difference until someone told you.

    But what is undeniable is the fact that tall guys like me loop out backwards with short chainstays and slack STA. There is no upside to this.[/QUOTE]

    I notice a 1/4 difference on my DJ bike. True after I ride it for an hour I feel at home, but it is noticeable. If I jump between two bikes with a 1/4" difference. its night a and day.

    Not that it matters but having a slack ST give you a more compact cockpit when you’re out of the saddle making for a more aggressive handling ( Look at any DH bike) When you have a steep ST the distance (reach and stack) never changes. I like to be stretched out for a climb and compact for aggressive ripping ( loved that about my Nomad, very DH out of the saddle and plenty of room for the climbs) As far as looping out....suck it up Alice I’m 6'2" and just slide your ass forward pull back and down on your bars, and climb. I never loop out with 17" stays and a 72 ST. Steep seat tubes put me to high and forward and work great for climbing but not so hot for shreading the gnar

    http://www.leelikesbikes.com/why-is-...-rip-able.html
    Its been discused...
    Last edited by m-dub; 06-06-2010 at 09:57 PM.
    Enjoy every ride!

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Sorry, I'm also not a huge fan or super short stays, my Monkey can have 17" stays if I don't use the monkey nuts, but I don't like how the short rear feels compared to the long front on my size bikes=XL. I think going down to 17.4" is short enough, current ride has 17 7/8" and a smidge shorter would be nice, but not almost an inch.

    As to ST angle, I think this is all very personal preference depending on how your legs are built up - do you have long thighs and short shins or short thighs and long shins? This is really what effects I think how a person will like ST angle, since actual set back from BB is a fixed setting for most of us and is adjusted to "X" distance no matter the ST angle - i.e. if you require your saddle mid way on the rails on a bike with a 74 STA, then if you go to a 71 STA your saddle will have to go further back on the rails and vice versa going to a steeper STA.

    For me my current ride is 74 (according to the manufacturer) and I have to run a setback post to get me where I need to be, now if the angle was slacker I could effectively run a straight post to get the same placement. Sagged I think the angle drops to prob 73ish, and the bike climbs fine, but I still do need to be right forward on the nose of the saddle for steep climbs. I'll hope that Keith gets some good testers of all sizes to ride hiw prototypes and give feedback which he'll try to decifer and use to make a bike that works "good" for the masses, since we all know that geo needs to change more than it usually does in production bikes the smaller and bigger a bike actually gets. I guess for me and my legs make up a slacker STA might be beter since I've always had to run a setback post, but I haven't riden enough different bikes to honestly be able to say that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  111. #111
    Blanco
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,332
    Another thing that strongly affects preferred STA is cleat position. If you run your cleats all the way forward, you're effectively steepening the STA, and if you run them all the way back, you're naturally slackening it. I like my cleats all the way back, which is about an inch = almost two degrees slacker STA vs. all the way forward.

    I've also found that higher handlebars make me want to run a steeper STA. This seems counterintuitive...but with lower bars, I've found that steep STA puts too much weight on my hands, whereas with high bars I feel better with my weight pushed forward. I also run a shortish TT, which means with a setback seatpost my effective STA and TT would be extremely conventional numbers.

    It is true that with a steep STA and high bars I have to be aggressive with my body position. As Lee points out, you can't just sit in the seat (or next to it) and expect to ride aggressively and in control. You have to get your butt out of the seat, get your torso down and your elbows up, and rip. But steep STA/high bar geometry actually forces me to adopt this position, because otherwise I'm so upright that I just flail...with most bikes I can half-ass it by not really moving around the bike.

    Yes, everyone's different. Let me point out, however, that there are setback seatposts, but not really set-forward seatposts

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by El Caballo
    Another thing that strongly affects preferred STA is cleat position. If you run your cleats all the way forward, you're effectively steepening the STA, and if you run them all the way back, you're naturally slackening it. I like my cleats all the way back, which is about an inch = almost two degrees slacker STA vs. all the way forward.

    I've also found that higher handlebars make me want to run a steeper STA. This seems counterintuitive...but with lower bars, I've found that steep STA puts too much weight on my hands, whereas with high bars I feel better with my weight pushed forward. I also run a shortish TT, which means with a setback seatpost my effective STA and TT would be extremely conventional numbers.

    It is true that with a steep STA and high bars I have to be aggressive with my body position. As Lee points out, you can't just sit in the seat (or next to it) and expect to ride aggressively and in control. You have to get your butt out of the seat, get your torso down and your elbows up, and rip. But steep STA/high bar geometry actually forces me to adopt this position, because otherwise I'm so upright that I just flail...with most bikes I can half-ass it by not really moving around the bike.

    Yes, everyone's different. Let me point out, however, that there are setback seatposts, but not really set-forward seatposts
    I run flat pedals and adjustable post ( no set back available) so......
    Low front end for me please. A slack STA, Low BB and low bar height = an aggressive handling machine for me
    Enjoy every ride!

  113. #113
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,354
    Quote Originally Posted by El Caballo
    Enel is obsessed with tiny chainstays. "ooh, it's hard to pull the front end up..." Man up, Alice. I have a BMF with 19" chainstays and the first thing my trials-riding buddy did was ride a manual for 60 seconds straight. And any effect you feeling on turning quickness is PLACEBO EFFECT. There, I said it. You're obsessing over something that doesn't even matter. If someone told you a bike had 16.8" chainstays and it actually had 17.4" chainstays, you wouldn't know the difference until someone told you.

