First Ride: Privateer's New 141 Trail Bike - Across The Pond Beaver

Sep 7, 2020
by Dan Roberts  




Privateer have been once around the cycle now, and with it they add a new bike to their collection, the 141.

It's not hard to understand the positioning of the 141. Their 161, or budget priced brute as Mike Kazimer put it, clearly had an eye on going really damn fast. So the 141 should take some of that inspiration, but with more of an eye on a bit of everything. More versatile and less single minded.

As the name suggests, it has 141mm rear wheel travel and uses the same wheel size idea as its bigger brother, with the larger sizes rolling on 29" wheels and the smallest on 27.5" wheels.

141 Details
• Wheel Size: 29"
• All aluminum frame
• 141mm travel, 150mm fork
• 64.5° head angle
• 485mm reach (size P3)
• 446mm chainstay (size P3), changes with sizes
• Frameset £1,489 / €1,739 / $1,759 USD
• Complete bike £2,989 / €3,489 / $3,719 USD
• Available for pre order now, delivery January 2021
privateerbikes.com





Frame Details

Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot
Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot
Privateer save some money with the use of off the shelf frame parts, which are a little rougher around the edges when compared to some other, more refined, aluminum bikes out there that use their own, designed in-house, frame parts.

Privateer's M.O. from the day they stepped into the industry has been about affordability. And while that is a word with positive connotations, the underlying mechanics to make it happen meant frames on the cheaper side of things. That cheapness coming from their use of open mould frame parts and perhaps a bit less development time than some of the other brands.

From afar the 141 is a nice looking bike. The proportions and design are attractive, and follow very closely the same silhouette of the 161. Getting closer and zooming in is where the details start to jump out, and perhaps where you can see how Privateer bring their bikes in at the price they do. If you think it looks a little like RAAW Madonna too, then you'd be right. Privateer bikes are actually made at the same Taiwanese factory as RAAW, and they say, imitation is the best form of flattery.

Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot
Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot
Cable routing is a mix of external and internal, with the gear and brakes lines cable tied to the outside of the frame and clamped at the head tube, with the dropper post line being run internally with a short section of external under the shock.

The brake hose and gear cable are all external, using mostly cable ties to hold them to the frame. On either side of the head tube are bolt on guides, which on our test bike looks to be creasing the brake hose while not clamping the gear cable tightly enough.

The dropper post cable is routed internally, using bolt on pieces and goes external for a small stretch under the shock before going back into the seat tube.

The 141, like the 161, uses a huge two piece construction to connect the bottom bracket, main pivot, lower shock mount and rocker pivot that is made from two machined pieces welded together. In contrast to the open mould frame parts, this must have cost a lot.

Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot
Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot
There's a large one-piece rocker link driving the trunnion mount shock and a 180mm post mount brake.

The BB is threaded and has full ISCG tabs. The brake mount is a 180mm post mount. The main connection between the chainstay and mainframe uses three bearings, two on the drive side and one on the non-drive side. The rest of the pivots run on bearings with the lower shock mount using the standard Fox hardware and bushings.

There's stick on frame protection on the chainstay, seat stay and underside of the down tube, but it's pretty basic and is coming unstuck already.





Geometry & Sizing

Privateer 141 Geometry

In a bit of a copy from Specialized, the sizing is not your average S to XL but P1 to P4. The smallest, P1, size is a 27.5" bike while the rest are full 29" bikes.

Reach numbers range from 440mm to 510mm with evolving chainstay length as you go through the sizes, from 434mm to 452mm. The size range should mimic the 161, fitting riders from 1.60m up to just about 2m.

There's a generous bottom bracket drop, giving a BB height from around 340 - 343mm depending on tire choice for the 29" version. The P1 gets a smaller 15mm drop with the smaller wheels and should be around a 335 - 340mm BB height.

A 64.5° head angle is nice and slack while helping out the versatile nature of the bike and with generous head tube lengths it should help to put the hands in a better window for the bike's aggressive intentions.

The 141 has a slightly slacker seat angle than the really steep 161, around 1.3° slacker at between 78.7 - 78.9° depending on size. Effective and actual angles quoted, and also with the seat at full dropper extension, but no exact seat height measurement for that fully extended length. Privateer say it's possible to run a post with 150mm of drop on the P1, 175mm drop on the P2 and 200mm drop on the P3 and P4.






Suspension

Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot
The 141 uses a four-bar suspension layout with a Horst pivot on chainstay and a rocker link.

The 141 follows the layout of the 161, with a four-bar layout, a Horst pivot and large one-piece rocker link. It uses a 205 x 57.5mm trunnion mount shock, with the trunnion attachment up at the link.

There's 15.9% progression with a starting leverage ratio of around 2.6. Following the bit of a hump at the beginning of travel, the leverage ratio descends all the way to 2.19.

Anti-squat in the easiest climbing gear starts really high, up at 176%, dropping all the way to 84%. Around the quoted sag window, 21 to 35% rear wheel travel, the anti-squat is between 152% and 140%. Anti rise is between 38% and 49% with it generally increasing through the travel.

Privateer 141 Leverage Ratio
Privateer 141 Anti-Squat
Privateer 141 Anti-Rise





Options, Price & Availability

A frame kit option comes with a Fox DPX2 Performance Elite and headset. It retails for £1,489 / €1,739 / $1,759 USD.

The complete build option comes with a Fox 36 and DPX2 Performance Elite fork and shock, Shimano SLX 12-speed drivetrain with an XT shifter, Magura MT5 brakes with 203mm front and 180mm rear rotors, a OneUp V2 dropper and Hunt Trail Wide wheels with a Schwalbe Magic Mary and Hans Dampf tire combo, both in Super Trail casing and Soft compound. It retails for £2,989 / €3,489 / $3,719 USD.

Both frame only and complete bike are available in raw, charcoal grey and heritage green colours, and are available to pre-order now for January 2021 delivery.





Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot

Ride Impressions

Jumping on the 141 it felt comfortable straight away, the low BB and long reach combined with the long headtube give a nice feet and hand position. I'm 188cm tall and the P3 size fits like a glove.

The slightly slacker seat angle, compared to the 161, feels really nice too, and gives a not too stretched out but not too upright riding position on steeper climbs and flatter sections of trail. It enables the seat to be in a nice middle ground allowing adjustment either way.

Around Champéry, and the Valais region of Switzerland, the 141 feels to be a really nice little option for many looking for a bit of a do it all mountain bike. That aggressive geometry brings stability, a nice rider fit for comfort and the inherent livliness from the shorter travel while still having enough to let you get away with a bit of murder here and there.

Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot

It also looks to be a good recipe for markets like the UK, with mixes of trail centres pedals to longer and techier days out in the Welsh and Scottish hills. Privateer's being UK based means this isn't much of a surprise.

Riding wise it feels good so far after a few rides. Perhaps I'm looking at this bike through the eyes of a bike engineer and too critically, but in a battle of marginal gains here and there that separate the mediocre from the great, is it too rough around the edges?

It will be interesting to see how it holds up long term compared to some more refined bikes and what the reduced price actually gets you long term, rather than just on paper. But on first impressions it's a lot of bike for not a lot of money, but I'm chin scratching as to how much of that is just the spec. Time will tell and I'll report back with a full review in the coming months.


