Spitfire or Phantom- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 52 of 52
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    24

    Spitfire or Phantom

    So I am thinking at some point in the next year, it will time to replace my 2010 V1 Rune. Originally, when thoughts of a new frame started creeping in, I was thinking of getting the V2 Spitfire, as the new Rune is more bike than I need. Then the Phantom came out. Now I am torn. So I am looking for some insight from the Banshee gang.

    My Rune frame is still running good, with minimal wear on the axles. The reason for the want of a new frame is more fit related than anything. Last summer I was 29er curious and decided to build up a 29er hardtail for my annual 24hr race (4 man team, on a flowy course with a fair amount of climbing). I managed to get a Titus Fireline Evo titanium frame to build up. I had to strip the brakes and drivetrain off the Rune as the frame/fork and rims bust the budget. I got it built up the day before the race, with my first ride on it being the prelap the night before the race. It was awesome. And after 7 laps over the 24hrs, my back was less sore than it had ever been after a race. So I kept the Titus together, and put the Rune into the rafters.

    Well a couple of months ago I got to demo a few bikes at an event, and decided I wanted to have some suspension again for a while. So I rebuilt the Rune, and within 20min of my first ride, my back was killing me. I compared my riding/cockpit positioning to my Titus and realized that my position on the Rune was about 1Ē further back from the bb than on the Titus. So I started playing with the cockpit on the Rune. I have gone to a wider bar and a 90mm stem to try and get myself forward. It works ok, but not quite in the sweet spot, and I am starting to feel I am too far over the front wheel. Hence need a new frame.

    Pros for the Phantom is that I already have a 29er, so tires/wheels/fork are swappable if needed. I also like the extra rollover, particularly when starting up in rocky/rooty areas.

    Spitty has the advantage of more squish, theroretically stronger wheels, and I already have a set of 650b Flows waiting to be built up. Also can swap wheel sizes to 26 if I want stiffer wheels, or run 26 just in the back to slacken it out for gravity oriented.

    Either frame will be built up with mostly whatever I can still use from my rune. 1x10 sram x9 gearing, hope hubs with flows(or maybe something wider). Will need a new fork , probably a pike.

    Oh ya, average rider (if I have been riding regularly), 6ft, 200lbs, comfortable with up to about 3ft drop to rough, 5ft if a smooth tranny. Actual jumping needs work. Not great at picking lines, but the hardtail was helping me learn. Tend to like standing pedaling rather than seated. Need work on my high speed cornering and switchbacks.

    My local trails are mostly rock and roots, short technical climbs/descents, no sustained climbing, and few high speed corners. Other trail networks that I get out to are still lots of technical stuff, just more climbing/descending, and lots of switchbacks. I also keep thinking I would like to get out and try a little lift access riding, or try an enduro race. But so far that hasnít happened.

    Realistically, either bike would do just fine. And the likelihood of me getting out and really trying and enduro is slim. The obvious thing to do is buy both and see which one I like. But the wife would kill me if I did that again. Currently I am leaning in towards the Phantom

    Anyway, any insight or things I havenít thought of would be appreciated.

    Cheers,
    Chris

  2. #2
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Awesome that you have a fireline- nice bike!

    How tight & twisty are your trails? +1 for smaller wheels
    How much jumping do you do? +1 for smaller wheels
    Are you into longer distance rides? +1 for bigger wheels
    Rooty chunder? +1 for bigger wheels
    How tall are you?

    My current stable is the Prime and the Fireline. I would really like to try a phantom, but 3 bikes doesn't make sense for me given my riding schedule & terrain. I do like the powder ski/longbpard feel of big wheels..

    I have more thoughts, but will save them until I know more.
    It call comes down to your style, terrain, height etc.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: guswalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    193
    First compare the reach and stack to whatever brands your local bike shops carry and demo them, that will tell you the size frame you need.

    Secondly think about what you have for the 29er. If the parts are nice go with the Phantom. When you try to sell items here or pinchbeck or ebay, you will get such lowball offers and charged service fees.

    Third you can do some jumping and rowdiness with 29ers. If you are beginning in that realm, then you will be fine. If your skills are advanced then, look at the smaller wheels.
    2017 XL Santa Cruz Tallboy

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Makten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    222
    I'd make the choice depending on what wheel size you prefer. A bike with larger wheels doesn't need the same shock travel, so the 105 mm rear of the Phantom isn't as "short" as one might think.

    I chose the Phantom over the Spitfire (without having ridden any of them) purely because the trails I ride are quite rough. There are no switchbacks and no large drops. Just hiking trails on rocky and rooty terrain without any smooth sections at all, so the large 29" wheels makes quite a difference when it comes to rolling over things.