    But what is undeniable is the fact that tall guys like me loop out backwards with short chainstays and slack STA. There is no upside to this.
    I think you mostly have good input to this thread. Keep it coming. But seriously, you can't tell the difference between 1/4 " in stay length, but can still obsess about STA, cleat position, bar height, etc??? I certainly can feel the difference. Most riders I respect can can feel the difference. You have simply chosen to ignore this in deference to other variables you feel are more significant. The question isn't whether it is noticeable, the question is whether it makes a difference in the riding experience, and it certainly does for me. It does not come into play in turning so much as in panic manual situations, as in: "I need to get this wheel up right now or I am going to end up on my face because I am going straight down a technical descent at slow speed and there is a nasty hole/drop/whatever coming up that the front wheel must clear. Maybe your terrain never calls for that, but mine certainly does, frequently.

    Either way, I am not asking for very short stays for a sit-to-climb geared bike. I certainly hated them shorter than 17" on small wheels because I would loop out frequently.....however...having ridden the 17.3" on the Lenz for at least 3-4 years now, I have not found looping to be much of a problem with the bigger wheels they just seem more resistant to it (either that or I just manned up with better technique). I haven't ridden anything shorter with more than one gear to comment. On a stand to climb SS bike, I have not found normal length chainstays to be a detriment at all. (PS, my saddle is massively high and I run the cleats all the way back )

    Most 26" trail bikes run 16.75-17" chainstays for a reason, and I see no reason 29" bike shouldn't at least try to run something similar.

    Back on topic: I think Keith can handle this design, and I like what I see so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OK, dumb question here, but I got thinking on it So as frame size increases, so do the angles and measurements change, front centre grows etc. So why not too do the chainstays not grow with the larger sizes to match the increase in front centre? I know the logical reason could/would be more specific tubes for each size which would effect cost, but other than that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by MalcolmX
    also, a 83mm crankset produces a poor chainline for climbing even with a 150mm rear end.
    it has been shown a couple of times that 73mm bb width mixes quite well with 150mm rear end...
    83mm is leaning towards more space for linkage and bearings, in my opinion...
    Great, 73mm it is. Alot more crank choices.
    I would like a 150mm rear option. Do a dropout system like niner and intense.
    Let the people make the choice of what they want.

  116. #116
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    Do a dropout system like niner and intense.
    Let the people make the choice of what they want.
    Sounds like the best option. Many people don't seem as concerned about the chainline in their small cogs. Just don't make replacing a derailleur hanger a $150 job like it is with the Intense system!

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Good discussion guys... to me it just goes to show how varied riders and their frame needs are!

    here is something i want your feedback on...

    the seat tube is bent, so effective seat angle will depends very much on saddle height, so I'm thinking I may adjust the angle of the bend for each frame size so that effective seat angle is relavent to where the seat will actually be, not just at same height as head tube. So... could you guys please tell me roughly how far from (not high above) your BB your saddles are, and how tall you are. Just need a this from a few guys to check my estimates are correct.

    Thanks,
    Keith
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Want BB to seat rails?

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    that will do me!
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  120. #120
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    Height: 192cm
    Center of BB to seat rail (@ midpoint of clamps): 76.5cm
    Horizontal component of above: 21.5cm

    Much further back and my knees start hurting...

  121. #121
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,816
    28.125 from center of BB to bottom edge of seat rail. I'm 5' 11"
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    6' 2 1/4", 35.25" inseam, XL frame/25.25" ETT - centre of BB to top of saddle 32.5", reach 36" (back of saddle to front of stem), 120/0 stem, about 1.5" drop before SAG from saddle to bars. [edit to add] I guess we should add shoe size as that will also effect height size 48 Sidi or Bontrager.

    [updated to add] centre of BB to top of rail 30.5", actual exposed seatpost 8.25" Thomson layback post.
    Last edited by LyNx; 06-08-2010 at 03:01 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    6'2" 35" inseam 28 7/8" on the way up 21.5"on the way down
    Last edited by m-dub; 06-07-2010 at 08:11 PM.
    Enjoy every ride!

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    How'd you measure those measurements, from centre of BB to top of saddle right above where saddle clamps? Got to ask as a 4" difference in seat height between 2 people with inseam 1/4" different seems off. Oh and what length cranks? I run 175mm, cleats almost all the way forward.
    Quote Originally Posted by m-dub
    6'2" 35" inseam 28.5" on the way up 21.5' on the way down
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    Center of BB to center of seat rail as bulittoride requested.

    From top of my saddle 31" and I run 175cranks with thin, Straitline flat pedals. I run a few deg more bend than the average bear in my knees. Im seeing more and more riders ( pro road aswell) running more bend at full extention. My Ortho is a cyclest and he explained the benifits to me but it didn't soak in. All I know is my knees feel good and I get the power down.

    Edit: I rode tonight and realized my post had slipped almost a 1/2" so I updated the numbers.
    Last edited by m-dub; 06-07-2010 at 08:10 PM.
    Enjoy every ride!

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: willymcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    420
    make the seat tube longer then the Runes, 18" for the large is too short and requires a long seatpost for pedal intensive riding, so 19"-19.5" for large.

    I'm 5'11" 34" inseam 28" from BB to seat rails.

    I like the steep seat angle, I feel on the rune that the seat is too far back and makes for less powerful and overall slower riding.

    I think standard 135mm rear hub spacing is the best, most people have them already, going to 150mm spacing will force most people buy new wheelsets or hubs.

    Also I really want a water bottle mount, they are not out of style, I love going for a 1 to 1.5 hour ride without having to wear my damn camelbak. so maybe do the shock placement like it is on the wildcard so you can fit a water bottle in there.

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Hey guys,

    Thanks for the info, that will probably do me, as it was jusy to get rough dimensions for each size, and looks like I was about right with my estimations on the whole (certainly accurate enough considering how much varience there is between individuals).

    OK, next question...