Privateer 141 Photo Kifcat Shaperideshoot








270 Comments

  • 208 6
 Lots of hate in the comments for a crowd that's been begging for a raw, aluminum, affordable trail bike with geo that's not 10 years old
  • 28 30
 Can only speak for myself, but I don't think those numbers make much sense for something that's supposed to be a trail bike.
  • 33 20
 Yeah, I have the privateer 161 which does quite a lot of "front wheel wobbling" while climbing slowly. It's ok on the race bike, but I certainly don't want this on a trail bike. And then there's the weight issue. A trail bike over 14kg? Get out of here... of course that's and issue with a lot of current bikes. It's like the industry doesn't even try any more.
  • 23 2
 @BenTheSwabian: personally, I agree with you. A little too close to the 161 in both weight and geometry (largely thinking about the general length of the thing, I’m certainly not against elements such as steeper seat angles). But it’s just not possible to launch a bike with moderate, well rounded geo these days without being labelled ‘old fashioned’. I’d love to see the pendulum swing back a little in this category, these are the bikes that should suit most of us and a broad range of riding scenarios. Most of em just look like an enduro sled with less travel to me.
Having said that you know they’ll be sold out before the first batch is delivered.
  • 14 4
 @ProperPushIrons: the Knolly Fugitive LT says hello...
  • 67 7
 @haentz: bikes got really long and the wheels got big, and then we also ask them to 50 foot jumps and proper downhill without cracking or getting a puncture. The weight is a byproduct of this. If you want a 25 pound trail bike go back to 26 inch wheels, xc tires, and a 400mm reach
  • 19 1
 Its a rather negative review for what is a bargain bike for the spec, just like its bigger sister. Im struggling to see how much better an alu frame from a bigger brand looks compared to this bike.
  • 28 2
 I don't get the hate either. If you view it as a downhiller's trail bike, with sensible parts that won't get smashed in 5 minutes, it makes sense. It's not a long travel down country bike, so it's ok if it weighs a bit more. Any bike would once you put abuse-worthy parts on.
  • 4 1
 @BenTheSwabian:

I have simar numbers on my reactor(bar the sta) and works quite fine.
  • 17 2
 @haentz:

15.5 kg reactor here, with lyrik ultimate, 180 mm dropper and double-down minions. Works quite alright.

These type of bikes are not for XC; they are for agressive trail riding - read enduro type downs with less susp. -
And no, I, you, most of us don't need an enduro bike for our trail/all-mountain/overmountain riding.
  • 11 4
 @kleinblake: Did really everybody asked for that kind of bike?
Maybe the majority here at PB,I get that,but for the silent rest who wants a trail bike with modern geometry but contained weight and are not into park riding or super agressive trails,what are the options?
  • 9 2
 @nozes:
Downcountry bikes.
  • 1 0
 @haentz: mate how is the 161 against a slash?
  • 4 0
 @BenTheSwabian: It depends on your definition of "trailbike". For me it's something I you ride all day and still hit steep tech trails fast on.
  • 2 0
 @mountainsofsussex: Exactly. Similar to my Starling Murmur - you can ride anything / anywhere on it and not have to worry.
  • 10 0
 14kg isn't that much for a full suspension bike with this amount of travel, is it? I wouldn't be surprised if my hardtail weights this much. Nothing to suspect that the unsprung weight would be too high and judging by the looks I trust the overall weight should be nice and low too. As for the front wheel wobble, just shift your weight forward and low a bit more. If you can't then choose or shorter frame or indeed, this model isn't for you and you're better off with something else. My hardtail has a 460mm reach and 63 HA so when sagged (120mm travel fork), geometry is comparable to P2 here. My chainstays are shorter so this fully actually puts more weight over the front wheel than my hardtail. And I don't have issues with a wobbling front wheel at all. Should be fine on P2.
  • 8 0
 @haentz: to be fair, it already has sensible parts and doesn't need upgrading. My last bike was really light on the spec list, but after swapping tires, fork and brakes, it has gained a few pounds and now weighs a more standard weight. It's easy to make a light bike when using Snakeskin Nobby Nics, single piston XC brakes and the lightest affordable fork with the required travel. When delivering all the required upgrades from the start, I don't think 14kg is that bad for an aluminum 150/140 twentyniner that's built to withstand abuse.
  • 7 0
 @headshot: Stumpy EVO is probably a good comparison, and its well over 14Kg without pedals...
www.pinkbike.com/news/review-specialized-stumpjumper-evo-29.html

You're struggling because a better one doesn't exist.
  • 4 1
 @pcledrew: and the Evo is a horrible trail bike. This however is a bit more practical. Better bb height(+20mm!), slightly steeper head angle +1* That solves my gripes with the evo.
  • 4 0
 @haentz: Quit ya bitchin. My Cotic Bfe Weighs 14kg and that's a hardtail.

It rides amazing and I dont have to go home early because it Weighs 1-2kg more than an older alu bike.
  • 2 0
 @nozes: XC bikes were just reviewed
  • 15 0
 Carbon is stupid and bikes are too expensive. Hold on, now it's too heavy. Gotta love the comments. Not the bike for me, but love what privateer stands for and hope they do well.
  • 5 1
 I miss waki Frown
  • 3 1
 @skerby: Do you though? Like, unironically? You seriously want people around here insulting you for no good reason what so ever?
  • 1 0
 @haentz: Try to find an alu 29'er capable trailbike 14 kg. You're looking at carbon € 6000,- euro bikes. Even my Norco sight wirh 27,5" wheels was 14 kg. Pretty normal for alu, especially considering the Fox 36 and burley tires.
  • 99 2
 There’s a lot of negativity on here about an affordable aluminium trail bike with modern geometry that is equipped with Shimano And Magura instead of SRAM. Has external brake hoses, ISCG 05 AND a threaded BB.

It’s like the bike everyone has been asking for on here.
  • 14 0
 don't forget it has bottle bosses in the triangle.
  • 99 19
 Climbs like a downhill bike, descends like a trail bike.
  • 23 1
 Did you ride it up Did you descend it down?
  • 30 23
 This will be the next hot bike (Jeffsy, Ripmo AF, etc) that everyone will buy because it's a great deal... even though they'd be better off with something like a Trance 29.
  • 18 1
 Climbs like a downhill bike? With that much anti squat I was thinking that it must climb like a hardtail! lol
  • 4 8
flag Noeserd (Sep 6, 2020 at 22:22) (Below Threshold)
 Seems like they used the 161 and putted a 150 fork and a shorter stroke version shock
  • 28 1
 @Noeserd: Hey,
Although they share a number of parts, they are different frames to ensure the geometry was not comprised between them.
  • 77 1
 Hot damn that spec is in the money. SLX with multi-shift XT shifter, MT5 brakes with proper sized rotors, OneUp post, Super Trail casings, DPX2 & 36...
  • 14 0
 Right, this is most of what I did to my Jeffsy, MT7’s, SLX with XT shifter and OneUp V2. This bike looks f*cking rad and so good to work on cables.
  • 4 1
 Agreed. Sure would like to see this in raw alloy though.
  • 4 1
 @imbiker: According to the website you can get it in grey, green and raw. The pictures of the complete bike are of the green frame, but when you look at the individual frame option, you can see pictures of (charcoal) grey and raw.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: Whoops, just looked it up, you're right. This might be the bike for me, I didn't see the pictures in the raw, full build.
  • 47 1
 So glad to see bikes like this in mtb again, well thought out, alu frame & built for the purpose of riding not being stared at in a shop. Nice one Privateer.
  • 42 0
 I find it odd that this article failed to state that it comes specked with a 150mm travel fork.
  • 4 0
 Yes, I searched "fork" to try and find it. And found this comment but nothing in the article
  • 2 1
 Same on Vital. Weird.
  • 2 0
 Also looked for fork travel/AC in the article, no mention. Strange indeed.
  • 6 0
 "Jumped to the tech and spec info on their website immediately " This is how i reacted to that.
  • 38 8
 Probably not a very popular opinion around here, but for an actual trail bike, those numbers are too progressive. On an Enduro race bike I get why super slack head angles, steep seat angles and a long reach are desireable. But as a trail bike, this thing wouldn't be very enjoyable on most natural singletrack trails around here. There comes a point where progressive geometry doesn't really make sense anymore and unfortunately Privateer went right past that point. Long and slack isn't always the answer.
  • 11 2
 100% agreed. I'm at 66 HTA and 76 STA and wouldn't really want anything more progressive for all around riding. Sure, some trails it would be nice to have more progressive geometry, but overall, it would be a negative. Same goes for super high AS numbers, they're counterproductive for more of the trails around here.
  • 9 6
 @Kiotae: I live in Minnesota. There are no hills here. Well, actually, that's a lie, there is A hill and it's genuinely called "The Hill" by locals because it's so unique. Anyhow, I mention this because the trails here are the literal opposite of gnarly, they are anti-gnarl trails with the average descent lasting 5-10 seconds.

And yet, even here, this geometry makes sense for a lot of riders as it provides them with stability, and stability equals safety, Safety increases speed, and increased speed, for most of us, equals increased fun. I get that might not be you, and I love how we all love and enjoy different types of riding, but the assumption that less stable bikes are inherently more fun because they're twitchy and challenging to ride only adds up for a tiny number of riders. However I'd suggest a lot of those riders were the types who ride single speed rigids on enduro tracks and and scoff at any bar that is wider than 700mm.