    What surprised me is how VERY sturdy the Phantom is, compared to how I had imagined it. It's not even remotely close to a XC bike and can probably handle some really tough AM style riding. I guess the Spitfire is a bit more snappy though.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    I demoed a spitfire and bought a phantom. The spitfire was great but wasn't the engaging ride I wanted. It ate up descents but the head angle was so raked out that the handling felt disconnected, particularly at slow speeds or uphill. Almost floppy. The phantom retained the downhill character but without the handling oddities as it has a steeper head angle. It also went uphill better, felt more nimble and delivered a more engaging ride. It did require a more physical style of riding, as all 29ers do, and you can't be lazy as you don't have the extra travel for cock ups. On the other hand the lack of travel makes the bike easier to move about as you don't have as much travel to pull through. The phantom also has a shorter wheelbase compared to a 650b spitfire. All of these factors (head angle, wheelbase, nimbleness) combined meant that I found the Phantom better in twisty stuff than the Spitfire.

    I honestly can't think of a better style of bike for trail riding through to amateur enduro racing. I ride mine on the local DH trails with 5ft drops to trannies without issues and then ride the XC trails home. I think is more like a big wheeled BMX with suspension whereas the spitfire just felt like another bike. The phantom is meant to be a 29er spitfire but in my eyes it does everything the spitfire does but better (unless you want to do full on downhill in which case you would ride the rune). My Phantom has ridden gnarlier stuff than my Heckler ever did, in more style and at greater speed.

    Wheel size vs strength is marketing BS. If you buy a decent set you will be fine. Yes a 26" wheel can be made stiffer but in the real world you won't notice, particularly once you have a big bit of rubber wrapped around it. If it really bothers you that much you can run the Phantom with a 150mm spaced hub.

    People always seem dubious that a 105mm 29er can be any good because we have all been fed the '6" travel enduro bike is the best' marketing. Only you really know what your riding is like but I know that everyone who has had a go on mine, including die hard 29er haters, is now trying to work out how to buy one of the new breed short travel 29ers (Banshee Phantom, Kona Process 111, Transition Smuggler, Orange Segment, Pyga 110, etc). They are getting rave reviews from Singletrack (UK magazine) and Pinkbike. They make so much more sense for trail riding by 99.9% of the trail/all mountain/weekend warrior crowd and have the added benefit that they make any trail fun while still being able to dispatch big ugly stuff. Longer travel bikes just can't do that due to all the big wobbly springs.

    You already know the benefits of 29" wheels for cornering and climbing grip, rolling over chatter, etc. Your described style of riding sounds ideally suited to the Phantom to be honest.
    Last edited by shackleton; 11-13-2014 at 03:19 PM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    122
    I haven't ridden the phantom, but I have spent a lot of time on a Paradox and own a Spitfire v2 with the 'tweener wheels. The Paradox is a very fun bike, and pretty much sold me on the idea that 29ers can be fun for the aggressive trail riding that I do. If that design philosophy carried over to the Phantom, I have no doubts that it could be a very fun bike.

    That being said, I'm a huge fan of my Spitfire and have not been interested in the Phantom. I prefer slack bikes because I prioritize handling on the way down over handling on the way up, and the Spitfire strikes a nice balance of being very comfortable to pedal yet slack and long enough to let it hang out on the downhills. It rides "bigger" than its 140mm of travel would suggest, but the KS Link uses the travel very efficiently. Shock tune is critical and I ditched the CCDB for a custom Avalanche tuned Fox CTD, but the bike absolutely rips.

    Coming from a shorter travel bike might make the bike feel big and floppy, but coming from something like the Rune will, if it's anything like my experience, be all smiles. I came from a Nomad Carbon, and the Spitfire has been better in just about every way.
    2014 Banshee Spitfire 650b
    2011-ish Chromag Samurai

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by babyz View Post
    That being said, I'm a huge fan of my Spitfire and have not been interested in the Phantom. I prefer slack bikes because I prioritize handling on the way down over handling on the way up, and the Spitfire strikes a nice balance of being very comfortable to pedal yet slack and long enough to let it hang out on the downhills.
    The Phantom, being a 29er, doesn't need the slackness to achieve the same effects. So you can have nice handling up and tear the trail apart on the way down. Why compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by babyz View Post
    It rides "bigger" than its 140mm of travel would suggest, but the KS Link uses the travel very efficiently.
    All KS link bikes do this regardless of wheel size. I suspect it is due to the suspension curves. They all have very progressive feeling suspension compared to many other bikes on the market.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31
    Get whichever one you really want - you can't go wrong.

