Maintenance
The 141 never threw up any big problems. The frame and components in the spec all did their job amicably throughout a long test period and even through many a muddy autumn and winter ride. However, it’s in the details of the 141 that there are some niggles. Which is a shame, as the fundamentals of the bike are right where they should be.
Cable routing is pretty troublesome. The clamps either side of the head tube don't clamp the gear cable enough, allowing it to slide back and forth as you turn the bars and ending with a big bow of excess cable sticking out on the downtube. It's also tight on the brake cable and the position so forward on the bike that it can crease the hose. It also passes right over the lower shock bolt and rubs back and forth. Along the chainstay, however, it’s held nice and secure as long as you use big zip ties done up tight.
The rear axle threads into a replaceable chip that sits in the dropout, but our test bike was forever dropping the chip when you poked the axle through the wheel. Given that you already need one pair of hands to put the wheel in, it was a bit frustrating, especially when it dropped in a full rubbish bin, right to the bottom.
The frame protection did an OK job; the underside of the down tube has some coverage but misses out covering the very bottom of the tube, weld and into the BB. Unfortunately though, the chainstay and seatstay protection is just a thin and poorly stuck on effort that not only peels off quickly but doesn’t cover enough of the frame, leaving our test bike looking pretty battered after all the riding. It could be good to go over the bike with some extra bits of 3M tape or Velcro and clear film to keep it looking fresher for longer.
There’s also a lot of really sharp edges all over the 141. Many of the forgings have barely seen the round function in 3D modelling and as such the paint is chipping off pretty quickly on them and looking tired. Those sharp edges are also present on the chainstay tubes and leads to some pretty evident heel rub after only a short period of time.
The bike is pretty easy to work on, using standard tools and the same Allen key size in as many areas as possible. The Horst pivot though uses an Allen key from both sides though, so you need to remove the wheel to tighten it properly. Keeping the bike clean is pretty easy, but you just have to know where all the little pockets are on the forgings to give them a blast to shed the mud. And the skinny down tube doesn’t give much area for mud to cling to.
Privateer note all the bearing sizes you need on the website and they’re all in standard 6000 series sizes. Along with that they note all the torque specs for the pivots and shock mounts. The main pivot even has two bearings on the drive side, and one on the non-drive side, for some added durability.
The 141 never threw up any big problems. The frame and components in the spec all did their job amicably throughout a long test period and even through many a muddy autumn and winter ride. However, it’s in the details of the 141 that there are some niggles. Which is a shame, as the fundamentals of the bike are right where they should be.
Cable routing is pretty troublesome. The clamps either side of the head tube don't clamp the gear cable enough, allowing it to slide back and forth as you turn the bars and ending with a big bow of excess cable sticking out on the downtube. It's also tight on the brake cable and the position so forward on the bike that it can crease the hose. It also passes right over the lower shock bolt and rubs back and forth. Along the chainstay, however, it’s held nice and secure as long as you use big zip ties done up tight.
The rear axle threads into a replaceable chip that sits in the dropout, but our test bike was forever dropping the chip when you poked the axle through the wheel. Given that you already need one pair of hands to put the wheel in, it was a bit frustrating, especially when it dropped in a full rubbish bin, right to the bottom.
The frame protection did an OK job; the underside of the down tube has some coverage but misses out covering the very bottom of the tube, weld and into the BB. Unfortunately though, the chainstay and seatstay protection is just a thin and poorly stuck on effort that not only peels off quickly but doesn’t cover enough of the frame, leaving our test bike looking pretty battered after all the riding. It could be good to go over the bike with some extra bits of 3M tape or Velcro and clear film to keep it looking fresher for longer.
There’s also a lot of really sharp edges all over the 141. Many of the forgings have barely seen the round function in 3D modelling and as such the paint is chipping off pretty quickly on them and looking tired. Those sharp edges are also present on the chainstay tubes and leads to some pretty evident heel rub after only a short period of time.
