ah thats only cos the thread had been started, as it had elsewhere, so we figured that we might as well make it public so that people could find out details rather than speculate, that was several days after the internet first discovered it and threads started to be written about it.
Banshee Slopestyle Bike
- Thread starter jvnixon
- Start date
they updated the geometry I saw on their blog so if you got a suggestion...
http://bansheebikes.blogspot.com/2007/01/wildcard-geometry.html
http://bansheebikes.blogspot.com/2007/01/wildcard-geometry.html
hi yall, kyle from transition bikes here....just wanted to chime in with my .02cents.
i think it's cool Banshee is jumping on board and doing a bike in this classification. there needs to be more options out there and competition is a healthy thing and will only lead to better products and better value. so, anybody out there bashing Banshee, just understand that we're all out there just trying to design products we're personally into so either love it or hate it but please be constructive.
this banshee bike seems like it will fill a void in the marketplace so i'm all cool with that.
i think 2008 is going to be a big bandwagon year with everybody jumping on with their own idea of what "slopestyle" means. i personally think Slopestyle is indeed a new "style" of riding but let's all remember, it doesn't exist everywhere out there. as more and more bike parks open up and more and more people get into the "less is more" thing (which i'm proud to say we are and have always been) i think the "slopestyle" segment will just continue to grow. fun to see. for me, slopestyle is kind of the next wave of riding that will rejuvenate our sport and bring it to a broader range of bike rider. it's now starting (slowly) to get "cool" to ride a MTB, whereas a couple years ago BMXers were still scoffing what was going on in the MTB world. it all spells progress which is good.
also, had a couple points about the Banshee bike.
1) nice job on the tubeset. i'm glad to see Banshee sticking with design elements that have worked for them before. why reinvent the wheel eh?
2) it is indeed a low single pivot suspension design. say what you will about axle path, shock lev ratio/spring rates, etc but it still falls under the broad classification. It's only a classification mind you and i personally don't know why people get so worked up about their bike being called a single pivot or a faux-bar yada-yada-yada. that only tells part of the story. you can build a bad low single pivot just as you can build a bad FSR or VPP (which is just a modified FSR anyway). i personally take pride in us using a low single pivot. longer bearing life, stiffer rear end, less stress on the shock shaft, predictable axle-path, no noticiable chain pull on compression, etc. all add up to desireable traits that alot of designs just plain don't afford. spend a week in whistler bike park and you'll know what i mean. the banshee bike is a single-pivot. if we really want to get technical we should all put our numbers up for axle path (which on a low single pivot only depends on where concentrically you place that pivot), lev rate all through the curve, etc. just saying your bike is not a low single pivot and saying it has better qualities is what i'm balking at. explain please. also, Turner was using a 4-bar (and now i can't remember if it was tonyellsworth's ICT or speciallized...doesn't matter i guess) and then heeither lost rights to use it or decided it wasn't that big of a deal. so, he cleverly came up with TNT. What the heck is that? torque neutralizing technology? makes me chuckle every time i hear that. all he did was take a low single pivot and gloss it up with a fancy marketing term for effect. not sure how that battle is working out for them...i can't wait to release our own linkage technology. stay tuned! (and if you're getting me correctly, you should be chuckling right now)
3) Somebody mentioned the banshee slopestyle bike offering a stiffer rear end (swingarm) than a BottleRocket. I can't wait til i can test for myself. judging by leverages generated by the rear wheel on long linkage bikes (banshee scream/chap transition dirtbag, etc) having a long linkage plate (ala a dirtbag or scream) produces more potential for flex and the load on the bearings becomes amplified. with a bottlerocket we used a very short triangulated linkage (the 1 piece rocker arm on the TT) which creates a stiffer area and less exxagerated side load on the shock shaft which will improve shock wear and help prevent broken shafts (which happen much more frequently on longer linkage bikes). we've spend a good long time getting what we believe is the stiffest laterally rear end out there. i'd love to see some more thoughts/opinions from other readers here on this issue as well.
i had one other point but i've totally lost it. i'm sure it was the end-all discussion killer.
and now i say, let the bashing begin.....
-kyle
i think it's cool Banshee is jumping on board and doing a bike in this classification. there needs to be more options out there and competition is a healthy thing and will only lead to better products and better value. so, anybody out there bashing Banshee, just understand that we're all out there just trying to design products we're personally into so either love it or hate it but please be constructive.
this banshee bike seems like it will fill a void in the marketplace so i'm all cool with that.
i think 2008 is going to be a big bandwagon year with everybody jumping on with their own idea of what "slopestyle" means. i personally think Slopestyle is indeed a new "style" of riding but let's all remember, it doesn't exist everywhere out there. as more and more bike parks open up and more and more people get into the "less is more" thing (which i'm proud to say we are and have always been) i think the "slopestyle" segment will just continue to grow. fun to see. for me, slopestyle is kind of the next wave of riding that will rejuvenate our sport and bring it to a broader range of bike rider. it's now starting (slowly) to get "cool" to ride a MTB, whereas a couple years ago BMXers were still scoffing what was going on in the MTB world. it all spells progress which is good.
also, had a couple points about the Banshee bike.