    Bear in mind that the Spitfire has more anti-squat so less bob, and more linkage progression so will feel even longer travel. Running 27.5 wheels and a 160 fork you're at 66 deg HA in the middle setting, and it's longer wheelbase, so it's pretty unstoppable downhill. Personally I find it climbs great and on twisty trails it just demands you put more work in.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Bear in mind that the Spitfire has more anti-squat so less bob, and more linkage progression so will feel even longer travel.
    I've been trying to find this information, can you tell me where you found it?

    So far as I'm aware the Spitfire needs more anti bob because it has to deal with more travel. Simple as that. Having ridden both I find you comment about progression hard to believe as well.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31
    Look on the linkage design blog. There isn't an individual entry for the Spitfire but the plots are on the BTR Pinner page. Note that anti-squat increases significantly with a smaller chain ring and with 27.5 wheels and a 32t a Spitfire will be higher geared than a Phantom with a 28t.

    At sag it's about 100% on the Phantom vs 120% for the Spitfire. The linkage progression is 2.52-2.37 vs 2.9-2.3.

    I'm sure the Phantom is really great. But I don't think you can write off the Spitfire based on a test ride or two, especially as the Spitfire has more travel and thus requires more time to get the suspension tuned. It's taken me about 6 months to get my Spitfire really dialled and something as subtle as changing the front tyre had a big effect on the handling feel.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    220
    I couldn't decide... so I've got one of each coming... :-)
    2017 Kona Process 111
    2017 Trek Stache 7 Single Speed
    2019 Norco Search XR Steel

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by threehats View Post
    I'm sure the Phantom is really great. But I don't think you can write off the Spitfire based on a test ride or two, especially as the Spitfire has more travel and thus requires more time to get the suspension tuned.
    Thanks for the info, although the graphs make sense I have to confess I struggled to translate the explanations (even once written in "english")!

    I wasn't writing the Spitfire off either. I demoed one on 2 separate occasions for a total of 6 full days riding and tinkered a lot with the set ups, including swapping wheels sizes. It was one of the better bikes I have ridden, but the negatives I have listed above about handling, etc. made me decide not to splash my money. It was also much, much better in its 26er incarnation than 650b, and 160mm travel forks on the 650b form accentuated all of the handling faults. It isn't the Spitfire per say, it is all of this class of 650b bikes. They are sold as trail bikes but handle more like downhill bikes! Very good down, but dogs going up or along. This is why I think the new breed 29ers win for most people as they feel the same as a raked out 650b going down but are much better mannered on the flat or up. For much the same reasons I'd rather have a Prime than a 650b Rune.

    If I wanted to do big drops all the time then yes, the 26" Spitfire would win out, but for general trail riding and the kind of obstacles and drops most people encounter the Phantom wins hands down in my experience. This sounds like the kind of riding the OP is interested in, hence recommending the Phantom over the Spitfire.

    But as said earlier, the only way to know for sure is to try them.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31
    The last thing I'd say about my Spitfire is that it's a dog going up or along. And I prefer the slightly higher BB, greater rolling speed and more stable feel with the 27.5 wheels. If you run the forks too hard relative to the shock it ends up extremely slack when riding, which could be the problem you had. Get the balance right and it feels great to me.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    I suggest you never ride a Phantom then. The experience would be too much for you to contain yourself...............

    I agree about the stiff fork. One of the Spitfires I rode had a X-fusion Sweep. No matter what it did it felt terrible. Either sat too high and felt rigid or was able to take big hits but dived through its travel. I then swapped it to a pike and it was so much better, almost a different bike. The second Spitfire I demoed ( I wanted a rematch as I really wanted to buy a Spitfire) came with 160mm 650b and 26" Pikes so I wan't tainted from the start.

    Maybe calling it a dog is a bit unfair but on the Spitfire all of the climbs were endured whereas on the Phantom they can be enjoyed, and the spitfire felt wandery and disconnected unless you were hammering downhill (and in fairness, downhill it was brilliant).

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by shackleton View Post
    Maybe calling it a dog is a bit unfair but on the Spitfire all of the climbs were endured whereas on the Phantom they can be enjoyed, and the spitfire felt wandery and disconnected unless you were hammering downhill (and in fairness, downhill it was brilliant).
    Enjoying climbs?!! I just want it to get me to the top asap so I can start the fun sooner. I ride a lot of pedally singletrack locally, as well as our local mini DH stuff and then gnarlier stuff in Wales. Generally it's all about getting to the top with enough energy spare that the descents can be pinned. Dare I say, enduro style?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by threehats View Post
    Enjoying climbs?!!
    Yep, I only realised this was possible when I rode the Phantom. I now feel so much fresher after a climb that the downs can be given my all.