    I'm considering doing a testing / feedback program for this frame a bit like we did for the Legend, but need to know there are enough people willing to be part of it to make it worth while.

    the way this would work:

    We would sell the frames to you (with full warranty) for our cost plus shipping (would probably be around $1000 all in I'd very roughly guess). In return I would want feedback from all test riders. (I'd send out some feedback questions to you a month or 2 aftre the bikes go out, and would expect to hear aditional ideas and feedback as and when you had it). And from the real world feedback I would obviously take the general themes and adjust accordingly before releasing production frames.

    Now these will not quite be prototype frames, but certainly pre production, and likely to change, and may not be perfect as a result. So there is that risk you are taking, but hopefully the prototypes will sort out all the major issues and most minor ones too... hell they might even be better than all the competition even at this stage!

    Unlike the MkI Legends I will not be experimenting with new ideas too much, but using the best of what I've made before, so effectively it will be a compilation of the best design features of my current designs, so there shouldn't be much risk there like there was with the legends, and I certainly don't forsee any comon problems or frame failures... put it this way, these frames will be the same level of frame quality and design that most other companies would put out there after prototyping... I just like to be extra thourough when releasing production designs and prefer to include rider feedback as much as possible.

    Timing would likely be early 2011 I'd say for 2012 official release, but I plan to get some prototypes out there before the end of summer so we can have some time working out major niggles before preproduction runs. Obviously time line is subject to change, as I'm doing all this myself and have lots of other work to do along side, as well as a few other external factors that early production runs always seem to have.


    So who would be potentially interested? I need to know we can hit minimum numbers in order to do this. If there is enough demand I am keen to go this route, but obviously we can't afford to do it otherwise.

    Thanks,
    Keith
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Hey guys,

    Thanks for the info, that will probably do me, as it was jusy to get rough dimensions for each size, and looks like I was about right with my estimations on the whole (certainly accurate enough considering how much varience there is between individuals).

    OK, next question...

    I'm considering doing a testing / feedback program for this frame a bit like we did for the Legend, but need to know there are enough people willing to be part of it to make it worth while.

    the way this would work:

    We would sell the frames to you (with full warranty) for our cost plus shipping (would probably be around $1000 all in I'd very roughly guess). In return I would want feedback from all test riders. (I'd send out some feedback questions to you a month or 2 aftre the bikes go out, and would expect to hear aditional ideas and feedback as and when you had it). And from the real world feedback I would obviously take the general themes and adjust accordingly before releasing production frames.

    Now these will not quite be prototype frames, but certainly pre production, and likely to change, and may not be perfect as a result. So there is that risk you are taking, but hopefully the prototypes will sort out all the major issues and most minor ones too... hell they might even be better than all the competition even at this stage!

    Unlike the MkI Legends I will not be experimenting with new ideas too much, but using the best of what I've made before, so effectively it will be a compilation of the best design features of my current designs, so there shouldn't be much risk there like there was with the legends, and I certainly don't forsee any comon problems or frame failures... put it this way, these frames will be the same level of frame quality and design that most other companies would put out there after prototyping... I just like to be extra thourough when releasing production designs and prefer to include rider feedback as much as possible.

    Timing would likely be early 2011 I'd say for 2012 official release, but I plan to get some prototypes out there before the end of summer so we can have some time working out major niggles before preproduction runs. Obviously time line is subject to change, as I'm doing all this myself and have lots of other work to do along side, as well as a few other external factors that early production runs always seem to have.


    So who would be potentially interested? I need to know we can hit minimum numbers in order to do this. If there is enough demand I am keen to go this route, but obviously we can't afford to do it otherwise.

    Thanks,
    Keith
    I would be definitly be interested. Sign me up for an XL. Where do i pay?

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    I would be definitly be interested. Sign me up for an XL. Where do i pay?
    haha, patience patience.

    Payment would only happen once the frames are ready to ship. I just need to guage interest at this stage before going down this road.

    thansk for the interest!
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    I'm game, but one question. If there are major changes to the design between the test frames and final production, will the testers have the option to purchase the production frame for a similar deal? As you say, don't forsee any major changes, but just in case there's something that by some miracle you guys missed and the testers pick up.
    Oh and if by chance you want an XL tester for the early prototypes, I think I could offer some valuable feedback

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Hey guys,
    ...................................OK, next question...

    I'm considering doing a testing / feedback program for this frame a bit like we did for the Legend, but need to know there are enough people willing to be part of it to make it worth while.

    the way this would work:

    We would sell the frames to you (with full warranty) for our cost plus shipping (would probably be around $1000 all in I'd very roughly guess). In return I would want feedback from all test riders. (I'd send out some feedback questions to you a month or 2 aftre the bikes go out, and would expect to hear aditional ideas and feedback as and when you had it). And from the real world feedback I would obviously take the general themes and adjust accordingly before releasing production frames....................................

    So who would be potentially interested? I need to know we can hit minimum numbers in order to do this. If there is enough demand I am keen to go this route, but obviously we can't afford to do it otherwise.

    Thanks,
    Keith
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Just have to make sure the Tpaered Reba 140 is out when the protos come out.

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,849
    Has the spec been roughly finalised, if so can we know before buying?

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Yeah, of course I will let people know full spec and you will see frame images before buying, this is still 8 months off or so... just wanted to gauge interest.

    Frame testers who give adequate feedback (this is up to my disgression) will be offered a discount off production frames when they are ready if they want to take that option. Not sure rate of discount yet, need to work out a lot of numbers before I could say exactly, but lets just say your feedback and loyalty will be rewarded.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,849
    OK, count me in (UK, Midlands & Trail Centres)

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Yeah, of course I will let people know full spec and you will see frame images before buying, this is still 8 months off or so... just wanted to gauge interest.