1) nice job on the tubeset. i'm glad to see Banshee sticking with design elements that have worked for them before. why reinvent the wheel eh?
2) it is indeed a low single pivot suspension design. say what you will about axle path, shock lev ratio/spring rates, etc but it still falls under the broad classification. It's only a classification mind you and i personally don't know why people get so worked up about their bike being called a single pivot or a faux-bar yada-yada-yada. that only tells part of the story. you can build a bad low single pivot just as you can build a bad FSR or VPP (which is just a modified FSR anyway). i personally take pride in us using a low single pivot. longer bearing life, stiffer rear end, less stress on the shock shaft, predictable axle-path, no noticiable chain pull on compression, etc. all add up to desireable traits that alot of designs just plain don't afford. spend a week in whistler bike park and you'll know what i mean. the banshee bike is a single-pivot. if we really want to get technical we should all put our numbers up for axle path (which on a low single pivot only depends on where concentrically you place that pivot), lev rate all through the curve, etc. just saying your bike is not a low single pivot and saying it has better qualities is what i'm balking at. explain please. also, Turner was using a 4-bar (and now i can't remember if it was tonyellsworth's ICT or speciallized...doesn't matter i guess) and then heeither lost rights to use it or decided it wasn't that big of a deal. so, he cleverly came up with TNT. What the heck is that? torque neutralizing technology? makes me chuckle every time i hear that. all he did was take a low single pivot and gloss it up with a fancy marketing term for effect. not sure how that battle is working out for them...i can't wait to release our own linkage technology. stay tuned! (and if you're getting me correctly, you should be chuckling right now)
3) Somebody mentioned the banshee slopestyle bike offering a stiffer rear end (swingarm) than a BottleRocket. I can't wait til i can test for myself. judging by leverages generated by the rear wheel on long linkage bikes (banshee scream/chap transition dirtbag, etc) having a long linkage plate (ala a dirtbag or scream) produces more potential for flex and the load on the bearings becomes amplified. with a bottlerocket we used a very short triangulated linkage (the 1 piece rocker arm on the TT) which creates a stiffer area and less exxagerated side load on the shock shaft which will improve shock wear and help prevent broken shafts (which happen much more frequently on longer linkage bikes). we've spend a good long time getting what we believe is the stiffest laterally rear end out there. i'd love to see some more thoughts/opinions from other readers here on this issue as well.
i had one other point but i've totally lost it. i'm sure it was the end-all discussion killer.
and now i say, let the bashing begin.....
-kyle
Hey Kyle
I'll give props where props are due... you guys totally understand what a slopestyle bike is and I hope that in some way we are working together to define it. Basically we're building a bike that we collectively want for ourselves and our friends... mostly because this is the kind of riding we do. From looking at forums around the world there are a bunch of people who just don't get it yet and figure we're just calling a short travel trail bike a slopestyle bike; which is fine because the riders who do understand are the ones that are saying "finally there is a bike for what we want to do"
I personally don't think its the new wave but it is a niche that needs to be filled and I think it'll probably be as popular as 4X bikes are - I could be wrong however and it may end up being more popular then I anticipate.
To address your points
1]thanks eh! [was that "eh" a dig... hahahahaha]
2]it is indeed a single pivot with a linkage that activates the shock which does make it slightly different then a single pivot because we can optimize the leverage ratio over the shock; something that a true single pivot can not do. Is it better then a single pivot... depends on what we're comparing and in what type of riding discipline.
Do I think that single pivots such as the bottlerocket will make a great slopestyle bike - yes, because in theory they should be stiffer then something with a pivot in between the rear axle and the main swingarm pivot. I've found high single pivots to be flexy so I don't think they'd be a great application for this type of riding unless they can mitigate this intrinsic design characteristic. Is stiffness important? I think its one of the most important things for a bike in this category... can you imagine a squirrely backend on a wallride?
The bottlerocket and wildcard would probably have almost identical rear wheelpaths and would differ by probably only millimeters depending on the BR main pivot and chainstay length.
Our leverage ratio over the shock does diminish as it goes through its travel and gives the bike a supple feel at the start and stiffens up as you reach bottom out but the leverage ratio is at its lowest at this point which minimizes stresses on the shock.
We call it a Turner 4bar because over 20years ago Dave and crew developed this type of suspension [both the Horst/FSR style and the Faux bar] and then sold it to Specialized who licensed it back to him... why he changed back from the FSR back to the Turner is something I don't know and can only speculate on. I'm not trying to fool anyone by calling it a 4bar but rather using a term that was used for this suspension system far ealier then Banshee had even been around. I've already written about how there really are only 2 suspension systems... a single pivot and 4bar and how EVERYTHING falls eventually into these two categories.