    I'm in Scotland so I guess I have to pedal a lot further along and up in one go than is usually the case down south, and I don't have access to DH runs harder than Innerleithen , so maybe that is where the difference in bike choice lies.

    And please don't use the "E" word. Every time you do a puppy dies......

  17. #17
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Quote Originally Posted by threehats View Post
    the Spitfire has more travel and thus requires more time to get the suspension tuned.
    Right! this is actually part of the draw of bigger wheels, the wheelsize smooths things out instead of suspension, so there's less hobby-horsing and also less flop & front wheel lift while climbing.

    Obviously there are situations/riding styles where this works awesome, and others where more travel/smaller wheels work better...

    Quickly rode a buddies Knolly Warden last night (size small). Fun bike- compared to my prime (medium) the shorter wheelbase was really noticeable while cornering.

    I am getting curious about running these 27.5+ tires on my 29" bikes!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Makten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by threehats View Post
    Enjoying climbs?!! I just want it to get me to the top asap so I can start the fun sooner. I ride a lot of pedally singletrack locally, as well as our local mini DH stuff and then gnarlier stuff in Wales. Generally it's all about getting to the top with enough energy spare that the descents can be pinned. Dare I say, enduro style?
    I can understand not enjoying climbs if it's on gravel roads or fire roads, but on rough single track, I enjoy climbing as much as going downhill. I just love to choose a line that I probably won't manage to clear. You know, knee-high ledges and stuff like that.

    For that sort of climbs, you really don't want a long travel bike and/or too slack geometry. Small wheels could be beneficial at times, though.

    I think I've only ever made use of the bashguard going uphill.


    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    I am getting curious about running these 27.5+ tires on my 29" bikes!
    Mind your BB height! I think a 29:er with 650b wheels would suck infinitely for most kinds riding.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OP, I think this is something very personal, really depends on the individual, but from the riding you're describing, I think that something like the Phantom would be more suited, efficient, yet still loads of fun. I'm no hucker, not by a long shot, most I think I've ever honestly done is <3ft, but I had a Prime and now have a Phantom and it is robust and stiff as hell, don't think throwing it off 3-5ft drops regularly would do it anything and the suspension is confusing in how bottomless it feels, but yet still efficient - I never know where I use full travel except on one trail with a big G-Out.

    Actually the B+ offerings measure up to close 29", so you won't actually loose a lot of BB height, maybe a 1/4"-3/8" max. Will be getting 29+ for the front of my Monkey and have been researching the 650B+ as an alternative that gives more volume and will fit in the frame. Will be trying the 29+ tyres in the Prime and Phantoms rear tris to see how they clear, or don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    .........I am getting curious about running these 27.5+ tires on my 29" bikes!
    Quote Originally Posted by Makten View Post
    Mind your BB height! I think a 29:er with 650b wheels would suck infinitely for most kinds riding.
    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.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Makten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    222
    LyNx, PLEASE stop writing above what/who you are quoting. It's you against the rest of the world.

    ---------

    Regarding wheel sizes, 29" is quite a bit larger than 650b, which is only a tad larger than 26".

    Spitfire or Phantom-650b-wheel-size-comparison-diagram.jpg

    Edit: But yes, if you compare 29:er wheels and tiny tires, to 650b wheels with large tires, you're right. But why not use large tires on large wheels?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    This is how I reply, it makes sense to me

    As to the tyres, are you even aware of what we're talking about? We are talking about 2.8-3" wide tyres, referred to as 650B/27.5+ and 29"+ tyres, which means that they're DAMN huge. Maybe before you comment on a subject you should do some research on it, here's a link to give you a little head-start, follow a few of the links from there or let Google help and try to get up to speed on this, OK
    WTB Trailblazer 27.5 X 2.8" Tires: Exclusive B+ Review Intro
    First Look: Rocky Mountain?s 27.5-inch prototype Sherpa fatbike - Mtbr.com


    Quote Originally Posted by Makten View Post
    LyNx, PLEASE stop writing above what/who you are quoting. It's you against the rest of the world.

    ---------

    Regarding wheel sizes, 29" is quite a bit larger than 650b, which is only a tad larger than 26".