    Frame testers who give adequate feedback (this is up to my disgression) will be offered a discount off production frames when they are ready if they want to take that option. Not sure rate of discount yet, need to work out a lot of numbers before I could say exactly, but lets just say your feedback and loyalty will be rewarded.
    Still have to wait 8 months

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    I have some interest. Size large please.
    Enjoy every ride!

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    If all I had to do was design frames it could be a lot faster, but unfortunately designing all the frames is only a small fraction of the work I have to do. (I like to think I still do fairly well considering a lot of bigger companies are not much faster even tho they use a whole team of designers who only have to focus on design..). I try my best and work 80 hours weeks on average, so please be patient.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  138. #138
    Gear Whore
    Reputation: mudpuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,352
    I too may be interested in an XL (at least 20" ST please...the rune is just a tad low for me).

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    98
    just wondering, if this is gonna be a burly 29" bike, what's a good match for the front fork?

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    I woudn't say it was going to be a burly bike as such... I'd say it will be a true all mountain bike, but no DH bike.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by intosite
    just wondering, if this is gonna be a burly 29" bike, what's a good match for the front fork?
    Reba 140mm

  142. #142
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    I'm considering doing a testing / feedback program for this frame a bit like we did for the Legend, but need to know there are enough people willing to be part of it to make it worth while.

    So who would be potentially interested?
    Definitely interested!!! consider me in, if there's room.

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: willymcd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    420
    I'd be interested in one, you think you could buy the forks for them bulk from sram and pass on the savings to us? seems like everyone wants the new RS when they come out...

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Quote Originally Posted by willymcd
    I'd be interested in one, you think you could buy the forks for them bulk from sram and pass on the savings to us? seems like everyone wants the new RS when they come out...
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,959
    Sure...why not. I'd be willing to flog a different dog


  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    124
    Count me in! I need an XL with a top tube of 24.75 - 25

    Again, where do I send payment? Go ahead and ship mine with a Reba 140 as well!

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    My ideal Claymore XL
    Top tube 25.25”
    Seat tube 21”
    Lots of stand over
    BB 73mm
    Rear spacing 150mm maxle but can live with 135mm
    30.9 with dropper post guides
    67.5 Head angle with the 140mm Reba
    74 seat tube angle
    1.5 head tube
    13.6” BB will do well.
    17.3~17.5 Chain stays
    ISCG05 so I can use HS if I wanted
    Powder coated Safety Orange so it stands out.

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    except............

    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    My ideal Claymore XL
    Top tube 25.25”
    Seat tube 21”
    Lots of stand over
    BB 73mm
    Rear spacing 150mm Maxle Light but can live with 135mm
    30.9 with dropper post guides
    68.5 (67.5) Head angle with the 140mm Reba
    72.5-73 (74) seat tube angle
    1.5 head tube
    13.25" (13.6”) BB will do well.
    17.3~17.5 Chain stays
    ISCG05 so I can use HS if I wanted
    Powder coated Smurf Blue as one of the colour options.
    ST angle is going by the fact that on both my current ride and on the Trance I had to run a setback post effectively slackening out the angle, one is 74 the other 73.5 and I run about 20mm of setback to have the rails in the middle of the clamp.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    I already have a smurf blue truck and matching bike.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    That's too dark, or at least by my monitor to be Smurf Blue To me Smurf Blue is a tad lighter. Forgot to mention I want it to be Glow in the Dark PC - actually an adative you can use to do it - it's one of the coolest things and what keeps me riding my current ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    I already have a smurf blue truck and matching bike.
    Something I wanted to pose to Keith and whoever else might know enough.......why is it, that ST angles increase as the sizes increase instead of decrease to take into account the longer thighs taller people have over shorter people and make us have to run setback posts? (generally)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  151. #151
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Something I wanted to pose to Keith and whoever else might know enough.......why is it, that ST angles increase as the sizes increase instead of decrease to take into account the longer thighs taller people have over shorter people and make us have to run setback posts? (generally)
    I don't see that as a general trend at all - which brands have you been looking at? I'm also not sure that taller people have disproportionally longer thighs than shorter people.

    As was stated above, too steep is easier to remedy than too slack.

  152. #152
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465

    Three things about seat angles

    "Fit" issues aside......
    • Adjustable height seatposts are getting cheaper and more reliable. More and more riders are realizing the benefits. From a frame design perspective, the frame needs to have at least a 30.9 seatpost (Banshee's already there, nice) and not have a crazy slack seat tube ala Knolly. Not that this creates a compatibility issue, it just creates a lot more leverage/stiction/adjustment issues for adjustable height seatpost. So my .02c: if a straight ~73 seat tube won't work, I'd rather see an interrupted seat tube than a uber-slack seat angle.
    • Along the same lines, maybe a little steeper is better. Steeper creates less stiction for adjustable seatposts, and you can always use a layback post (adjustable or not) to get the saddle back if farther you like. Steeper also creates more clearance for the front derailer and rear suspension, allowing for shorter stays and bigger tires.
    • Doing the math.... for medium size frames, .5" degree seat angle change equates to like 2mm of horizontal difference at the saddle. Not worth fixating on IMO.... especially with so many seatpost options.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,853
    As someone that has ridden the Rocky Mountain Straight Up ST on everything that can be thrown at it, I say steeper is MO BETTER.

    It be the future for bikes not intended purely for DH.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    764

    Test rider

    You can count me in too. I would love to take this dream bike to the NorCal area, it will see at a minimum, Tahoe, Downieville, Auburn and most likely Salt Lake area during summer and maybe even some Goose and Bootleg if I get a road trip in with it. I am really liking the direction this bike is going.

    Size Large
    I like to ride Bikes. This might be turning into an obsession, not sure?