The bike is pretty easy to work on, using standard tools and the same Allen key size in as many areas as possible. The Horst pivot though uses an Allen key from both sides though, so you need to remove the wheel to tighten it properly. Keeping the bike clean is pretty easy, but you just have to know where all the little pockets are on the forgings to give them a blast to shed the mud. And the skinny down tube doesn’t give much area for mud to cling to.
Privateer note all the bearing sizes you need on the website and they’re all in standard 6000 series sizes. Along with that they note all the torque specs for the pivots and shock mounts. The main pivot even has two bearings on the drive side, and one on the non-drive side, for some added durability.
"..it’s certainly a good climbing bike when it needs to. But it starts to get more of a glint in its eyes when it sees the top of a climb, the dropper is slammed and you summit a crest."
A love letter to that sacred pause before the rush.
I can't say anything about that. Never really ridden carbon other then wheels and bar's.
Bike looks great but I agree with others, the super steep seat tube and resulting short TT are a bridge too far for me. Would be interested to demo something this extreme though.
All in mint bike, cant recommend highly enough, looks better in real life as well, although mine is Pike Ultimate / Super Deluxe Coil ultimate combo.
Na before I had that I also had no problems but I had M3 scotch on the double clamp for the head tube. Because I use braided Goodridge hydraulic hose the clamp won't grab the gear cable without it. Never had that problem like on that foto. But the lower part. Near the chainring, there is rub on the chainstay..
Review comments on the frame protection are right - it's a bit basic. Easy to fix though! I just stuck on some Gorilla tape.
Comments on the cables do not align with my experience. You can swap those clips over and tighten them up so maybe it was a build error at the factory. In three months of riding I have never had a cable slip down like that. I've also never experienced the cable creasing mentioned. It was a total ball-ache to route the dropper cable though... 90 mins of swearing to get it through the seat tube.
Other than that the review seems spot-on. It's fairly chunky but that suits my riding perfectly. I don't race anyone up the hill and it just eats up the descents at Golfie, Glentress and Innerleithen. Great value bike.
Heck, I completed a the 50km epic at Mt Buller on my AM, thats how capable these are.
But they are heavy, there is no getting round that but Im not racing so its no deal breaker and even if I was racing, I dont think the weight would hold me back in an Enduro (timed descents only) as they are really fast with the crazy geo numbers and the weight.
Whats even better, the money I saved on the alloy frame allowed me to put in top of the line Fox suspension and Code RSC brakes.
Also when running MT5s do yourself a favor and buy the pins and pads for the mt7 system. They slot right in and are a big improvement over the stock MT5 pads. They're far easier to work on and I think they feel better as 4 individual pads. I use TruckerCo pads myself.
I'd strongly consider if needing a bike and there was availability.
@dan-roberts Wondering how you find the longer reach bikes at your height. I'm 6'0" and riding an XL Optic with 510mm reach - very similar in specs to the P4 Privateer.
I'm hoping to try something in 490mm range to see the difference. Oh, I see you're in Champéry...lol. I've heard a bit about it in the Pinkbike podcasts.
This comment speaks volumes. Similar thoughts to my bike after switching to the 1st 29er. Only 120mm of travel, with a 150mm fork.
Hey,
Thanks for the feedback, we're working on it! The industry is just being a bit tricky at the minute...
Optic HTA 65; Privateer 64.5
Optic Reach 510mm; Privateer Reach 510mm
Optic STA 76; Privateer 75.5
Optic Wheelbase: 1275; Privateer 1300
Having said that, it still might be missing the mark for larger riders. I'm 6' and ride the above XL Optic, so I suspect riders 6' 5" (for example) are indeed feeling left out.
The steep seat tube necessitates a shorter top tube length to keep reach within a usable range.
I'm currenly riding a GG Smash with 430 chainstay and 515 reach that I find way too long out front for my riding style / talents. I want something that is more balanced front to rear.
I'm also riding a 21" Stanton Sherpa / XL Evil Following MB which I get on with brilliantly.
I'm 193cm / 6'4" and want to get the right size. Help a brother out!
@DHhack @Ianofmcmillan @Noeserd @njcbps @kcy4130
It's all interconnected and every change brings a compromise to some degree. I just wonder whether seat angles need to come back a bit to get reach and tt right. Unpopular opinion, I know.