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	650B-wheel-size-comparison-diagram.jpg 
Views:	452 
Size:	61.8 KB 
ID:	939014

    Edit: But yes, if you compare 29:er wheels and tiny tires, to 650b wheels with large tires, you're right. But why not use large tires on large wheels?
    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.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    167
    If you take suspension and wheelsize out of the equation, the biggest thing I noticed between these two bikes are the stack height..
    On the phantom you have much more relaxed and upright position, more allround you might say.
    The spitfire is noticeable lower in the front, you really are attacking corners, drops and so on.
    I would happily ride the phantom all day long, whereas the spitfire is a more, in the mood kind a bike. You ride the spitty in anger, and use the phantom for everything else..

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Makten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    This is how I reply, it makes sense to me
    Do you read books backwards too?

    As to the tyres, are you even aware of what we're talking about? We are talking about 2.8-3" wide tyres, referred to as 650B/27.5+ and 29"+ tyres, which means that they're DAMN huge. Maybe before you comment on a subject you should do some research on it, here's a link to give you a little head-start, follow a few of the links from there or let Google help and try to get up to speed on this, OK
    WTB Trailblazer 27.5 X 2.8" Tires: Exclusive B+ Review Intro
    First Look: Rocky Mountain?s 27.5-inch prototype Sherpa fatbike - Mtbr.com
    Oops, I missed the "+". I know very well what that is, so no reason to act rude.

    ---------------

    Edit: If you want larger volume tires, why don't you just use wider 29" rims and fatter 29" tires? I think this is plenty large:

    Spitfire or Phantom-dsc00827.jpg
    Last edited by Makten; 11-15-2014 at 07:29 AM.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Makten View Post
    Do you read books backwards too?


    Oops, I missed the "+". I know very well what that is, so no reason to act rude.
    lynx isn't really being rude, it's just the way gods talk to mere mortals.

    i don't know why so many people struggle to understand how important lynx is to mountain biking. no one should question his advice or opinion. haven't you read how he loves the tech?!? up and down. he lives in the mountain biking nirvana of barbados don't you know?

    i've learned the hard way to never question him. after watching his videos and seeing his gnar core abilities i have been truly humbled. all bow before the mtb god that is LYNX

    ps and if he does read backwards, i'm going to start to as well because i must have been doing it wrong all along then

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    If you take suspension and wheelsize out of the equation, the biggest thing I noticed between these two bikes are the stack height..
    On the phantom you have much more relaxed and upright position, more allround you might say.
    The spitfire is noticeable lower in the front, you really are attacking corners, drops and so on.
    Given that the difference in stack height is 26mm and most Spitfires I have seen run risers and Phantoms run flats it seems a bit moot. You are probably arguing over 5mm at most!

    If you are going to run your stem slammed with flat bars on a Spitfire then maybe you would like the 26mm lower stack but anything else......nah.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by shackleton View Post
    Given that the difference in stack height is 26mm and most Spitfires I have seen run risers and Phantoms run flats it seems a bit moot. You are probably arguing over 5mm at most!

    If you are going to run your stem slammed with flat bars on a Spitfire then maybe you would like the 26mm lower stack but anything else......nah.
    Oh I'm sorry, I was all wrong then??
    Then I guess my personally experience with both these bikes (including the Prime), that I own and ride, are totally wrong because what: you know what setup I ride with, or is it your extensive experince from a demo ride?

    And I don't really get your exemple either, if you run a lot of spacers and a riser bar on a low stack bike, it will roughly be the same as a high stack bike with slammed stem and flat bar? Duhh, off course it will be?!

    I love when people are throwing numbers around from a geo chart and concludes that 5mm is not relevant or even pmakes a big difference.
    I never spend much time reading those anyway, it all comes down to the feeling of the bike. If it feels right on the trail - go for it..

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Personal experience here too from demos and riding regularly with 2 spitfire owners and a prime. We all have the same size bikes and do lots of swapping to compare set ups. I guess you and I just have different experiences of the 2 bikes. Hence why I was questioning what you said as your comment seemed to be about all phantoms and all spitfires not just about yours and how you have them set up.

    You can set your bike up how you want and that will likely have more of an effect than anything theoretical gleaned from a geo chart - that was my point, and led in from you talking about stack height . That will dictate how it will feel. So to quote someone from here recently "Duhh, of course it will be"

    A blanket claim that YOUR spitfire feels lower than YOUR phantom doesn't make it true for everyone. Are you trying to say that your Phantom and Spitfire have the same height and width bars (stem length?) but the Spitfire feels lower? That would be an important distinction.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    24
    Wow! Thanks for all the info, guys. Some good stuff to think about for sure. After reading everything I think the Phantom will be the best choice. I have had a chance to demo quite a few 29ers, and found most of them to ride quite nicely.