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OK, maybe I'll have to somewhat retract that statement as looking around now it seems that it's only the 2 different brands I have that do this - when I was looking at the Trance I remember it being a fairly common thing though, but that was 5 years ago. I didn't mean disproprtiantly I just meant I don't think that as the saddle goes up it takes the saddle back totally in correlation to leg length increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blofeld
    I don't see that as a general trend at all - which brands have you been looking at? I'm also not sure that taller people have disproportionally longer thighs than shorter people.

    As was stated above, too steep is easier to remedy than too slack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    I have been running a gravity dropper for three years on a 71.5 seat tube angle with zero stiction. I think a slacker angle not only fits the femmor of larger rideres better but helps a bike be a bit more rear bias and on an agressive bike thats a plus. If its a XC bike there building, sure steep is fine but for an agressive all mountain/freeride lite, that slackish seat tube will give a tighter cockpit when out of the saddle ripping and strech you out on the climbs. Its just works: Rune, Nomad, Reign........ Rear traction is increased while climbing and bike can have a bit shorter WB to wake up the big wheels and flick it around a bit or in tight corners.
    Enjoy every ride!

  157. #157
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324

    Actual vs. Effective STA

    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Adjustable height seatposts are getting cheaper and more reliable. More and more riders are realizing the benefits. From a frame design perspective, the frame needs to have at least a 30.9 seatpost (Banshee's already there, nice) and not have a crazy slack seat tube ala Knolly. Not that this creates a compatibility issue, it just creates a lot more leverage/stiction/adjustment issues for adjustable height seatpost. So my .02c: if a straight ~73 seat tube won't work, I'd rather see an interrupted seat tube than a uber-slack seat angle.
    Keith was talking about using a seat tube with a size specific bend, so there will be a relationship between effective and actual seat tube angles similar to Knolly's. I would hope the actual STA isn't that extreme, I might pick 70-71 as a minimum. I hadn't really thought about slack actual seat tube angles being a problem for adjustable seatposts, but it does some strange things to effective top tube length and effective seat tube angle for anyone with legs that are longer or shorter than average.

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Keith, please oh please don't even consider doing an interupted ST Not only are they mostly fugly, they are also a ryal PITA for those of us who don't use gravity retard posts and need a full length 410mm post with the ability to once in a while drop it down into the ST.

    Oh and for those that might consider a dropper post, who makes one with setback to take into account your want for a steep ST angle? I'll say it again 72-73max actual STA - from centre of BB to centre of top of ST.

    As to Knollys "Crazy Slack" ST angle, strange how anyone who's riden and Endo raves about how well it climbs and descends

    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    "Fit" issues aside......
    • Adjustable height seatposts are getting cheaper and more reliable. More and more riders are realizing the benefits. From a frame design perspective, the frame needs to have at least a 30.9 seatpost (Banshee's already there, nice) and not have a crazy slack seat tube ala Knolly. Not that this creates a compatibility issue, it just creates a lot more leverage/stiction/adjustment issues for adjustable height seatpost. So my .02c: if a straight ~73 seat tube won't work, I'd rather see an interrupted seat tube than a uber-slack seat angle.
    • Along the same lines, maybe a little steeper is better. Steeper creates less stiction for adjustable seatposts, and you can always use a layback post (adjustable or not) to get the saddle back if farther you like. Steeper also creates more clearance for the front derailer and rear suspension, allowing for shorter stays and bigger tires.
    • Doing the math.... for medium size frames, .5" degree seat angle change equates to like 2mm of horizontal difference at the saddle. Not worth fixating on IMO.... especially with so many seatpost options.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    95

    I am interested

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Hey guys,

    Thanks for the info, that will probably do me, as it was jusy to get rough dimensions for each size, and looks like I was about right with my estimations on the whole (certainly accurate enough considering how much varience there is between individuals).

    OK, next question...

    I'm considering doing a testing / feedback program for this frame a bit like we did for the Legend, but need to know there are enough people willing to be part of it to make it worth while.

    the way this would work:

    We would sell the frames to you (with full warranty) for our cost plus shipping (would probably be around $1000 all in I'd very roughly guess). In return I would want feedback from all test riders. (I'd send out some feedback questions to you a month or 2 aftre the bikes go out, and would expect to hear aditional ideas and feedback as and when you had it). And from the real world feedback I would obviously take the general themes and adjust accordingly before releasing production frames.

    Now these will not quite be prototype frames, but certainly pre production, and likely to change, and may not be perfect as a result. So there is that risk you are taking, but hopefully the prototypes will sort out all the major issues and most minor ones too... hell they might even be better than all the competition even at this stage!

    Unlike the MkI Legends I will not be experimenting with new ideas too much, but using the best of what I've made before, so effectively it will be a compilation of the best design features of my current designs, so there shouldn't be much risk there like there was with the legends, and I certainly don't forsee any comon problems or frame failures... put it this way, these frames will be the same level of frame quality and design that most other companies would put out there after prototyping... I just like to be extra thourough when releasing production designs and prefer to include rider feedback as much as possible.

    Timing would likely be early 2011 I'd say for 2012 official release, but I plan to get some prototypes out there before the end of summer so we can have some time working out major niggles before preproduction runs. Obviously time line is subject to change, as I'm doing all this myself and have lots of other work to do along side, as well as a few other external factors that early production runs always seem to have.


    So who would be potentially interested? I need to know we can hit minimum numbers in order to do this. If there is enough demand I am keen to go this route, but obviously we can't afford to do it otherwise.

    Thanks,
    Keith

    I would be interested.
    XL Frame . 24.75"-25" ETT

    I am currently riding a XL 08 Niner RIP frame with 120mm at the front.

    I like the ETT (I think somwhere in the 24.75" range), but I don't like the current fork angle, which is not inspiring confident...