Why we [bike industry] come up with fancy names is probably because we think it will help the consumer but I think its become so ubiquitous that its now just confusing everyone. Take for example our VF4B... we weren't going to call it anything but then all our dealers and distributors were asking us what's it called and how can we sell it if we can't call it anything... then they start comparing it to other systems and without knowing the math they start to think its exactly the same as other VP designs... and in some instances it is but in others its not. To be honest the design predates the DWlink and the Maestro although it looks very similar, one only needs to look for the Schwinn Rocket 88 to see where our inspiration came from... and Pip has been designing bikes for a long time and had done a few frame designs for Schwinn so I'm sure he had seen it and put that little nugget in the back of his head until we decided to do a true trail bike.
As for the ICT and TNT thing... yeah I think thats a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Seriously... have you seen his animation thing on their website? my only question is what happens to the efficiency when you stick it in a 24T up front... all of a sudden the numbers don't look so sweet anymore [doesnt mean the bikes don't ride great.. just means one could argue if the ICT is the reason]
3]If someone mentioned we have a stiffer backend then the BR then it didn't come from me... but I think the BR and WC stiffness will probably be similar at the pivots at least because both are triangulated, and we do have the internally ribbed seat and chainstays which really helps too. Either way if they do differ it will probably be imperceptible even after many months of riding because they share the low single pivot.
All in all I think the Bottlerocket is a sweet machine
that will be great for what it claims to be good for. There are much more similarities then differences between the bikes [BR and WC] and I think we agree on many criteria that makes a great SS bike. We differ on a few things... like we think it should have slightly more travel but those are less important criteria then critical ones of standover, weight, stiffness, and overall geometry.Say hi to Grant, Mike, and Evan from me!
kyle. nice work. class act all the way.
Yep, its better for everyone in the end as long as everyone is professional (like these two guys) 
does anyone have any more geometry suggestions to make? a few people have suggested slakening the HA slightly (1/2 -1 degree). I may do this, but will ride prototype first to see how it feels.
so keep making suggestions... even make suggestions of what you want from a bike totally unrelated to the wildcard if you like!? Paint me a picture of your dream bike so that I can try and design it.
so keep making suggestions... even make suggestions of what you want from a bike totally unrelated to the wildcard if you like!? Paint me a picture of your dream bike so that I can try and design it.
different application?
I'll play!
I'd love to see something similar to the wildcard but with:
a 14-15" 70 degree, uninterupted seat tube.
7" of travel from:
Either the boogielink (vf4b) suspension (i like boogielink better)
or
A high single pivot, roughly 1.5" from the top of a 38t chainring. Preferably with a roller, but not entirely neccessary. (think sunn radical or PDC, or even lahar)
A floater
FD compatible if not with a roller
1.5 HT, 65 HA, 16.8 CS, 23.5 TT
Preferably steel, but I'll take banshee's hydroformed aluminum too
12x135mm rear axle
That would be my dream bike. With a nice progressive linkage and a good shock, it would be money. Combine the best traits of my arrow frame (low, long, comfortanble) with the best traits of my brooklyn (high pivot, floater) and you've got a frame that I can ride for racing or for playing, and if it's efficient, for trails.
think this:
plus this:
with a little this:
plus this:
with a little this:
65 Ha? Are there any current bikes that are that slack? Ive seen 66, but never 65.
the Morewood shova LT this year is 65 it says on their website
wow a bunch of the guys who posted in here had their knickers in a knot over something, take 5 and chill out eh... but anyway as for the geometry it looks sweet except i dont really like the toptube lengths, mediums are usually in the mid-22 range which i find comfortable. maybe 21.5 or 21.7 for the small, 22.4 or 22.6for the medium and then up in the 23s for the large? I couldn't imagine riding a 24 inch long top tube for anything except trailriding and maybe DH even if your like 7 foot tall.
ans Sandwich what is that red bike with the black rear end that you posted, that thing looks sick!
ans Sandwich what is that red bike with the black rear end that you posted, that thing looks sick!
Sunn Radical
Those numbers seem about right for sizing. I like my bikes to be stretched out with short stems. My arrow was 12.5" seat tube with 23.5" tt and it fit perfect.
one of the reasons that I went for a marginally longer top tube is because we expect people to be doing tricks like X ups, bar spins truck drivers etc..with this bike, so having a slightly longer TT actually means that you will have more space between your leading pedal and the front tire when X-uped for your foot to fit. most bikes I have ridden, if i do and X up then my front foot hits the tire. specing this bike with reasonable short cranks also helps this problem. Once again I will test ride it and see!
makes sense.