    Of the full squish 29ers I have tried, the Kona Satori was (in my opinion)by far the nicest. I wasnít expecting much given its 34+lbs(compared to Stump EVO at 29). But it felt much lighter, climbed really well. And seemed to have to have a nice balanced antisquat, at least for a single pivot.

    One of the things that I really like about the Rune is the anti squat. If I pedal hard enough it feels like the back end picks up a bit. I really like that for quick standing charges up technical climbs and I would hate to lose too much of that feeling. I demoed a Stumpy EVO FSR, and while it handled great, it squatted so much when I tried to charge up technical stuff that I frequently found myself catching my pedals in places I never would have. Made for a few spectacular uphill crashes.

    So, as Threehats mentioned, the suspension curve for the Phantom appears to have less anti-squat than the Spitty. For those with the Phantom, to you find you have to use any pedaling platform when riding uphill?

    Keith, any recommendation for shock? Would the CC Inline be best for tune to isolate low speed compression movement?

    Cheers,
    Chris

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    I replied with the same "tone" as you, next time try to read and comprehend properly before spouting off a silly reply. As to why not run a big 29" tyre, for the same reason that a street car may have a wheel/tyre combo that is 25" high achieved using a very big rim and very little tyre because it is used on a hard, smooth surface and why off road trucks will achieve that same radius using a much smaller rim and much higher volume tyre, because they need that for the rough off road, give more cush and grip because it can conform to the terrain - in simple English, a Ardent 2.4", even on a wide rim will never have as much volume and "suspension"as a 650B+ tyre that is 2.8" wide on a wide rim. Doing this, you can then fit a much higher volume tyre into the stays if it was already tight with the big 29er tyre (length wise, but width is OK), as the 650B+ will be a smidge shorter, but loads more volume.

    Quote Originally Posted by Makten View Post
    Oops, I missed the "+". I know very well what that is, so no reason to act rude.

    ---------------

    Edit: If you want larger volume tires, why don't you just use wider 29" rims and fatter 29" tires? I think this is plenty large:
    Again I swear I heard a turd fart Maybe one day the turd will back up some of his $hit with actual videos etc to prove his cred, but until then, wish he's stop messing up the place with his crap
    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.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Makten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    I replied with the same "tone" as you, next time try to read and comprehend properly before spouting off a silly reply.
    If you think it's "silly" to give advice, right.

    As to why not run a big 29" tyre, for the same reason that a street car may have a wheel/tyre combo that is 25" high achieved using a very big rim and very little tyre because it is used on a hard, smooth surface and why off road trucks will achieve that same radius using a much smaller rim and much higher volume tyre, because they need that for the rough off road, give more cush and grip because it can conform to the terrain - in simple English, a Ardent 2.4", even on a wide rim will never have as much volume and "suspension"as a 650B+ tyre that is 2.8" wide on a wide rim. Doing this, you can then fit a much higher volume tyre into the stays if it was already tight with the big 29er tyre (length wise, but width is OK), as the 650B+ will be a smidge shorter, but loads more volume.
    I'm just wondering why you are on 2.25" tires if you want large volume. Doesn't make sense at all. Looks like you bought the wrong bike after all.

    Again I swear I heard a turd fart Maybe one day the turd will back up some of his $hit with actual videos etc to prove his cred, but until then, wish he's stop messing up the place with his crap
    Only dorks try to "prove their cred". You're obviously one.

  31. #31
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Well, anyways!

    I've definitely decided I am going to pick up some ultra-wide rimmed 27.5 wheels this winter. I'm going to try them on my 29" AM hardtail and on my Prime with these 27.5+ 2.8 tires.

    If I don't like it, then I still have a 27.5 wheelset that would work on a spitty, rune or something else.

    Damn curiosity

    Light bicycles has some 38mm carbon rims on the way, just waiting for those to become available.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    No, but you hastily replied after not properly reading the comment and replied giving wrong/silly advice. Never said it was silly to reply, but silly to reply when you didn't understand or properly read what you're replying to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Makten View Post
    If you think it's "silly" to give advice, right.
    Actually I run a variety of tyres, have prob 20+ to choose from, so I experiment and use depending on my current setup, weather and trail conditions.

    Right now I'm running a WTB WW 2.55" on the rerar to match up with roughly the same volume to a Maxxis Ikon 2.35" on the front because I am running a 140mm fork and want to not let odd sized tyres slacken out the geo anymore. Before that I was running a 2.4" Ardent R/ 2.4" CM front and before that when I was running a 120mm fork, I was running a 2.25" SB on the rear paired with a 2.4" CM on the front because I wanted the geo slacked out ever so slightly.