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx

    Something I wanted to pose to Keith and whoever else might know enough.......why is it, that ST angles increase as the sizes increase instead of decrease to take into account the longer thighs taller people have over shorter people and make us have to run setback posts? (generally)
    Can't answer that one... makes no sense to me, and is not something I would ever do.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Keith, please oh please don't even consider doing an interupted ST Not only are they mostly fugly, they are also a ryal PITA for those of us who don't use gravity retard posts and need a full length 410mm post with the ability to once in a while drop it down into the ST.

    Oh and for those that might consider a dropper post, who makes one with setback to take into account your want for a steep ST angle? I'll say it again 72-73max actual STA - from centre of BB to centre of top of ST.

    As to Knollys "Crazy Slack" ST angle, strange how anyone who's riden and Endo raves about how well it climbs and descends
    I sold my Knolly Endo because I hated how slack the seat tube was. At proper seat height I was way over the rear wheel. This made it a wheelie machine going up steep hills.

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    ....and yet Giant did this on the Trance when I bought mine 5 years ago and still does it, but now reversed, as I said I thought it should be, slacking out the angle for the bigger sizes. Niner still does it now steepening the angles as the sizes increase

    Just curious Keith, any idea on when you have initial rough drafts available?
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Can't answer that one... makes no sense to me, and is not something I would ever do.
    ETT on the RIP9 is 25.25", although it would shorten up a smidge going to the 120mm if it's a Reba or Fox, if it's a Minute the A to C is only 10mm taller than a 100mm Reba doesn't really do much.

    Quote Originally Posted by ranpergamin
    I would be interested.
    XL Frame . 24.75"-25" ETT
    I am currently riding a XL 08 Niner RIP frame with 120mm at the front.
    I like the ETT (I think somwhere in the 24.75" range), but I don't like the current fork angle, which is not inspiring confident...
    Not saying slack the ST out that much, but I don't think 72-73 degrees is that slack either.
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    I sold my Knolly Endo because I hated how slack the seat tube was. At proper seat height I was way over the rear wheel. This made it a wheelie machine going up steep hills.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Just curious, what size bike do you ride?
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk
    As someone that has ridden the Rocky Mountain Straight Up ST on everything that can be thrown at it, I say steeper is MO BETTER.

    It be the future for bikes not intended purely for DH.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    I've not designed the frame completely yet, still have rear triangle to finish, then have to adjust designs for different sizes... I'll post when done.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    QBP has the 140mm Reba listed with no ETA but it must be getting close.
    Exciting times for 29er riders.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Cool, didn't think you had it al done yet from your last post. Was just wondering the suspension implementation is all, I'll assume it'll have the VF4 like the Spitty/Rune/Rampant use and not like the Wildcard uses Looks nice, but like one other poster mentioned, I too like to have a bottle with mix drink along on my rides.
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    I've not designed the frame completely yet, still have rear triangle to finish, then have to adjust designs for different sizes... I'll post when done.
    Easy there lad, you're starting to give me Matrix DeJaVu feelings with quotes like that
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    QBP has the 140mm Reba listed with no ETA but it must be getting close.
    Exciting times for 29er riders.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  167. #167
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    I sold my Knolly Endo because I hated how slack the seat tube was. At proper seat height I was way over the rear wheel. This made it a wheelie machine going up steep hills.
    Was that on an XL? I demoed a large this spring and was also too far back. My problem was more with knee pain than handling, I figured out that my minimum effective seat tube angle is about 71. At the time I chalked the problem up to not quite fitting the frame.

    As for my maximum effective seat tube angle, I've never ridden a "Straight-Up" Rocky or a tri bike, so I'm not really sure. It seems to me that going that steep would force a compromise between effective top tube length and wheelbase.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    It was an XL

  169. #169
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465

    Anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    As to Knollys "Crazy Slack" ST angle, strange how anyone who's riden and Endo raves about how well it climbs and descends
    I have several friends riding endos and I've ridden with Noel several times. Great guy and great bikes. If (like me) you have a long inseam for your frame size, the seat angle starts to do weird things. I demo'd an endo and liked it, but honestly it didn't blow my mind like the Rune did.

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Just curious, what size bike do you ride?
    The Rocky was a 18".

    Geo here on Rocky site.


    I've been riding 17's, 18's, and the old generic M's for the last 18 years. I am just a hair under 6ft barefoot.

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    I am 6'5" tall with a 36" inseam and when I had the post on my Endo it was to far over the reat tire for climbing.
    Decending the bike was great. but climbing for me is a much bigger problem.

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,959
    Quote Originally Posted by sikocycles
    QBP has the 140mm Reba listed with no ETA but it must be getting close.
    Exciting times for 29er riders.
    Sources say July


  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,959
    Slack STA's are much less a problem (climbing wheelie syndrome) when the bb is low (on a 29er)...
    Last edited by jncarpenter; 06-10-2010 at 05:41 PM.


  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    124
    What type of timeframe should we expect before we would see the test frames available?

    Just trying to plan future bike purchases

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    As I said before, the test frames are unlikely to be avaliable before 2011 if this project goes ahead.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! huh?

    What's the IF in your statement Keith???? Please let us know if this is a quesionable project or not, so those of us waiting will know if to wait or not - don't be like Intense and just drag it on, please give us the info.