I'd love to know what negative traits geometry like this brings to the majority of people?
  • 13 0
 @swansejack22: Honest question. Do you find a 66 degree head angle twitchy on your local trails? Because I ride a 67 degree Transition Smuggler (first gen) and I've never found it twitchy on flat trails, in fact, the only time I ever wanted a longer wheelbase or more stability is on proper bike park enduro tracks.

Otherwise, on my local tracks I far preferred the maneuverability and ability to squeeze through tighter spaces of the Smuggler, to the Sentinel that I recently sold.

As far as the downside- a sack head angle usually means you're dealing with a longer wheelbase, which often means more suspension and more weight. These are things meant for the rigors of high speed, high impact downhill riding, with the steep seat angle and modern kinematics making the bike capable enough to get back up the hill. On flatter terrain....you don't really need any of that. The weight make acceleation more sliggish, the wheelbase make it harder to get around tight spots and the head angle make turn in require more effort. Sure, you can rail some big sweeper a fraction faster than on a slightly moderate trailbike, but you're giving up a lot everywhere else.

The analogy I can think of is look at motorcycle racing- if long wheelbase and slack head angles really provided stability and speed with little sacrifice, all the motoGP guys would be racing choppers. But ocourse they're not. They've found a sweet spot where the geometry allows the bikes to be maneuverable, while also stable at speed and pretty much stuck to it. Mountain biking is a young and dynamic sport, so there's still a lot of experimentation taking place, but I do think you can overshoot the mark, and I am hopeful that MTB manufacturers start finding their sweet spot too, instead of the neverending pursuit of being the most "progressive".
  • 1 0
 @roma258: said everything I would have done.
  • 3 0
 @swansejack22: Well, I'm kinda missing where I said any of the stuff you mention. You're more than welcome to enjoy that geometry on your local trails. If it works for you, great, but I think you're being a borderline troll if you're trying to argue that the average rider will be better served by a bike like this on tame, flat trails. There is a middle ground between twitchy trail bikes of yore and a short travel enduro sled like this.

@roma258 sums things up pretty well though.
  • 2 0
 Definitely depends on your terrain. For me, I have a 2016 Process 134 that started off with a 140mm fork & 68deg HTA. While it made for a great flowy trail bike, it was left wanting in borderline enduro/steep tech that is a lot of New England. I have over time gone to a 160mm fork, then a -2deg angleset (total 65deg HTA) to get the confidence I wanted going downhill. I also upgraded just about everything else on the bike, yet the changes to the headtube area alone made a huge difference in rough janky stuff. For someone in the midwest I could totally see just leaving it as it was, and enjoying the responsive/snappy steering in rolling terrain. For me, I probably should have just gotten a different bike, but now I have stumbled upon the formula that is the pseudo fad right now. Aggressive geo with a shorter travel package. And it works for me! That is until I get the funds to step up to a real enduro bike...
  • 1 0
 @roma258: I don't think GP bikes are a good comparison to mountain bikes,especially because I don't know that their geo numbers are available, and they use a variety of things to change the geo on the fly (holeshot devices, squatting device for corner exit).

I do remember a journo/former racer riding a ducati (Michael Neeves) GP bike saying it felt significantly longer and less agile than a superbike.
  • 1 1
 @roma258: I appreciate the detail in this answer. I am with you regarding the long wheel base: you definitely lose some maneuverability.

Do I find a 66 HA twitchy? I mean, it's all relative. My go-to ride in these parts is a custom Cannondale RZ120 with 26" wheels. I don't know what the HA is, but my guess would be 67-68 degrees. Do I find it twitchy? I mean, I can shred it and have a great time doing so, but, given the choice, would I suggest it over something slacker for a newer rider, based solely on geometry? No way. It's my opinion that the limitations that you did a great job explaining, whilst annoying, are outweighed by the positives in any terrain that is even mildly challenging.

26" wheels are good analogy here, I think. Do they feel twitchy to ride? No. My bike is an incredibly capable trail bike that has been ridden on severe black diamond trails and smooth Minnesota green trails. It brings me joy and I love it. 26" wheels are widely accepted to offer more maneuverability and have a lower weight (all things being equal) than 29 and 27.5 wheels. So why have we moved to these new standards? In my opinion it's because we want bikes that help us overcome challenges, and the challenges faced riding on flat terrain are less severe and dangerous than the challenges we face when the trail points down. When we overcome challenges it feels good. The more severe and dangerous the challenge, the better it feels. Modern bike development has occurred to provide help to the rider in these high consequence situations.

I totally respect anyone's decision to ride any bike on any terrain: if it gives you joy, go for it. But I also see a lot of opinions on here re: modern geometry that echo the same MTB conservatism that objected to disk brakes and dropper posts and 29" wheels and wide bars etc because what they ride is "just fine" and so they see no need for progression, it's "just a fad" that will pass, or a "marketing ploy" by manufacturers to sell more bikes. Having been a mountain biker for over twenty years it becomes increasingly frustrating to see the continuous push back against development. I believe it's important for a bike company to go "too far" in their progressiveness because only then will we find the sweet spot of which you speak.
  • 1 0
 @swansejack22: hope you don’t mind me chiming in.
I take your point about the conservatism/ Luddites, I’ve been playing the game long enough to have been on both sides of that.
But I really think the geo thing is a bit different. This is not the first geometry revolution and it’s happened in other genres of bicycling and almost always comes in waves and almost always gets taken beyond the point of maximum return before coming back to something a little less extreme and more usable.
Some of us have already been there with the long, low and slack bikes. Which are great attributes but they pigeon hole the bike to ever more specific types of terrain and a trail bike (at least in my mind) should be able to do everything from all day epics to dirt jumps to bike parks.
I’d also like to add (for the hate haters) that there’s nothing wrong with this bike at all, a couple of years ago I’d have given my left nut for a bike like this. But it is yet another ‘trail’ bike that’s nearly as long and slack as a dh bike. My opinion right now, having had a couple of these limos is - why not just buy a dh bike? And if I need to pedal; an enduro rig. After all I’m not gonna have a lot of fun at our jump spot or enjoy a big day out with my mates who’re on lighter, more agile, proper trail bikes.
I think a trail bike might just be the trickiest bike to get right, it needs to suit so many riders and so much variety, making a well rounded bike is a lot harder than just cranking everything to 11 which I think designers are doing too much of these days.
  • 2 0
 @swansejack22: You must be from southern MN. I know we don't have mountains but I ride Piedmont, Spirit and a lot of the northern trails almost every weekend and I have to disagree with your statement about anti-gnarly trails. I ride a Ripmo as my all day bike in the metro and it's great for Leb and Battle Creek. However, that bike wasn't cutting it for BOB & DM at Piedmont and now I'm rolling a new Wreckoning and if feels perfect for there. We don't have the craziest trails but we have stuff to pucker you up.
  • 1 0
 @zarban: Was going to say the same thing. I think he needs to explore a little more of Minnesota before generalizing the whole thing. Duluth’s trails are fantastic.
  • 1 0
 @driveways @zarban: You are both correct and I am guilty of generalizing in the broadest terms for questionable effect.

Leb is actually a great example, I think, of somewhere that a bike like this makes so much sense. The downs, whilst short, have enough gnar to warrant long and slack geo, but it's pedally and smooth enough that 130-140mm is more than enough in the back.

