Bike Review
Privateer 141: The Modern Primitive
Let’s just get this out of the way: I am not the target rider for this bike. I am conservative with my riding ambitions, bestowed with less than stellar reflexes and burdened with dwindling wattage. Steep seat angles make my knees hurt. I do not send it. Not much, anyway. And the past few years have really driven home how much the sport of mountain biking is evolving, and how static my own riding aspirations seem by comparison. Much as I love love loooove singletrack, I am realizing that, analogously speaking, I am more of a casual trail runner in a time when it seems the world is really embracing Parkour.
But here we are, coming off a spell aboard the Privateer 141. Privateer describes the bike as “our well-rounded, all-mountain and trail bike. Designed to be agile and offer pure riding fun.” There is also a banner on their website landing page for the model with “THE BRAWLER” written across the scroll. So, what, specifically, is the Privateer 141? A bit of both. Definitely a big chunk of the latter.
This is the second generation of the 141, as evidenced by the hump in the top tube. It’s a 6061 aluminum framed, Horst-Linked bike designed to meet the needs of hard charging riders and people who break their toys. The pivot hardware throughout is massive, almost comically oversized, centered around a brutalist forged aluminum rocker running Enduro Max bearings. Cable routing is entirely external, everything held down with aluminum clamps that are screwed into threaded lugs on the frame. A replaceable ISCG mount is anchored in place by the threaded bottom bracket. There’s a flip chip at the top of the chainstay that allows for running 29” wheels front and rear or a 29”/27.5” mullet setup. There’s another flip chip at the rear axle for riders to choose between a 10mm shorter or longer chainstay length. Frame angles are neo-contemporary; a 64.5-degree head angle is paired with a super-steep 78.5-degree effective seat angle. I opted for the P2 size, with 465mm of reach and a 1237mm wheelbase (in the short setting). The chainstays are size specific, so the P1 and P2 sizes can run at either 440 or 450mm. The chainstays are huge. The rubber chainslap protector is huge. The downtube rock protector is huge. There is no UDH.
Privateer bikes are available as a frame and Fox Float X2 shock for 2389 USD, or either a “trail” or “all-day” build for 4949 USD. The difference between the two completes comes down to slightly lighter wheels and tires on the “all-day” spec. Privateer’s man in Boulder, the charming and garrulously eloquent James Stokoe, set me up with a “trail” build and sent me on my merry way. This spec, particularly at this price, is worth some examination. There’s a cable actuated SRAM GX drivetrain for starters, remember those? There’s also a very bitey set of Hayes Dominion A4 brakes; 203mm rotor up front, 180mm out back. A trunnion-mount Fox Float X Performance Elite 185x55 rear shock and Performance Elite 36 fork take care of the ground smashing duties with 141mm of rear travel and 150mm up front. RaceFace Turbine 800mm bars and Aeffect stem, OneUp 180mm dropper post, and Hunt Enduro Wide wheels shod with a Maxxis DHR MaxxTerra DD rear/Assegai MaxxGrip front tire combo round out a spec package that is consciously tailored to appease riders whose appetites run toward the aggressive side of the spectrum. All dressed up and ready to dance, the 141 tips the scales at somewhere uphill of 37 pounds.
A shrinking violet it is not, in spite of the purplish hued slap and whack protection. There's enough meat in the chainstays alone to build an entire XC frame, and maybe cause just a hint of heel rub...
Short - 440mm. Stable. Long - 450mm. Aircraft carrier.
If there were medals for things like pivot bearing size and axle diameter, Privateer would win them all.
Never complain about routing cables through the downtube again. Praise!
It should be evident from the component spec and overall bike weight that the Privateer 141 is not the kind of bike intended to go chasing after climbing KOMs. It should be equally evident that the Privateer 141 lives to get rowdy, and that both bike and rider will find their happy place in steeper, faster terrain. I found these to be hard truths, might as well etch them in stone.