    As to the 650B+ and 29+ tyres, like FM, just damn curious to see how/what fits in the Prime/Phantom as others have asked, but more so for my rigid as it can't take a 29+ in the rear, but I'd still like something higher volume than a 2.4" Ardent to pair up with my 29+ tyres coming for the front.
    Quote Originally Posted by Makten View Post
    I'm just wondering why you are on 2.25" tires if you want large volume. Doesn't make sense at all. Looks like you bought the wrong bike after 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.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Makten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    222
    LyNx: Yeah, I was wrong because I misread the post. No big deal, huh? Doesn't make it silly, if you consider how I read the post I replied to.

    Regarding wheel and tire sizes, to me it's perfect to get even larger diameter with fat tires on 29" rims. So, going 650B+ isn't an option. Definitely not if I'll lose ~2 cm diameter from normal tires too.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwookie View Post

    So, as Threehats mentioned, the suspension curve for the Phantom appears to have less anti-squat than the Spitty. For those with the Phantom, to you find you have to use any pedaling platform when riding uphill?

    Keith, any recommendation for shock? Would the CC Inline be best for tune to isolate low speed compression movement?

    Cheers,
    Chris
    The inline is a great piece of kit if you like to tune things in perfectly to your liking.

    As for the antisquat, you can't really compare different wheels sizes without also comparing the gearing. Running a smaller chainring increases the antisquat on any bike. So while the phantom has a lower antisquat than the spitfire for same chainring size, when you consider that the phantom will likely run a smaller chainring, it more or less cancels out (depending on ring sizes).
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Keith, while you are around............

    I heard that some people were having issues with CCDB inlines due to insufficient HSR damping at the high shock pressures necessitated by heavier riders on certain styles of suspension design.

    I know TFTuned are cautioning people against fitting them to certain bikes if you are over 90kg or need to run >180psi. Do you know if the Phantom is affected by Cane Creek's design limits?

    I'm thinking of upgrading from the monarch to a CCDB and would like to know before I take the plunge as I am 90kg on the bike.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,266
    We have tested the cane creek inline pretty hard. Think multiple whistler bikepark laps at speed through tech. They handles everything we threw at them well. However I'm only 90kg with gear, so can't talk for the really big dudes.

    I would sggest that most the issues are happeneing on bikes with high leverage ratios, our bikes all have mid-low leverage ratios. Spitfire = 2.46:1, Phantom = 2.38:1.
    Banshee Bikes Designer
    www.bansheebikes.com
    Banshee Blog

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    I think I should be fine then! Thanks again for your help and advice.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by shackleton View Post
    The Phantom, being a 29er, doesn't need the slackness to achieve the same effects. So you can have nice handling up and tear the trail apart on the way down. Why compromise?



    All KS link bikes do this regardless of wheel size. I suspect it is due to the suspension curves. They all have very progressive feeling suspension compared to many other bikes on the market.
    I should have been more clear I guess. I am not interested in 29ers because I ride a lot of very tight, very technical trails. I like the smaller, nimble feel of the slightly smaller wheels, and I think that the 27.5 strikes a nice balance between the physics of the traditional 26 and 29" wheel sizes. I strongly disagree with you in your claim that the Spitfire handles poorly on the way up - I thoroughly enjoy the way it handles all over the mountain. While your handling preferences may be different than mine, I think your generalization that the Phantom handles better is entirely subjective.

    Yes, the KS Link is similar between bikes, but the tweaks in leverage ratios can have dramatic impacts on how the bikes use their travel. While the same in principle and general layout, the handling traits are absolutely not the same among all Banshee bikes.

    As threehats said, I'm glad you love your Phantom and I'm sure its a sick bike, but that doesn't mean its the perfect bike for everyone. Different wheel sizes handle differently, and there's no one size to rule them all. The Spitfire is a much different bike than the Phantom, and it has different ride qualities. I do think that the Spitfire is a more aggressive bike in general relative to the Phantom, and the geometry makes it an easy bike for gravity-inclined people to jump on and be comfortable with straight away.
    2014 Banshee Spitfire 650b
    2011-ish Chromag Samurai

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    82

    Re: Spitfire or Phantom

    Quote Originally Posted by Kofoed View Post
    I would happily ride the phantom all day long, whereas the spitfire is a more, in the mood kind a bike. You ride the spitty in anger, and use the phantom for everything else..
    Have done multiple 80km+ xc rides with 1800m+ vertical on my 650b spitfire with no complaints. I'm still running my flip chip in the middle although I am thinking about switching it so its a bit better on the climbs.
    I really want to give the phantom a try to see how I like it. Only ridden one fs 29er and it was a specialized enduro which I give 2 thumbs down 👎👎

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by shackleton View Post
    A blanket claim that YOUR spitfire feels lower than YOUR phantom doesn't make it true for everyone. Are you trying to say that your Phantom and Spitfire have the same height and width bars (stem length?) but the Spitfire feels lower? That would be an important distinction.
    And here is what I wrote, notice the highlight please..
    If you take suspension and wheelsize out of the equation, the biggest thing I noticed between these two bikes are the stack height..