Ultimately, as boring as it is to say it, only we know the trail conditions of where we ride the most and what kind of rider we are, and this more than anything should dictate the type of bike we ride. Horses for courses, and all that...
  • 26 7
 Look guys I'm gonna be honest... This could turn a man's software into hardware
  • 18 4
 even if its on a floppy disc
  • 27 10
 1266 mm wheelbase for a trail bike just seems really, really long. I like their value oriented philosophy, but the race for the most progressive geo seems to take away from real world rideability, imo.
  • 6 0
 Downside and slide the saddle back 20mm
  • 6 2
 Some people just wanna plow even at lower travels. Also works great for the occasional enduro race... Might be even quicker at some easier stages.
  • 6 2
 I thought the same, then I upsized to a newer geo xl frame bike that has near a 3 inch longer wheelbase and love every bit of it. Can still clear the tight switchbacks no problem, when pedaling a stood up seat tube puts the bike behind you, you only notice the length when it matters on the down.
  • 7 2
 As crazy as it sounds, my Raaw Madonna v2 climbs tech way better than my v3 5010. I thought it would be the big bike that I only pull out for big mountain and bike park riding, but I've found it to be surprisingly versatile. Even on fire road climbs, the Madonna climbs more comfortably. And based on Strava times, it's hardly slower. I can still bump jump, whip, manual, wheelie no problem on it. I'm 5'8 for what it's worth. It's only on steep jumps and silly jibs that the 5010 feels definitively better
  • 2 1
 Its more people have long enduro bikes so if they want a trail bike a shorter WB bike will feel twitchy as hell.

Eg if you ride a 520mm reach 1300mm wheelbase geometron then you’re gonna find a regular trail bike too small...
  • 3 0
 @Richt2000: I’m not so sure, if my first bike is a big, stable dh or enduro bike I don’t want to buy another one just with less travel. I’d want it to be a different bike to suit the different riding I’m up to aboard it. Just like I don’t want my bmx to feel like my dh bike for example.
  • 3 0
 @ProperPushIrons:
Yea valid point. I guess it depends on what disciplines you ride and your skill level.

Personally I am liking the 120-130mm 29er trail bikes with enduro geo...
  • 1 0
 @ondreja: wheelbase doesn't give you plow-ability, wheelbase give you stability at speed, more room to move around and stay inside the window of not-endoing-and-not-looping-out. More travel, more hands-behind-the-front-axle, and more front-center (yes, it is related to wheelbase, but more rear-center isn't going to help here) will help with plowing
  • 18 2
 This looks like a really really good aggressive trail bike, perfect amount of travel for everything, good spec choices, great frameset price, great geo and all around fun
5 years warranty, which is industry standard imo, companies like Raww with 2-3 years just tells me they dont believe in their product and/or dont have the ressources for warranty framesets
Not sure where the tester is going with the unproven said "lack of quality" in the worksmanship and "how much of it is the spec".
First quality isnt going to be worst than the 3, Trek (western hemisphere), Specialized and Giant, which all come from Taiwan and/or China and all have very underwhelming finish and weld quality for the price. Lifetime warranty isnt worth double the price.
Secondly, specs dont make great bikes, a great frame is a great frame no matter the build, builds can just make it more worthwhile financially or perform better. A terrible frame with the most expensive build still rides like shit while a great frame with the cheapest spec, still rides great as it keeps its fundamental riding character.
Im sure this will sell out, perfect middle point as most ppl dont just ride chairlifts and some dont follow the trend for more travel is better.
GJ

Curious on the weight with a DD out back!
  • 7 0
 @rustyglaze5 Thanks for the kind words! Smile
  • 5 10
flag eugenux (Sep 7, 2020 at 3:44) (Below Threshold)
 Tell that to ppl who buy cube "bikes" with full kashima builds, thinking/bragging they have one of the best bikes in the world.
  • 3 0
 @PrivateerBikes: hey guys, great looking bike!
any chance to demo one if I pass by your HQ?
  • 5 0
 @eugenux: why care what other peaople ride, maybe they like their bike, like you like yours?
  • 1 10
flag eugenux (Sep 7, 2020 at 5:34) (Below Threshold)
 @likehell:

The only bike I like is the one I use the least(and currently trying to sell it ahahaha); bikes are tools, means to provide adrenaline rushes and satisfaction from the act of riding. As with every tool, we should strive to use the best of our posibilities. That is why I don't understand cube owners, really. When you have real good option in the same price pracket, why would you deliberately buy such a low quality, low tech "bike"?
  • 3 0
 @eugenux: doesn't amount to much in a sport where performance is 98% rider.

You know what they say: a poor worker will always blame his tools.
  • 1 9
flag eugenux (Sep 7, 2020 at 10:12) (Below Threshold)
 @HaggeredShins:
I agree, up to a point where the bike provides some meaningfull differences.

I could ride my former xc hardtail over all mountains...and where I couldn't, I just step off from the saddle and walk.
I could downhill 99% of the hiking trails on my 180mm gt sanction. That does not mean I am a skilled dh-er.

So, rider yes..but up to a point; and if you will ever have the curiosity to try a cube, you will see that the point where the bikes help you is at the lowest/depending on your view. For a time, I thought that all cube riders are mentally ill, I swear!, later I cam to the conclusion that they simply do no know better and don't really strive to progress on their mtb-ing. Actually, they are the next/perfect electrics riders.
  • 5 0
 @eugenux: Cool judgement. Go tell that to someone like Phil Atwill--he'd embarrass you around the clock on a Cube.

You're talking a remaining percent amounting to a racer's edge in gear. For the overwhelming majority of riders who irrespective of bike or skill don't have a clue about fit or proper suspension setup alone, the brand ain't holding them back.
  • 6 1
 @eugenux: so what is wrong with my Stereo 120? Just returned from a ride, just read too late that I could not have any fun with it, sorry for that!
Which ones did you ride that sucked so much?
  • 1 7
flag eugenux (Sep 7, 2020 at 12:08) (Below Threshold)
 @HaggeredShins:

If you think the difference is small to null, then we discuss for nothing. I can sense the diff between HTs, same size, similar weigh, similar geo..and you think the diff between a quality bike/suspension design and a shitebag on wheels is negligible?, sorry buddy, I think you need to try a little harder on this mtb-ing thing.
  • 1 11
flag eugenux (Sep 7, 2020 at 12:16) (Below Threshold)
 @likehell:
All of them are garbage. Most garbage of them all is the 150, my G.O.D., such a lame-lame bike. The team edition, full of kashima is almost ridable but, when you change it for the bottom of the range, the shite-on-wheels shows its ugly head. Really, the worst full susp ever. It also confirmed what I always suspected..and that is, the try to hide the bad suspension design with quality susp components. But, the true test of every bike is with the base components. If it is good with basic components, it will be great with high end ones. If it is bad with base components, then don't bother. I don't bother. No one should, really..

Then again, ppl put diff values on diff experiences. Maybe for you, your 120 is all the bike you'll ever need and that's great for you. It doesn't make a good bike. You can't have an S-Klasse with the price of a Polo, you just can't.
Cheers!
  • 4 0
 @eugenux: Lol. "Sensing the diff" between bikes and being able to rally one regardless of what it is aren't the same conversation. There are pro riders on Cubes (and I'd wager a handful of other brands you wouldn't find worthy) who would destroy you up and down the hill.

A bad worker blames his tools, a tool looks down on other people and theirs. Get over yourself.
  • 2 6
flag eugenux (Sep 7, 2020 at 14:20) (Below Threshold)
 @HaggeredShins:

You keep pushing the discussion towards me and my skill lvl(as I would care about paid athlets), while I am saying that regardless of the skill lvl, cube bikes are bad. You seem confused or unable to grasp the diff between the two subjects.
  • 4 0
 @eugenux: Lol no, I'm hardly confused. My point was they're fine bikes as evidenced by people riding them well at high levels, which is a statement of fact.

The entire premise of your opinion, which is that they're "shitebag on wheels lame-lame" bikes, is some personally anecdotal BS reliant on *gasp* ad hom where you were gracious enough to shift your view from "people who ride these are mentally ill" to "people who ride these are incompetent". I guess I didn't know you were going for comic relief, sorry I misunderstood. My fault. Rolleyes
  • 1 6
flag eugenux (Sep 7, 2020 at 15:18) (Below Threshold)
 @HaggeredShins:

All of this is for comic relief, what did you expect?

Having said that, the athelets you mentioned did not go with cube by choice; most of them did not confirmed with the former brands who employed them. A couple of hits but, mostly medium/mediocre compared with others. Yeah, sky-high when you put them near the likes of us but that's not saying something..in fact it has zero relevance.
  • 5 0
 @eugenux: Did you notice how your answers get downvoted? Did it ever occur to you that that might be because you're talking bullshit?
  • 1 4
 @BenTheSwabian:

But did you notice that only lame-a$$ cube owners keep on downvoting; they feel better thinking they have put that arse user who keeps complaining on two subjects(electrics and cube bikes) back in his place; really, I don't care about it. You can't explain caligraphy to one who cannot understand any form of written language. It is exactly the same situation.
  • 2 1
 @BenTheSwabian: did you notice this is pinkbike and number of downvotes (or upvotes for that matter) doesn´t mean jack shit?
  • 1 0
 @Mondbiker: It shows a tendency for sure Wink
  • 14 0
 Bravo for different chainstay lengths across sizes.
  • 11 2
 Genuine question for Pinkbike,

Why/how do you guys choose to include pricing information the way you do?