Even though I had specifically sized down, the 141 consistently amazed me at how planted and balanced it felt when hauling the mail in loose, rocky terrain. The rear suspension is buttery plush at 30% sag; with the compression adjusters front and rear dialed in about halfway, the front-rear readability of the bike was super confident, predictable, and an absolute joy to straightline down chutes and rock gardens without any nerves or deflection. That battleship composure extended from railing loose kitty litter over hardpack to mis-timed jumps and heaving into G-outs. It’s a very easy, very forgiving bike to get up to speed. Cornering balance at high speed was great in the shorter wheelbase position, and almost laughably stable in the longer setting. This is a heavy, long, ridiculously stable bike. As such, I ended up opting for the shorter chainstay setting almost everywhere.
Scroll for the tale of the tape >>>
By the numbers...
Being one of them cusp riders, I opted for the P2 size. Glad I did, in this case, because the P3 141 would have only made me feel more inadequate.
What really surprised me, though, wasn’t so much the high speed descending chops as the technical climbing ability of the bike. It’s a given that a long bike with good suspension and really meaty tires is gonna be fun going downhill. I did not expect it to be so capable in chunky, ledgy, uphill going. I’ve always thought Horst-Link bikes can be excellent techy climbers, but I have never, ever, applied that axiom to a 37-pound bike. But here I go. Bear in mind this is all talking about the short chainstay position. The same front and rear balance that makes for such predictable stability at speed displays a surprising poise when smearing into rocky steps and hoisting the bike up ledges while timing pedal strokes. There’s a reassuring tractability and responsiveness to the suspension early in the travel, but just enough support in the mid-stroke to prevent the pedals from smashing into things along the way, and for as long as I could muster the muscle, the 141 consistently surprised me with what I was able to clean going uphill.
In addition to being poorly equipped to find the limits of this bike, I am also a really terrible photographer at times. You think this pic is a bit fuzzy, wait until the next one...
See? I mean, I could try to argue that this is a bold departure from the usual blurry background speed pan, but no. Straight up crap.
For as long as I could muster the muscle, that is.
Which, in my case, is about an hour. Maybe an hour and a half. There’s no way to candy coat this next bit, so I won’t. Much as it could be said that the 141 has the potential to be nimble, it’s not. Not by my reckoning, at least. After a couple hours, the weight of the bike makes itself felt, both uphill and when muscling things around on the downs. And this is where I have to concede that I, personally, am out of step with the progression in modern mountain biking. I am not rad enough for this bike.
To break that down further, it’s the job of a test rider to find some limits, to explore the capabilities of a bike and explain where it works and where it doesn’t. With the Privateer 141, I felt like I never came close to even tapping the at the window of this bike’s limits. Nowhere near any of them. All I could do was carp about the weight. Which, ultimately, is just shorthand for exposing my own limitations. If I was fitter, if I was stronger, I could more capably manhandle this bike. If I was more aggressive with my riding goals, I could push the suspension until I found something to complain about. But I get the feeling that those shortcomings wouldn’t show up until I was already so far out of my depth that I would be yard-sale bound for the nearest Emergency Room. The other morning I was mentioning the girth of the 141 to Cam, and he replied that 37-pounds was substantially lighter than any of the bikes in his possession at the moment. So, there’s that.
I keep thinking back to the educational punishment I experienced in Whistler and North Van back in July, and how the Privateer feels like it would be right at home up there, being smashed into rocks and jumps by a big strong rider, surviving repeated slab rolls gone wrong, working those big, grabby, beautiful brakes at the edge of traction before lunging into yet another sphincter-puckering chasm. Around here, the 141 felt ponderous and energy sapping when riding buffed smooth sections of the Colorado Trail. It started to wake up a bit on the chunkier trails around town, but still felt like being forced to work out wearing ankle weights. Get it up on Vitamin B, and it starts to wake up. Take it to Moab, and it’s game on. The rougher the terrain, the higher the speeds, the happier the Privateer is, as well as its rider. However, pedaling back to town on pavement after a 4 hour ride? Oof. On more than one occasion, usually on a fire road climb or flat pavement, I had to stop and make sure my brakes weren’t dragging, or that the cranks were still spinning freely.
But come on. Gravel and pavement should not even be mentioned around the Privateer 141, any more than it should be thought of as a casual trail bike. Comparing the 141 to most trail bikes is a bit like comparing a tactical semi-auto shotgun to a target air rifle. Both of them are best used at 50 yards or less, but the results of that use will be very, very different.