    I suppose you are also writting from YOUR own personal experince??
    Or did you run some sort survey among all banshee owners..

    I merely replied a guy who was wondering about the difference between these two models, which I happend to have ridden for a lenghty time.
    If you have a another view on it, good for you then.
    But don't be that guy who think he's talking for the rest of the internet, just because it dosen't fit in with your personally opinion..

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Kofoed View Post
    And here is what I wrote, notice the highlight please..
    If you take suspension and wheelsize out of the equation, the biggest thing I noticed between these two bikes are the stack height..

    I suppose you are also writting from YOUR own personal experince??
    Or did you run some sort survey among all banshee owners..

    I merely replied a guy who was wondering about the difference between these two models, which I happend to have ridden for a lenghty time.
    If you have a another view on it, good for you then.
    But don't be that guy who think he's talking for the rest of the internet, just because it dosen't fit in with your personally opinion..
    Ah, the Internet. A marvellous place to accidentally start fights with people you mostly agree with over minor points. We've made our points, others can probably see what we are getting at so I'm just going to leave it there. Cheers!

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    167
    No bad blood here..
    And the best thing is, we can go ride our bikes afterwards😄

  43. #43
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    So here's a semi-related question for discussion:
    Which would snap corners better:
    a 27.5" bike with a 46" wheelbase, or a 29" bike with a shorter 45" wheelbase?

    Thoughts and opinions?

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    167
    Come on!!!!!

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    Wow, that's very open ended FM, so many variables you haven't given like.... FS or HT? Chainstay length on both? HTA on both? Weight of wheelset on both bikes? Overall build weight of both? Just some :starter" questions to give people a better idea of what you're looking at.
    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.

  46. #46
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Wow, that's very open ended FM, so many variables you haven't given like.... FS or HT?
    Consider all other things equal, other than wheelbase and wheelsize.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: darkslide18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,076
    Mountain Bikes: Serious ****.

  48. #48
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Quote Originally Posted by darkslide18 View Post
    Mountain Bikes: Serious ****.
    Yes... but which is more serious, a 27.5" bike with a 46" wheelbase, or a 29" bike with a shorter 45" wheelbase?


  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    I've no real experience with this comparison except that my Paradox HT has a 45" WB and it's the most nimble bike I've owned, everyone who tries one of my Paradoxs, especially people who are die hard 26" riders, can never get over how fun and easy it is to move about.
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Yes... but which is more serious, a 27.5" bike with a 46" wheelbase, or a 29" bike with a shorter 45" wheelbase?

    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.

  50. #50
    CP
    Reputation: C.P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    So here's a semi-related question for discussion:
    Which would snap corners better:
    a 27.5" bike with a 46" wheelbase, or a 29" bike with a shorter 45" wheelbase?

    Thoughts and opinions?
    the one that makes you smile bigger wins...if you cant decide, well there's always N+1

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: darkslide18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Yes... but which is more serious, a 27.5" bike with a 46" wheelbase, or a 29" bike with a shorter 45" wheelbase?

    I ride a 27.5" Rune in the slack position with a WB of 46.9" so Ill go with that.

    All things being equal I think the WB of a bike is a fairly small part of the equation. I think you would feel the greater difference between the wheel sizes and frame geometry. Short wheelbase or not a 29er is going to take a different riding style than a smaller wheeled bike.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    67
    Never tried a Spitfire or a Phantom but, after trying a couple of 650b bikes, I decided that I cannot go back to smaller wheels. If you like 29ers, IMHO you should stay on bigger wheels.

Similar Threads

  1. Phantom loving
    By Fakawi in forum Banshee Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-29-2014, 03:46 PM
  2. Phantom...
    By ratherbeintobago in forum Banshee Bikes
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 05:17 PM
  3. DJI Phantom
    By Silver_Slug in forum Videos and POV Cameras
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-06-2013, 04:14 PM
  4. Xtr phantom shift
    By mbmsg in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 02:16 PM
  5. Phantom shifting fix?
    By mtnbiker64 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-10-2011, 01:23 PM

Members who have read this thread: 5

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.