The reason I ask is that, in this case, the comparison between the EUR and GBP is better than the USD to CAD yet rarely (if ever) are Canadian prices presented. This makes it really hard as a Canadian to understand anything and usually results in "welp that bike is expensive".
  • 7 0
 Just a guess, but I would imagine they just list whatever prices they can get. Manufactures probably don't release exact MSRP for every market the bike might come to on day one. It seems like it varies a lot from bike to bike what regions pricing they actually list.
  • 12 2
 @gibspaulding: See, I respect that but then it is compounded by the issue of some product is straight up NOT available in Canada. For whatever reason it can't be imported. As a consumer who's reading a review I (and everyone else) deserve to know that.

I also understand that this is a rabbit hole to fall down into as you could conceivably have every country in the world saying "where's our pricing? Can we get it?" but a Canadian site publishing Canadian pricing information doesn't seem that far-fetched an idea.

Canada's bicycle market as far as import duties is concerned is thrown WAY out by the disproportionately large number of department store quality bikes (CCM) made in Canada compared to very small number of high end bikes produced (some high-end Devinci? maybe?). The import costs that I pay to bring in something like a Santa Cruz can be as high as 35% PLUS exchange.

The number of Canadians I see suffering from sticker shock because "that's not the price I saw online!" can really wear on an employee of a bike shop trying to sell some bikes.
  • 4 1
 @samnation: just do US price x1,5,... thats pretty close what you pay here now, unfortunately.

Totally get your point, you hear all the “affordable” bikes test,.. then you look them up in CAD and you spending $4000 no problem. Is that affordable anymore?
  • 1 2
 @Spiral23: for the Privateer the 1.5 works but for something like the Slash that came a few days ago where Trek sets the price based on historical margins and market trends that is too basic. Trek has a price for that bike in just about every currency and it's easy to throw it in the release instead in that release we got usd ONLY.

I'm just confused about how Pinkbike is making the decisions.
  • 4 0
 @Spiral23: It works out to $5177 CAD (plus $135 CAD shipping and MAYBE you also get slapped with duties). It's spec'd well but it's still a alloy bike with slx.

I'd probably go cheaper with a commencal meta tr essential for $700 CAD les (albeit with a shittier fork/shock), or up the game $800 and keep it canadian with the slx level druid.

Seems like a rad, well though out bike but I'm not sure price is right for CAD.
  • 1 0
 @Spiral23: Hold up I just put this in my cart and it said 4200... then if you get hit with duty whatever. It's just like a meta tr essential, with a piggyback and longer chainstay, but cheaper.
  • 11 2
 Why is the small 27.5 and not mullet? Missed opportunity. After riding a mullet for the last couple months (years on full 29 and 27.5) the benefits of 29er are basically all front wheel related and having a slightly smaller rear wheel only helps the bikes handling. No real downside for mullet, but the capability of the bike is compromised with a 27.5 front wheel instead of 29.
  • 9 1
 Hey @ko-d , Thanks for the feedback, it's really helpful for us to get suggestions from riders like yourself. Making the 141 a mullet was heavily debated during development, but ultimately we decided to stick to a single wheel size.

However, we have been testing a number of mullet mules and Chloe Taylor raced a 161 mullet in Zermatt the other week, so it's still something we're looking into.
  • 1 0
 @PrivateerBikes: Have you experimented with running it with a 140mm 29er fork and front wheel?
  • 11 1
 @Paco77: they run front wheels on all their bikes TBF
  • 2 0
 @PrivateerBikes: It would be fantastic if you sold a mullet linkage for the 141 and 161 (like the one you can get for fx Forbidden Druid) so that the geo wasn't compromised negatively by running a mullet setup. It would also make my choice of next bike very easy.
  • 8 0
 We need more companies like Privateer/Hunt! Their customer support is far and away the best I have come across in the last decade and their products (in this case I refer specially for Hunt since I own a wheelset) is on pair or better to those that cost more than double.

They should get more credit for making mountainbike affordable to more people.
  • 7 0
 Interesting they went full fox for the 141, while the 161 is full rockshox. And, other than that, the only other real difference in build kit is hunts “trail wide” wheels vs “enduro wide” on the 161, as well as different tires.

Super similar in geo to the Norco sight, and Transition Sentinel, but at a lower price. Great option.
  • 6 2
 Yeah and I'm mad at them!! I was waiting for this 141 because commencal is alway back order...but wanted Lyrik and Super Deluxe coil or air, ultimate! Don't like DPX2 and don't want a creaky Fox fork! Frown
  • 9 8
 @Timo82: dpx2 is a far better shock than super deluxe. Ask anyone who’s ridden both.
  • 5 0
 @Timo82: Agree on the Lyrik though. I like my maintenance parts through QBP and at low cost.
  • 2 1
 @tlchlct: The DPX2 doesn't have an adjustable low speed compression. Based on my experience (SD Ultimate and DVO Topaz now that the warranty procedure for my SD went to shit - it was clicking, otherwise worked perfectly) it's a necessity if you want to have a bike that doesn't bob and doesn't need the lockout lever flipped. Which is what I want.

So yeah, Super Deluxe Ultimate or Float X2 are the options, but servicing the X2 (or any FOX product) is a PITA, so yeah... Rock Shox it is!

I dropped them an e-mail if a RS frame only option would be available at some point or a shockless option and if yes for the latter, which shock would work with it (tune wise).

Regarding creaking, my 2015 Pike also creaked...
  • 5 0
 @Primoz:
Performance Elite and Factory levels both have low speed compression adjust.
  • 1 0
 @tlchlct: That is completely unknowable — there is no objective way to assess that. I’ve ridden both extensively and disagree, but I’m willing to admit that the assessment is subjective.
  • 1 0
 @tlchlct: I had an X2 and now have a Super Deluxe with the MegNeg and I love it! With the bands in the bigger can, you can adjust pretty much you mid travel support! My shock is plush but still poppy and is super good on the climbs without using the climb switch!

I rode a Commencal meta am demo with a dpx2 and didn't like it at all! This bike was super plush in the reviews but it was with a coil. My 27.5 bike with 10mm less travel, was way better with my X2. I can't really compare all that because they are not on the same bike but well, the one time I have used a DPX2, it was shit.
  • 1 0
 @Primoz: I had a 2016 pike that also creaked but never had any problems with the Lyrik. Some have but really not a lot... for Fox well, I'm pretty sure you already know! lol
  • 1 0
 @tlchlct: I know they do, but the DPX doesn't.
  • 10 0
 Fork travel?
  • 4 0
 Privateer's site says 150mm
  • 6 1
 For a more articulated review, go read enduro-mtb mag review.. I don't get the hate or any lack of depth that pb gives to Privateer in their articles.

"From afar the 141 is a nice looking bike." ; okay, but from up close it looks also nice.. what was that supposed to mean ?

"Getting closer and zooming in is where the details start to jump out, and perhaps where you can see how Privateer bring their bikes in at the price they do." Could you elaborate on that ?

Lot of hate for a well balanced bike. @PrivateerBikes the only thing that worries me is all the reports about bearing, pivot and axle tolerance issues.. these things are QC related.
  • 1 0
 It might be due to the strange effect, that British bikes get better reviews in British magazines and vice versa. The same is by the way true for German magazines where the group tests are always won by Canyon, Propain, YT, .. Which leads me to the conclusion that these tests should be performed blindly, which is admittedly difficult.
  • 8 0
 Time for RAAW to drop their Trailbike
  • 3 0
 Conjecture? Or has there been actual talk of this? Eek
  • 2 0
 @50percentsure: There has been. The owner of RAAW himself pretty much confirmed it.
  • 3 0
 @BenTheSwabian: exciting times!
  • 5 1
 First I was excited because the geo is spot on what I want from the bike. But affordable... not that much. Radon Swoop AL (which is enduro) is 1000 eur less on pretty impressive spec and rides like a beast plus it’s 14,5kg and ton of room for upgrades. I wish Privateer kept prices a bit lower - 2800 eur or so, especially of the “roughness” of a cheaper frame.
  • 3 1
 Totally agreed. The complete build 141 is as expensive as a 2020 Norco Optic C3. I don't really see the value aspect of the 141 at all.
  • 12 2
 @BenTheSwabian: the C3 isn't as nicely specced though, like NX vs SLX with XT shifter, PF vs threaded BB, lower end shimano brakes vs MT5, x-fusion vs oneup dropper, pike select vs 36 performance elite with grip2.