I'm not sold on the humpy top tube, but in every other aspect I applaud what Privateer is doing with this bike.
There's something elementally awesome about a direct-to-customer brand opting to overbuild the shit out of their bike in a way that bucks almost every single current planned obsolescence trend. This is a burly bike for people who think their Ripmo AFs and their aluminum Smugglers are feeling a bit flimsy. It’s an almost personal parts spec at a surprisingly decent price. It’s a bike for people who don’t buy into the “hide all the cables” aesthetic of modern mountain bike design. It’s a bike that is deliberately designed to take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’. It’s a bike for strong people who are not afraid to break things along the way to furthering their skillsets. And, bearing those things in mind, the Privateer 141 is absolutely right on target.
Comments
Perry Schebel
1 month, 4 weeks ago
shame about the top tube, but the numbers look really good. nice f/r balance & some decent head tube length.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Yeah I am glad in a way because it keeps me from wanting to "upgrade" to the V2, as it's a huge downgrade in the looks department. The closeups make it seem like it may not be as nice of a frame in general compared to the (built by Genio in Taiwan) V1.
If they took this bike to genio and made a V3 that had the anti-rise curve and adjustability of the V2, and the looks of the V1, my wallet might have problems.
I hope that's what the V3 ends up being in a few years. That'd be perfect timing.
Reply
roil
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I've got a v1 161 and agree with your thoughts on the v2. I would like proportional sized chainstays across the sizing as well.
Reply
Perry Schebel
1 month, 4 weeks ago
kinked top tubes are fascinating. i find them aesthetically jarring; i think the OG khs dominatrix scarred my psyche, yet the specter of the malformations still haunts to this day in bikes like above. i'm assuming some people like this (me, I cannot comprehend).
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I've never really understood the aesthetic demands of riders. Would the way a bike performs not be more important than how it looks? I've asked this question before; if a choice came down to two bikes at the same price point, one with great riding characteristics but ugly and the other beautiful but doesn't ride well, what would people pick?
Reply
araz
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I'm with you. I get wanting a nice looking bike all else being equal, but especially for a bike like this that's meant to be a practical, affordable, take anything anywhere rig, form following function makes a ton of sense. In the end, a bike that rides well and does what you want it to do is a beautiful bike.
I'd take a top tube hump to have a water bottle and low stand over any day. And truthfully, I don't think it looks too bad.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
> I'd take a top tube hump to have a water bottle and low stand over any day
Again though, bottle clearance and stand over were fine on the V1. My size medium;
Perry Schebel
1 month, 3 weeks ago
fortunately, the spectrum of available options is wide, so we don't have to pick function over form; we can have both! (and really shouldn't have to settle, given typical price points). though to be fair, there's not many truly hideous bikes out there these days. even ibis & knolly have made decent advances, aesthetically.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
True. I just find it odd that we put a lot of significance into aesthetics when like Cooper said, we don't even see the bikes while we're riding. Same for riding gear. I guess we still give in to our lizard brains more than we like to admit.
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@Mark - so, if you're at a party and there's 2 girls there, one's a drop dead bomb shell, the other, well let's say she could have been cast in Hocus Pocus, which one are you going to talk to or more realistically wish you could take home?
We're hard wired to be drawn to things by initial looks, it's nature, then if we like it, good, if not we move on. I'm not ashamed to own up to this, something has to look good, TO ME, if I'm going to spend hard earned cash AND keep it for as long as I keep my bikes (think min 5 years) and there's absolutely no reason for them not to be aesthetically pleasing these days, absolutely none, it's just designers/engineers trying to make there bike stand out from the crowd and well, something really ugly stands out above mediocre.
If they were worried about fitting a bigger bottle (from Kenny's photo of his V1, it looks like it fits fine) you could also mount the piggy back to the lower eyelet, maybe needing to make the bend in the DT a bit more curvy or big, but that to me would look a hell of a lot better than that nasty kink in the TT, or do like Neeko did with his and mount the shock sideways, simple.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Odd analogy, comparing a person to an inanimate object. I'm not into hook-up culture so it doesn't really matter to me. I'm more inclined to spend time with people who share similar values over anything else.
