First Ride: Privateer's New 141 Trail Bike - Across The Pond Beaver
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
• 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 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Must Read This Week
272 Comments
Having said that you know they’ll be sold out before the first batch is delivered.
I have simar numbers on my reactor(bar the sta) and works quite fine.
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.
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?
Downcountry bikes.
www.pinkbike.com/news/review-specialized-stumpjumper-evo-29.html
You're struggling because a better one doesn't exist.
It rides amazing and I dont have to go home early because it Weighs 1-2kg more than an older alu bike.
It’s like the bike everyone has been asking for on here.
Although they share a number of parts, they are different frames to ensure the geometry was not comprised between them.
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?
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".
@roma258 sums things up pretty well though.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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!
any chance to demo one if I pass by your HQ?
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"?
You know what they say: a poor worker will always blame his tools.
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.
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.
Which ones did you ride that sucked so much?
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.
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!
A bad worker blames his tools, a tool looks down on other people and theirs. Get over yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eg if you ride a 520mm reach 1300mm wheelbase geometron then you’re gonna find a regular trail bike too small...
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...
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.
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".
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.
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?
I'm just confused about how Pinkbike is making the decisions.
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.
They should get more credit for making mountainbike affordable to more people.
Super similar in geo to the Norco sight, and Transition Sentinel, but at a lower price. Great option.
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...
Performance Elite and Factory levels both have low speed compression adjust.
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.
"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.
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
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.
Thanks!
Looks like a fun 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!
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.
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.
But really OP, the biggest value is being able to say it isn't a giant or a trek...
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.
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
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.
This sentence makes sometimes sense but other then that is is useless.
Checkout the Zipp Moto wheels , do you think they are light?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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).
story was on Pinkbike just over a week ago
www.pinkbike.com/news/privateer-adds-the-e-161-to-their-lineup.html
Its August 2020, whats with this antique July 2020 geo?
Remember when a trail bike would weight 12kg?
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)
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?
The speed is different.
Downcountry bikes. 66-67 ha, 75-76 sta, below 1200mm wb(for M-L sizes) and light enough.
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.
Or at least have a 27.5 option for the larger sizes as well.
Although Dan picks up on a few bits, our frames are made from quality tubing and fabricated by renowned welders. Whilst we do use some 'open mold' pieces, they are heavily vetted before use. Ultimately these pieces have been developed by an engineer previously, so we can use them confidently and pass along the savings to the rider.
6’1” 2018 Process 153 29’er owner here. The 425mm chainstays are the part I dislike about the bike the most (followed by the slack seat tube angle).
The changing chainstay length by size is one of my favorite features/specs, and the entire reason I’d choose the 141/161 over something like a commencal meta tr/am when I replace the kona.
Different stokes for different folks and all that.
I come from a dirt biking background. So I’m used to something that feels substantially more planted/balanced. That’s probably why larger bikes feel natural to me. I’ve got a buddy who was super into street trials/bmx, and feels the same way you do. So probably just that we have such different backgrounds.
I do wish more companies did the chainstay length flip chips. Like the Process X, Raaw Madonna, etc. that way we could have our cake and eat it too.
There's a sweet spot CS length, and it's linked to fore-aft weight balancing. That's why the CS increases in length as the size increases, to balance out the increase in WB/FC.
You should check out the Spec Status, or maybe a Canfield Balance.
Join Pinkbike Login