It climbs better than my Norco Optic 2020 by the way and it is about 3,5 kg heavier and has DD tires.
Sorry, but that's hard to believe. I just think you didn't like the Optic, climbed fire roads with the SDeluxe without the climb switch or poorly sized. The 2021 with the DPX2 climbs incredibly well and I admit, I haven't tested the 161 but it's just too hard to belive a much heavier bike with a very similar suspension design and worse tyres climbs better.
Optic HTA 65
Optic Reach 510mm
Optic Effective STA 76
Optic Wheelbase: 1275
I'm 6'0" (183") with a 6'2" (188cm) wingspan (measured end of finger). I don't have any point of comparison, but the bike fits well. I did end up moving the seat backwards on the rails because the fore /aft positioning was far enough out that it felt like an odd pedal stroke.
This would be exaggerated with a steeper seat tube angle but maintaining the same reach, which would render a shorter horizontal top tube length.
I have a 161, I am 6'3" tall and I find myself more comfortable and climbing faster than on any other bike I have ever owned thanks to the steep seat tube and short top tube. It puts me in an upright position where I can breathe easily without unweighting the front wheel. I won't ever buy a bike with a slacker effective seat angle. It is that much better for me.
I would recommend you test ride before making a decision about what works for you rather than trusting people on the internet to tell you what you need for a bike that actually fits.
The only time a top tube measurement might be representitive of the real world is on a DH bike, but ironically, there's no time you're climbing a DH bike sat down for an extended period of time.
It's much better to look at the seat tube angles, actual and effective at a given seat height, along with the offset of the seat tube. That will give you a far better idea of where your seat will be and even open up the door to extrapolate your seat position from the geometry tables, if your seat height is a bit different to the quoted one for the effective seat tube angle.
And just as a personal input, after riding bikes with steep seat tube angles for the past few years, a bike recently showed up for test with a really slack seat tube angle, so a really stretched out seated fit, and my lower back has been screaming the whole week, despite slamming the seat as far forward as possible.
In short, top tube measurements aren't the best for deciding bike size or for comparing between bikes.
It’s beyond discouraging to realize that you have very little knowledge of the mechanics of bike fit. Estimated top tube is possibly the most important way to determine seated bike fit (see your example of riding the wrong size recently to show that you don’t know bike fit) now that seat tubes have shrank so far in the chasing of longer and longer dropper post lengths. What’s the measurement that you think will tell me my back won’t be on fire and I won’t hit my knees into shifter/dropper levers?
It’s effective top tube, and it’s measuring to a point that we never ride at. Using it as the driver to size bikes is dangerous and leads people to be on bikes with reach numbers that can be unmanageable.
What is your inseam? And is your listed height in shoes, or barefoot?
I'm really similar in height (6'1" barefoot, with a 35" and change inseam) and have been looking at the Privateer 141/161/Norco Sight, and am having a hard time trying to figure out which size I'd go with (P3 or P4). I'm curious how much I can use your experience as a guideline for me.
Thanks .
We're pretty damn similar in terms of height and inseam, so then it comes down to terrain and riding style preference. If you've a penchant for long ass bikes then take the P4, but understand that it needs more piloting to account for the size. I took the P3 and would happily buy that size. It felt long enough to benefit from good stabillity and balance, but not so long as to warrant constant conscious big movements to manhouver it. Basically, a good fit!
I stuffed a 60mm stroke shock in the 141 for a little while as a chin scratching experiment and didn't have any problems at bottom out, but I'd leave it up to @PrivateerBikes for the final word on if the 141 officially has enough clearance to do that.
The metrics all work together closely and need balancing carefully, it's not really a case of input one and out pops the answer! There are also some guidelines from the shock manufacturers on leverage ratio ranges that help recommend a certain shock stroke for a certain rear travel.
What's the reason you don't want to use tokens or a different air can? Not saying one is wrong or right, it just seems that's a specific thing that's driving your setup currently.
Would love to see how it does against the impossible climb, so many bikes go down well when setup right, its all about the technical climbing for me then, especially for shorter travel bike that is long (generally means it climbs the real tech worse).