And for the swoop al, it isn't quite as cutting edge, actually quite far from it, I would really miss the steep STA on the swoop and the longer reach. Though I do think the 141 isn't as banger value as the 161 is/was for people that want this very modern geo
  • 2 1
 @NordicRider: ... but also carbon vs aluminium. There's probably a significant weight difference in the frame alone. The 141's frame in the smallest size is listed as 3,7 kg (without shock, rear axle, etc). It's supposed to be a trail bike after all and unlike for enduro, weight is a factor.
  • 3 0
 @BenTheSwabian: Personally then I would take well specced alu over poorly/meh specced carbon and then get "punished" with a heavier frame, granted the frame still needs to be good. Frame weight doesn't play a big role for me, it's more about the pedaling platform and how good the parts feel for me. Not saying the optic isn't a good bike, because it is, but this is just how I look at bikes.
  • 6 2
 I can already imagine the full review of the 141. It's very much on the heavy side, so it takes effort to get up the climbs, but it is a comfortable climber. The bike is made for descending and it shows with thay slack hta and long wheelsbase, this gives it lots of stability on the descents. Overall this is a trail bike for the downhiller...

I already own the 161 and well this is a nice addition to their lineup and honestly travel wise it is probably more like what I should have gotten, but no regrets on the 161.

The privateer/hunt guys are super nice and chill though, best customer service I have ever gotten from a bike brand.
  • 8 0
 @NordicRider Hey, Thanks for the support and kind words, really makes the work and stress worthwhile! Enjoy your 161 and if you ever need anything just give us a shout.

Thanks!
  • 3 0
 I've been able to do mostly everything with my kona satori, which has a 68 degree head angle. It climbs crazy good and gets down everything ok, but gets a bit bottled up when it is crazy chunky and fast, at least in comparison to an evil wreckoning lb, which was unstoppable on the way down, but climbed like trash. If I were to buy this bike, I'd immediately go minus two degrees on the hta. Curious if it would be elite uphill and dh that way.
  • 3 0
 What's cool here is that, just like how YT started out, they have one single "it is good for whatever you want to do, so just shut up and ride" spec. It is a great way to cut back on inventory and be able to buy parts in larger quantities. I trust they will also consider the option that if one supplier doesn't manage to deliver, they can replace it with another part and still deliver the bikes to those customers who agree with the part exchange. If you pre-order for January, you'll be very likely to actually receive it by then.

Looks like a fun bike!
  • 3 0
 Haha. Haters. Go ride it, I'll bet it's a beast. Low and slack works for me, if you want to go slow then don't buy one I guess. None of the local fast guys where I'm at care about weight and I do not like really light bikes. But this does look easy to crack especially in the rear. Weight is what ever. If it's heavier, get stronger, ride more. Whine less. I'm going riding.
  • 3 0
 Anyone know how much import duty and tariffs cost to ship a Privateer bike to the United States? I wanna get this bike but I am worried it might not be worth it with the cost of import duty's and tariffs, since the United States screws us with taxes.
  • 4 0
 So how much does the complete weigh? Based on the spec it’s within a couple pounds of the 161 which would make a very portly trail bike.
  • 4 1
 That’s a really good price for a really well thought out bike.

Now about those newd pics of Levy, I’d just assume those stay deleted, I have no desire to see what he has tattooed on his man parts, ewwww!
  • 4 0
 Keep this going please Privateer, go get a great bike for reasonable money, or go Hollywood and pay 3 times more for similar bike but with a huge marketing department.
  • 2 0
 Better be able to pedal perfect circles with that anti-squat. Well, at least you'll have more than adequate feedback as to what the rear tire is doing under power, which will probably be mostly getting hung up since it's not going to want to move out of the way if you're really giving it the beans on a messy climb.
  • 2 0
 Would have liked a slighly more indepth first ride review Pinkbike! I am not sure what to take from it. Liking these newer agressive trail bikes, I put a crack in my banshee spitifre so looking for something burlier, but still pedalable ....if I don't get sacked thanks to COVID. Its now between the 141, the commencal Meta TR or the Production Privee Shan No.5 I think.
  • 2 0
 Wait! These are the bikes that the PB fanbase claim they want yet everyone is now critical??

Me thinks there are too many "dentists in bro's clothing " around here.

Don't forget the old rule....you can have light, cheap and strong but you can only pick two.
  • 8 5
 I might be missing something, but how is this a better value than Trek's 2021 Fuel EX XT build at $3500 USD or Giant's 2021 Trance X 29 2 at $3000 USD?
  • 4 0
 Dude, that Fuel 8 XT is a banger of a deal.
  • 22 1
 Because you're getting better suspension. Pretty much top level apart from Kashima coating. Better brakes,wheels and dropper.
  • 8 4
 Better geo and suspension kinematics
  • 23 2
 @Agleck7: that's debatable. Giant's 'maestro' is rather good.

But really OP, the biggest value is being able to say it isn't a giant or a trek...
  • 1 0
 Yup, you’re missing the part about trying to explain to your friends why you’re riding a Trek, Giant, Big S.
  • 6 1
 Shut up and take my money!
  • 1 0
 Very nice. I like the fact that the frame is aluminum and has external cable routing. A bit of feedback about the article: it doesn't make sense to show anti-squat without specifying the front and rear tooth count and the height of the center of mass.
  • 5 1
 Privateer are on a tear! 161, 141 the ebike all with great geo, great looks and sweet price! Hope they make a 181 one day!
  • 2 0
 My thought as well . 181mm frame with 190mm fork.
  • 1 0
 Finally, a bike with sensible parts selection, built for actual performance instead of spec list and shop floor image and one that doesn't require throwing away the ridiculously light but undergunned tires, XC brakes, cheap shifter and crappy fork. And all that on an aluminum frame with up to date geo and for a realistic price. I'm impressed.
  • 1 0
 Genuine question on how geometry works. My existing bike has a 605mm stack, 445mm reach, 602mm top tube length and a 75 (68 actual) degree seat tube.

If I were to buy this bike in a P1, would the 440mm reach on this bike actually feel shorter than my current bike as the seat, while extended is closer to the bars due to the steeper seat tube angle? Does top tube length have any indication on how long the bike is, along with reach or does it not matter that much.
  • 1 0
 I see no one has replied. this is my biggest concern. Of course, you're going to feel it seated. This bike is about an inch shorter in the top tube than my current bike. I'm waffling on putting a deposit down because I just don't know if that will work for me. I can run a longer stem and bias my seat rearward but that will defeat the purpose of a steep seat tube. Currently, my seat is slammed forward so I can assume that if I run it neutral on the 141 I'll gain some of that inch back, and I could probably tolerate a 50mm stem to gain the other bit. Still, it's a tough choice.
  • 4 1
 All y'all drooled over the SJ EVO in 2018. 140mm, 63.5 HA, 76 STA. 1220mm wheelbase. Yet somehow the 141 is garbage. Right.
  • 4 0
 You could say the same for how everyone praised the Norco Optic , which has even less rear travel , but they think this 141 is bunk ?
  • 1 0
 I ride an alloy sentinel v1 and just put on a cascade link. This bike is damn close to the v1 sentinel if you put on a 160mm fork other than slightly longer stays and better spec for the money. It is a fun but heavy bike for any time you want to get rowdy. If I was in the market for something new this would be worth a look.
  • 1 0
 I'm considering this for my wife, big fan of hunt wheels (bought my first pair in 2015). Everything I read concentrates on the higher level rider, I'm not the best and gained massively from buying a pole evolink. So much more confidence. This is what I'm looking for for my wife, a bit more confidence from modern Geo rather than the "old-school" Geo she currently rides. It's hard to decide when every review leads more towards the faster rider "Enduro ready" etc etc. And demo bikes are impossible for pretty much every brand. I know this isn't the target market given the brand name, but thoughts @privateerbikes ?
  • 2 0
 Not sure where the hate is coming from, looks like a well specced hard charger to me, if you want a 20lb xc bike get one, don't moan about bikes like this being too progressive because its not your cup of tea.
  • 1 0
 I don't know if you noticed, but this is NOT A TRAIL BIKE!
In the last few years I was waiting for this kind of "enduro-ish" geometry with shorter travel. Actually I'm riding a Nukeproof Scout HC Hardtail, because this way I have the short travel combined progressive geo, which is much better to ride steep trails.
I also Like to work on the bike, as I get more intensive biking experience, which is preferable for me as my average riding is usually varies between 2-4 hours, with 600-1200m elevation/descent - max 5-600 metres descent in one round.
This bike is for this kind of riders IMO: Intensive riding on shorter trails, with lots of fun. I hope I can save the money for this kind of bike until the next year, my ankles, and backwheels will say thank you, if I'll swich to full-sus frame. Big Grin
  • 1 0
 Regarding pricing, Privateer only sells in GBP on their site. The USD price here reflects the current exchange rate. It also now accounts for duty rate.