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    As I said before, the test frames are unlikely to be avaliable before 2011 if this project goes ahead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    It all just depends on getting enough people interested in testing the frame... so far things look positive, but we can't afford to run a whole batch, if only half the cost is covered, we are far too small a company to swallow that kind of expense, we need to be able to cover at least 80% of cost of production to run this project... but as I said, so far a lot of people have contacted me expressing interest which is a good sign this early on.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OK, so the IF was for the advanced final testing phase then, not the actual bike coming to fruition. Was worried there for a sec that the bike itself coming to production for late 2011/2012 was in doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    It all just depends on getting enough people interested in testing the frame... so far things look positive, but we can't afford to run a whole batch, if only half the cost is covered, we are far too small a company to swallow that kind of expense, we need to be able to cover at least 80% of cost of production to run this project... but as I said, so far a lot of people have contacted me expressing interest which is a good sign this early on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    OK, so the IF was for the advanced final testing phase then, not the actual bike coming to fruition. Was worried there for a sec that the bike itself coming to production for late 2011/2012 was in doubt.
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    As I said before, the test frames are unlikely to be avaliable before 2011 if this project goes ahead.
    looks more like the "if" is in relation to the claymore coming to fruition at all. if you look at the banshee forum, the majority of the threads are about 26" bikes. i don't know that a few guys showing interest in the claymore is enough for banshee to make the claymore come to life. keith can correct me if i'm wrong. banshee is having enough trouble keeping up with current demand, i don't know if they can add a bike that will be a small percentage of overall sales to their line up and still keep things running smooth. i could care less myself if the claymore happens. 29er hardtails kinda peek my interest but for fs bikes i have zero interest in them. for you tall guys it makes sense to look at 29er fs but for me at 6", i like the way 26er fs bikes ride going down too much to worry about having a 29er fs bike. that's just my opinion but keith and jay have to look at things with making money in mind, not filling a small whole in their lineup. maybe keith can clear up banshee's thoughts on the claymore project.

  180. #180
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    It all just depends on getting enough people interested in testing the frame... so far things look positive, but we can't afford to run a whole batch, if only half the cost is covered, we are far too small a company to swallow that kind of expense, we need to be able to cover at least 80% of cost of production to run this project... but as I said, so far a lot of people have contacted me expressing interest which is a good sign this early on.
    How many different sizes would you be building in the test batch? It seems like most of the people interested here would be after a L or XL (which may make sense as the munchkins tend to enjoy the 29ers less, in general), although there could be a case for more debugging being necessary on S/M frames due to interference, balance and standover issues.

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    OK, so the IF was for the advanced final testing phase then, not the actual bike coming to fruition. Was worried there for a sec that the bike itself coming to production for late 2011/2012 was in doubt.

    not to pick on you, just trying to put the claymore demand into perspective. out of 180 posts here, you've got 30 and sikocycles has 28. so two guys have 58 out of 180 posts. do the math on demand then? if you guys want banshee to build a claymore you should be posting up the claymore project in the 29er forum and see how much interest it generates. that would go a long way to showing keith that's it's more than just a few guys here in the banshee forum who are super stoked on the claymore. even crazyfred who is a bit of a 29er nut ponied up and bought a spitfire to try out the suspension and design as a stopgap till or if the claymore comes to be. two or three guys constantly posting here about the claymore won't be enough to get it to come to life. you guys need to be waving the banshee flag over in the 29er forum and get some more people to show they want this bike. increasing your post count in this thread with a wish list for what the claymore will be just won't get it done imho. if you guys want this bike to happen, get some stoke for it going with some other riders

  182. #182
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    if you guys want banshee to build a claymore you should be posting up the claymore project in the 29er forum and see how much interest it generates. that would go a long way to showing keith that's it's more than just a few guys here in the banshee forum who are super stoked on the claymore.
    Good idea, but don't you think it would be better to wait until after the prototype design is finalized to start a poll or second thread about the Claymore? Some CAD/CAM renderings and a more accurate price estimate would go a long way in helping people make up their minds about doing some beta testing.

    In my opinion there isn't much to improve upon with the preliminary geometry that was posted. Maybe this thread is just quiet because most people looking at it aren't feeling much needs changing? I'm not personally interested in counting posts but I think the first 6 pages of the Spitfire thread was a discussion about head tube standards...and that thread had WAY more pictures!

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Blofeld
    Good idea, but don't you think it would be better to wait until after the prototype design is finalized to start a poll or second thread about the Claymore? Some CAD/CAM renderings and a more accurate price estimate would go a long way in helping people make up their minds about doing some beta testing.

    In my opinion there isn't much to improve upon with the preliminary geometry that was posted. Maybe this thread is just quiet because most people looking at it aren't feeling much needs changing? I'm not personally interested in counting posts but I think the first 6 pages of the Spitfire thread was a discussion about head tube standards...and that thread had WAY more pictures!

    but there's still only a few posters who have shown interest and kept this thread going. besides about three or four posters, there doesn't seem to be a huge interest in this bike. i could be wrong, but the thread makes it look like there's really not much interest in this bike. if keith is now questioning if this bike will even come to be, maybe he's feeling interest is not that high as well. i'm not interested in counting posts really either, just see the same 2 or 3 names pop up over and over and not many more than with a cursory interest. would love to hear keith's thoughts on whether this bike will happen.

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,663
    Keith says in his post alot of people expressed interest. I bet people PMed him instead of posting.

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    As I said before, the test frames are unlikely to be avaliable before 2011 if this project goes ahead.
    he also said "if this project goes ahead"

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bonesetter2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,849
    I've put my name in as one who will have a frame and will stand by that when it's time to be called.

    Keith has been feeding back and saying the project is on track, which is fine by me, if it goes ahead or not...

    LyNx & SC have been geeing the thread along fine, what else do you expect, the frame is a long way off?

  187. #187
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    324
    qbert - you certainly have some good reasons to be skeptical; personally I hope your skepticism is misplaced!

    I don't see many threads about the Paradox, and you could say that this means there isn't much interest in Banshee 29ers...but I have no idea about how they've been selling. It's still in the lineup for 2010 so obviously it hasn't been terminal. It's just MTBR...I'd bet we'd see twice as many Paradox posts if it was a steel bike, even if sales were the same.