Using the same wheels and tyres, would a 161 be any slower uphill than a 141?
That hump is only 0.025x more leverage, about 1%, and it ends after only 10mm of travel. Sure you're not just feeling the less travel meaning you get into the ramp of the spring faster?
COVID Tax?
Ehhh It's not a bad price, just in a deposit for a P1 =)
Weight doesn’t automatically equal strength.
in 2021, we are down to the short hairs of what is robust and what is light, and the overlap is nil.
If it were light enough to not make weight a con then would it really be heavy enough a notable contribution to the pro of stability? Doubtful.
We're working on something...keep an eye out!
it makes the 161 redundant ("Only up at the ragged edge and chasing DH bikes was it apparent that you’ve actually not got as much travel as the bike in front of you. But it never threw in the towel... It’s up for a fight like its brutish bigger brother."),
and 141mm is more than 120mm, and 32 pounds is not "light"("isn’t really pining for hours of technical climbing.")
Thanks for the question. We're working on it, trying to navigate Brexit, shipping charges and duties has been complex but we're making progress.
We'll be back!
What the heck is a niggle?
➡ Weight: 14.9 kg / 32.85 lbs
"Pretty damn weighty frame" !
Meta TR 29 :
➡ Weight: 15.4 kg / 33.9 lbs
"On the heavier side of the spectrum for this category" !
LoL
media.giphy.com/media/wJt98DnjJHbJW46KsA/giphy.gif
They know / have the way,
to either promote or ditch a product!
I just copied what they wrote!
The META is the L size !
On a side note, after seeing the HT down Ft. William video, can we see PB bike reviews of all trail/XC and HTs tested on a DH track? Every climb is impossible for me and there are so many variables on the IC test that the flaws in methodology don't make me put much credence into the results, but I want to see how these new bikes and their parts fare going down rattling all over the place on a DH track.
And more insights on your 36 vs. 38 assessment- are you talking about both forks in the MY 2021?
I'd like to see a battle of the 37+ stanchion enduro forks, and a battle of the coil forks. And a battle of the most bougie suspension forks/shocks.
Please elaborate on your statement. The PB crew stated the test criteria at the start of the videos in the last test. The key take away was that the bikes were as supplied.
Therefore the significant variable was the rider and their personal preference.
It was clear from the video that they had more than 1 attempt no each bike, their setup might not have been optimal for that climb, but it gave a good indication as a characterization test in the performance of the bike.
A good rider can setup a bike pretty quickly and make an informed judgement within a few corners if a bike is going to suit them or not.
The bonus with the review then the IC is that they have already stated what bikes are good at and not good at. The thing that the IC showed as that some bikes had a positive bias prior to the test and did not perform well in the test, showing that cognitive bias prior to the test did not play a significant roll in the final result.
The IC is a go to for me for when testing a trail bike, followed by the steep climb, then a timed lap that includes climbing and descending. Breaking the lap down into the segments, the climbs fatigue you enough for the descents.
My current bike is pants at steep climbs (2016 NP Mega), its pants at really technical climbs too, but is good at intermediate climbs and descends like a Dh bike. It will be getting changed as those steep and technical climbs need to be ridden too.
Here's the site I used: readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php
Hopefully you can realize just how moronic you sound chastising a literal writer about their writing. It shows a lot, that you came to comment section, of an article, brimming with data, to, make a complaint.
Next time you have criticisms try saying them nicely perhaps.
You come off as such a dick when you say things like "I usually avoid his writing in particular..." then why are you here in the comments? For real. Not to mention that you act like the english language has strict rules and makes perfect sense... it doesn't.
Incidentally, this is why Evo magazine was always my favourite car magazine back when I was into that sort of thing. I might not come away from a review with many of the facts about a car, but I felt like I'd experienced some of the thrill of driving this exotica along with the writer.
wouldn't be better if it was just this:
"The Privateer's frame is made of off the shelf tubing, meaning it's not specifically drawn up for this frame. That saves the rider money, but it does leave the frame looking a little less refined than its' competition."
Or something. There's no right or wrong way, but there are better and worse ways.