Math:
- calculate GBP price without VAT (divide by 1.20): £1240.83 frame / £2490.93 complete. (+£78 SH)
- convert USD price from current exchange rate (1 GBP = 1.30 USD): $1612.95 / $3237.96 (+$101.39 SH)
- estimate duty fee to be paid to release package from being held hostage* (US 3.9% frame, 11% complete): ~$67 / ~$367

* depends on what Privateer claims on the custom form
  • 3 1
 Not sure if this article is actually up or not. But for those control F-ing weight Privateer's website says: P1 [smallest frame] - 3.7kg/8.15lbs* (Without shock, axle, etc.)
  • 3 1
 This bike seems like a good deal
  • 9 0
 That is the biggest downside to this bike imo. The frame weighs essentially the same as the 161 and with a shock, hardware and a larger size will be over 10. With the 161 it is more forgivable because that bike is a single purpose race machine. As long as it's possible to pedal it it's good. The 141 is supposed to be more of an all-rounder, but the weight is that of a very aggressive enduro bike, seems like a harder sell.
  • 2 0
 @hmstuna: The selling point is the price. I’m sure they could bring the weight down but that would drive up the price (i.e. Pole).
  • 3 2
 The cotic flaremax is a steel trail bike and it's lighter...I think their rocketmax steel Enduro bike is lighter!
  • 15 1
 @hmstuna: cheap, ligh, strong. Pick any two. - Keith Bontrager
  • 4 0
 @hmstuna: My L Pro Race Jeffsy was just over 29lbs with pedals out of the box. Now it's around 35lbs after DD tires, rear insert, bottle, tube and guess what. What I've learned is weight only matters when I'm pushing my bike up on near unridable sections in the Gif otherwise I never think about the extra pork.
  • 2 1
 Oh boy I was expecting a little less.... So same thing as the Meta TR and AM! Frown Both frame weight the same so I don't want to go with only 140mm if that's the case! Frown
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: the cotics are also lighter than some carbon frames.
  • 6 1
 @daugherd: My current bike, a 161, weighs over 40lbs with a full bottle. In "enduro race mode" (two bottles and a bag with keys, phone, snacks, tube, etc.) I expect it to hit 44. I am firmly in the weight doesn't really matter camp. That being said if I don't buy a bike which is only meant to descend well and climb slowly, I do care about weight.

As far as climbing performance goes only four things really matter: tires (which are bike independent), weight, kinematics, and position. Ignoring the tires, we have weight (pretty much identical frame wise), position (once again pretty damn close SA is slightly slacker, but sliding saddle fore/aft will negate any change there, half degree HA change and 5mm reach are both very minimal), and kinematics (once again cut from the same mold as the 161, minor changes in the curve, but it will likely feel very similar)

Meaning I don't get the point of this bike. If you don't mind a bike that prioritizes descending over all else why not get the 161 - costs about the same, should climb about the same, weighs the same, descends a bit better with more progression and travel. If you don't want a winch and plummet style bike there are plenty of lighter options out there, some of which are very reasonably priced.
  • 2 2
 @hmstuna: The geometry if the 141 doesn't really fit the "allrounder" purpose either. On the 161 it makes sense, on the 141 it doesn't. The 141 is a rather single sided interpretation of the term "trail bike" I'd say.
  • 3 0
 Thats actually the same frame weight as the current Commencal Meta TR 29. You definitley can build a tank of a bike out of aluminium AND also make it cheap. But one thing that bike sure as heck isn't going to be then, is light weight.
  • 1 0
 @hmstuna: if you build the 161 for proper dh-ish enduro race, it should be 2-3 lb heavier than a lighter build for a trail bike. the weight in the wheels separates 2 bikes apart. weight weenies..
  • 1 0
 @rifu: again , so why is the Trek Slash so heavy? Not expensive enough?
This sentence makes sometimes sense but other then that is is useless.
Checkout the Zipp Moto wheels , do you think they are light?
  • 2 1
 @hmstuna: if you need 161mm of rear travel, but not all of us want that, so 141 hits the sweet spot,

Weight is not dictated by travel, only when you go down to an XC build or up to a DH build will the parts and frame change enough to affect weight.

A slightly longer fork and shock stroke doesn’t change weight by much, all the other parts are the same.

A good rider will flog the 141 as much as the 161, so you certainly don’t want a lighter weight frame or lightweight wheels.
  • 2 0
 @nurseben: what is the advantage to 141mm of travel over 161.
  • 2 0
 @Serpentras: Heavy or cheap. Pick one. Heavier carbon can be more resistant to impact damage, and also offers more tuneability for vibration damping. Beside snobbery, CC carbon has a more articulated ride quality than C. Neither are very light on longer travel frames. Hopefully Trek will put what it saves in frame warranty/crash replacement back into layup and resin.
  • 2 1
 @nurseben: A longer axle to crown fork needs a lot more strength in the front triangle, meaning a ton more weight. This bike uses the same tubes as the 161, just welded up at different angles for different geometry. This is way over built, in my opinion. If you're hitting stuff that really would push the limits of how strong this frame is, why would you want 141mm over 161mm?
  • 1 1
 @ceecee: SC Carbon rims are still lighter then the Zipps and the Zipps sucks, I had two sets and had them send back before I could even ride them.
I just scratch my head because my freerider weights 14,5 kg so about the same as the Slash and there are only the wheels and the bar made of carbon. I even have a big ass oldschool bashguard with a pulley.
So yeah carbon can be heavy and expensive and not light as we can see for rims and the new Slash but then it will be durable.
So Keith Bontrager was wrong...
  • 2 0
 @Serpentras: two sets? Unrideable out of the box? Zipp Moto have a lot going on in spoke bed...odd choice for freeride. Spindrift is a light frame if I recall correctly, plus yours has some trick stuff on it. Bontrager wasn't wrong--probably he wasn't thinking about impact strength and warranty claims. Fiber gets most of the hype, but lately it seems like resin is where the developments are. You can test the hypothesis by treating yourself to an M9 handlebar--31.8 and heavier than your RF with more material. Glad to hear you were able to send the faulty wheels back.
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: very true. This bike isn’t meant to be an enduro bruiser
  • 1 0
 @hmstuna: the shorter travel frame should be stronger, since you're more likely to run out of travel?

All else being equal, it's easier to make shorter travel pedal with more urgency? Combine that with steeper HTA and a non-EWS tire setup and you've got a significantly different ride.

Also the demand for 161 must be limited and/or confused about its singularity of purpose, and Privateer's closest competitor has a parallel demarcation in their AM and TR variants...commercial advantage.
  • 5 1
 @ceecee: I phrased myself poorly. I know why Privateer made this bike - they want to make money and capitalize on the profitable trail bike market. They will almost definitely sell more of these than 161s.

What I should have said is I don't know why anyone would BUY this bike.