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    he also said "if this project goes ahead"
    He was referring to offering Proto frames to the public in the same manner as the Legend.

    mtbr isn't the only source of riders in the world. Gauging everything off only this place would be a complete disaster.

  189. #189
    Blanco
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,332
    As far as seat tubes, I would be running a remote, so I don't care as much what it looks like. I'm not a big fan of strongly bent seat tubes, though, because I use a dropper post and like to run it at maximum height for maximum climbing efficiency, which usually puts my seat well behind the "effective" published STA (e.g. Knolly).

    Quote Originally Posted by m-dub
    If its a XC bike there building, sure steep is fine but for an agressive all mountain/freeride lite, that slackish seat tube will give a tighter cockpit when out of the saddle ripping
    When you're out of the saddle, why does it matter what your STA is? Genuinely curious.

    Quote Originally Posted by m-dub
    and strech you out on the climbs.
    I don't want to be stretched out on the climbs. I want to be in a relaxed position from which I can either spin comfortably, or pull the front end up onto technical bits. Both are made easier by a steep STA, IMO. Being stretched out just makes me tired and makes it hard to get the front end up.

    Quote Originally Posted by m-dub
    and bike can have a bit shorter WB to wake up the big wheels and flick it around a bit or in tight corners.
    As I said before, I've found a short TT to work better with steep STA, which keeps wheelbase within sane limits. That means the people who like a longer, more laid-out climbing position can use a setback post and get a normal TT measurement, and people who like a shorter, more upright climbing position can use a straight post and get a shortish TT measurement.

    For the record, I'm at about 74 STA, 67 HTA, and 23.5" TT with a 19.5" seat tube, and I would go steeper (76 STA) if I had it to do over again.

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Calhoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,234
    qbert2000 makes some great points.

    I am considering dropping 29ers for a 26. I was going for a the Rune, but a frame like this would keep me on a 29er. I really like the Lenz frames but the buy in is steep and as far as I know there is no option for 1.5 headtubes. If this frame was available right now I would buy it.

    I hope that this frame generates the demand necessary to get Banshee to production.

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Some good points, but as said, throwing up another thread in the 29er forum without pics, info etc. not sure how much that would do. 4600+ views would say alot to me for the thread though.

    As to buying a "stop gap" 26er in the mean time Not a chance in hell! I will never ride 26" wheels again, was considering maybe a Spitfire a bit, doing the 69er thing as an inbetween, but wasn't sure of that either - rode a 26" wheeled bike again recently and it reminded me why I now don't own any but my wall art Trance.

    Oh and BTW, paragraphs or sentence breaks make it a lot easier to read long posts/threads, just saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    not to pick on you, just trying to put the claymore demand into perspective. out of 180 posts here, you've got 30 and sikocycles has 28. so two guys have 58 out of 180 posts. do the math on demand then? if you guys want banshee to build a claymore you should be posting up the claymore project in the 29er forum and see how much interest it generates. that would go a long way to showing keith that's it's more than just a few guys here in the banshee forum who are super stoked on the claymore. even crazyfred who is a bit of a 29er nut ponied up and bought a spitfire to try out the suspension and design as a stopgap till or if the claymore comes to be. two or three guys constantly posting here about the claymore won't be enough to get it to come to life. you guys need to be waving the banshee flag over in the 29er forum and get some more people to show they want this bike. increasing your post count in this thread with a wish list for what the claymore will be just won't get it done imho. if you guys want this bike to happen, get some stoke for it going with some other riders
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    74
    Someone stole the "Claymore" name ;-)

    http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=233076

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    That really sucks, here's hoping that maybe Keith registered the name Wonder if they really did or if mayhap they came up with it themselves
    Quote Originally Posted by greb
    Someone stole the "Claymore" name ;-)

    http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=233076
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    Wonder if they really did or if mayhap they came up with it themselves
    I was just kidding about "stealing". This story reminds me the controversy between G'n'R and Offspring about the album name "Chinese Democracy".

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    764
    The geo sounds good and I am sure it will ride nice. One request I have is an ano black option. I love the ano, less paint markings and no chips.
    I like to ride Bikes. This might be turning into an obsession, not sure?

  196. #196
    Naturally Organic
    Reputation: Deuce9er's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,245
    My Claymore
    Size = SMedium
    ST 17.7
    TT 22.7
    HTA 67.7 w/ Reba 150mm
    STA 73.7
    CS 17.7
    HT 4.7
    WB 43.7
    BB 13.7
    SO 27.7
    BB 73mm
    Full 1.5 HT (Cane Creek AngleSet)
    Drop Outs for 135/150mm
    30.9 w/ DP Guides
    ISCG05
    Adjustable 5.5"-6" Rear Travel
    Ano Black

  197. #197
    TM1
    TM1 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    238

    oooops ....


  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Yeah, the name has been taken, which annoys me as I've wanted to use the name for years... oh well. I have a new name, but will not post it just incase it suddenly pops up on another companies bike...
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by builttoride
    Yeah, the name has been taken, which annoys me as I've wanted to use the name for years... oh well. I have a new name, but will not post it just incase it suddenly pops up on another companies bike...
    what is the policy on naming rights like that? could you prove you had the name first or is it whoever gets the bike to market first? are you just avoiding any possible litigation?

    also, is there some kind of expiration date? Cause Schwinn made a Spitfire way back in the day.


  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,271
    Basically we can't afford to be taken to court by a big company like cannondale... the lawyer fees alone would probably bury us, we are a small company that doesn't make much money. Hell the bike mechanic in the shop down the road gets paid more than I do... we do it for the love of it, not the money. But a law suit would kill us.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.