First off, buying a bike because of the tire choice is dumb so we'll ignore that part - any tire can be put on to any bike and everyone has a different tire preference (I know someone who has raced enduro on xr3s).

While it is easier to make a shorter travel bike pedal with more urgency Privateer haven't really done that here. Kinematics are very similar with the main difference being less progression - which won't affect pedaling.

The head angle is half a degree steeper which would be noticeable back to back, but 64.5 is still quite slack for a trail bike. Not to mention wheelbase is still quite long and seat angle is still very steep, not the sort of thing to sprint up tight, techy climbs with.

In the end if you want something that is great both climbing AND descending (rolling style trail bike terrain) - this bike ain't it. It's heavy, long, and slack. If you want a "winch and plummet" bike (which this bike is) buy a 161, it does it better.

I'm sure Privateer will sell plenty of these, but I wish they wouldn't. And I say this while loving my Privateer.
  • 1 0
 @hmstuna: I don't like it either. They're both safer at speed? Privateer is aiming at Commencal? Just put lightweight tires on your 161? These geos only push me towards downsize Wreckoning, Clash, or Slash, but I don't race and want a shorter rider compartment with a slack HTA. Cheerio
  • 2 0
 @ceecee: Well I never tried the Zipp Motos because two sets are enough to see that Zipp has no quality or quality control and I am a guy who works in this job. I also had to spend the money again because the process was not done yet to get my money back so I could even bought the whole Privateer bike because of those 3 wheel sets if I had decided to try it a third time.

I dont use my Spindirft as a freerider anymore , just as an bad enduro and that is why I replace it with the Privateer 161 almost one kg more heavy but I could also get the same weight with some parts expensive parts if I want.
That reminds me of RF with their SL 4 Carbon crankset who was expensive but prone to breaking. Just search the web for loose pedal inserts. Light , expensive and not durable.
  • 3 0
 Personally I'd like to see a bit more progression in the rear suspension, but that's just me.
  • 4 1
 I like all the measurements that are accurate to 10 microns on budget manufacturing tolerances.
  • 2 0
 Hey Privateer, any plans of releasing an E-bike in the future? Your prices are on point so Im hoping that would also be the case if you launch an e-bike. Please and thanks.
  • 2 0
 they've announced the E-161

story was on Pinkbike just over a week ago

www.pinkbike.com/news/privateer-adds-the-e-161-to-their-lineup.html
  • 1 0
 Pretty sure the USD price is wrong in this article. At least when I look at the Privateer site and compare the £/€ price if the 161 to the 141.
  • 1 0
 I don't know but if the prices are right, the 141 is 800$ more expensive than the 161 (maybe the price went up for it too, this year?!) but with Fox suspension instead of RockShox and Schwalbe tires instead of Michelin. Not for me anymore, I'll find something else.
  • 9 7
 Seat tube isn't steep enough, head tube isnt slack enough.
Its August 2020, whats with this antique July 2020 geo?
  • 2 0
 I like this. If I was able to get a full squish it would be this, an Orange or a Commencal.
  • 2 1
 The Stumpjumper Evo alloy would be a good comparison slightly cheaper, lighter and available at shop. Spec is better on the 141 though.
  • 2 0
 There should be a Evo vs Meta TR vs 141 test, with the V1 Sentinel as the benchmark.
  • 1 0
 @4thflowkage:

I would agree on the mid-price Alu bike shoot out, but it needs to include the Ibis Ripmo AF ( full SLX and DVO for a few hundred more).
  • 1 0
 @Dan-Roberts - I am surprised you are on a P3. I'm 185 and ride a XL Murmur (510 reach). Geo looks very similar to the Murmur which I love as an aggressive trailbike.
  • 1 0
 He likes short bikes...
  • 3 0
 Mikey likey
  • 3 1
 Can we get prices in CDN? For all bikes featured on this site? Thanks.
  • 2 0
 Was really hoping for the p1 to finally come in 29. Come on...
  • 2 0
 I'll be looking at this as soon as I have a bit of money
  • 1 1
 Considering it's off the shelf parts and heavy weight, this unrefined frame costs a pretty penny. New Santa Cruz alu frames cost less than that on bikemarkt.
  • 1 0
 But is the SC alloy frame lighter by any significant amount?
  • 1 0
 That is one beautiful bike. Geo looks great as well. No wonder so many people here complaining. Great work, Privateer.
  • 1 0
 @PrivateerBikes, will there be a 111? Something to take the Epic EVO head on?
  • 2 0
 This bike sounds and looks like my next bike.
  • 2 2
 I like it, its a bugger all these new bikes have a long wait time. Sold mine a couple of weeks ago.
  • 2 0
 I want one!
  • 2 1
 Think this article was released earlier than it was suppose too?
  • 1 0
 Idk, Vital had the story up a number of hours earlier.
  • 3 1
 Weight?
  • 2 0
 My guess is a porky 33lbs or so....what you think?
  • 2 0
 @freeinpg: more than a comparative commencal I'd think. Probably nudging 35?
  • 3 1
 Like, all of it. All the weight. Judging from the 161.
  • 2 1
 Enduro magazine states 14,9kg for this model.
Remember when a trail bike would weight 12kg?
  • 3 1
 @nozes:

The diff is though, those trail bikes were used on xc-ish trails/loops while these ones are used on dh-enduro trail types. I use mine even in the bikepark, from blue to black runs, it can take it all.(yes, a little harsher than my former (big)bike but, the advantage is that this is usable everyehere while that wasn't)
  • 6 0
 @nozes: I remember how easily that 12kg bike snapped and how crap it handled. If you can't pedal a 15kg bike then you need to get stronger...
  • 3 0
 @eugenux: Most of them will still be used on those sorts of trails in reality as the topography hasn’t changed
  • 2 1
 @eugenux: I get that these are more capable and versatile than an old trail bike would ever be.
But what if I want a 130mm,modern geometry,13kg bike,more focused on confort and versatility than being a mini-enduro bike?
What are my options then?
  • 2 0
 @CM999:
The speed is different.
  • 2 0
 @nozes:
Downcountry bikes. 66-67 ha, 75-76 sta, below 1200mm wb(for M-L sizes) and light enough.
  • 1 0
 @CM999: The standard is different. Have you seen how fast the kids are riding these days? A lot faster.
  • 2 0
 @eugenux: That is the geometry of what road bikes should be if they weren't governed by the UCI rules not for mountainbiking.
  • 1 0
 @tralebuilder:

True, the difference is staggering and you can see it in gravel bikes. My gravel from 4 years ago, burlied to the max was 60-70% from my former xc bike. A 2021 model year gravel bike, with flex seat-stays, flared bars and a dropper post and 50mm wide tires is actually faster cross-country.
  • 2 1
 Wonder if it'll take a 160mm fork ok?
  • 2 1
 Why is the P2's headtube 120 while the P1 & P3 are 130?
  • 2 1
 Read the article & have a think
  • 1 1
 taller riders need more stack
  • 1 4
 @zyoungson: you’re so smart, you must be a pro or engineer in the industry. Can I shine your shoes?
  • 1 0
 @housem8d: Thanks for the response. P1 is for 27.5, while the P2&3 have 29 wheels and the P4 HT is 140 which makes sense, so I don’t recall anything in Dan’s article nor their website which and educate me. I’m genuinely curious.
  • 1 0
 @Staktup: I think you answered your own question here. The 27.5 wheel of the P1 size is going to require more head tube length than the 29er of the P2 for a similar stack, and stack only changes a little bit as you move up one size in the range.
  • 1 0
 @gripitandpucker: Got it, I was only looking at HTL in isolation and not along with stack, so your answer makes perfect sense now. Thank you!
  • 2 0
 Amazing bike
  • 1 0
 Great. looking forward to the 151
  • 1 0
 What is the approximate weight in the P2 size?
  • 2 1
 Mullets in small sizes!
  • 1 0
 @Adamrideshisbike Thanks for the feedback, we did debate this a lot during development and have been riding some mullet mules. Possibly in the future!
  • 1 0
 @PrivateerBikes: Please, please make a 141 mullet in all sizes!!

Or at least have a 27.5 option for the larger sizes as well.
  • 2 2
 That is not a trail bike.
  • 1 1
 is privateer a new commencal like bike company?
  • 1 2
 JUNK
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.042341
Mobile Version of Website