I'm not going to make any assumptions on why some bikes look better than others, but I doubt people are purposely making bikes to be what's considered ugly (by the mainstream) just to stand out and possibly increase sales. That sounds like a pretty risky move.
You've probably noticed I have a bit of a penchant for stoic philosophy. It's easier to find happiness when you let go of your ego and focus more on what works for you than what everyone else thinks. If one's validation as a person needs to get fulfilled by accolades from other people or surrounding oneself with pretty things then you're always going to be chasing the next thing.
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
When you're reading NSMB first thing in the morning with your coffee and they're comparing women with bikes in the comments
Pete Roggeman
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Lynx, you can make the argument about appeal/aesthetics without bringing objectifying statements about women into this. BS like that makes this a less welcoming place. Please be respectful.
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@Pete, wasn't singling out any sex, was just straight pointing out the most obvious and imbedded thing in all animals, that looks matter, no matter how much you try to be politically correct. if I were a girl, it would have been guys and if I was gay, then which ever way I leaned, that sex. As to inanimate vs animate, there all things we covet, doesn't matter if they're living or not and if you call BS on that, you're so full of **it, we covet, it's that primal and then from there things get distilled and more meaningful reasons get examined, but it all starts with that baser instinct.
araz
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I know this post is ancient history, but I saw there was a flurry of activity on this article, checked it out, and wanted to respond to this thread of the conversation, hopefully in a constructive way.
Lynx, imagine a 17 year old girl who's gotten into mountain biking, maybe wants to do some local enduro races, checks out this article to see if this bike might be good for her, and goes on to read your comments comparing buying bikes to picking up women at a party. I have a teenage daughter, alas not into MTB, but if she was, a comment like that would be enough to turn her off of this website, and if she experienced enough similar stuff across the MTB community at large, perhaps turn her off the sport completely. Whatever your intention, your initial comment reads like a page out of the Sexually Objectifying Women Handbook, and if you can't see this, and how it could alienate a bunch of people, then perhaps you need to do some introspection. If you want to make a general point, then do so -- "humans are hardwired to pick sexual partners with straight top tubes" or whatever.
I know it's mostly us middle aged guys hanging out here, but it would be a better place with more participation from other folks too, and that's not going to happen if we aren't all cognizant of how our words might come off to a broad array of readers.
ohio
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Sure, all things being equal I choose function over form... but the ugly form isn't necessary - if anything it seems to be an aesthetic choice itself. A Raaw Madonna and Jibb are absolutely lovely frames, all of the functionality and durability, and somehow without a taint-murdering hump.
Reply
rolly
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I've got no problem with the forward bend of the top tube when done well. It is different from what we're used to though, which for some doesn't work in their eyes.
Reply
Hollytron
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Kenny I think you bought this frame off me a few months back.
As a mid fourties guy with kids and too many other interests (mostly six stringed) I did have lots of fun on my 141. It climbed well for its heft and could be ridden down some wild stuff and at great speeds too. If I only rode the gnarly stuff all the time it would be great. It saved my ass on “Pandemic” on vanc island.
Im 5’7” 175lbs and I will echo Mike here and say its a bike that needs either speed or lots of rider input to ride well. The P2 was also perhaps a little bit too big for me.
I have the new alloy optic in the S2 size and while its nearly as heavy its just a much easier bike to ride for me at least.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Yeah I think so!
I'm really enjoying the bike and it's been a great mix of maneuverability and burliness for me - but I'm 4" taller and 30lbs heavier than you. If I had bought a P3 (arguably the "right" size for me), I think it'd probably feel like a battleship and be less versatile. Probably I'd feel similarly to how you felt on the P2.
Reply
Cooper Quinn
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I'd assume that - like one of those other Colorado brands that has since gone off into the great singletrack in the sky - it's a waterbottle based decision.
I agree though... it's not exactly asthetically pleasing. But I guess when you're riding it, you're not looking at it...
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I wonder what costs more sales, water bottle clearance or aesthetics.
V1 bottle space is not amazing but not terrible. My size medium clears a 22oz/650ml bottle with lots of space and larger could be done with the right cage. 850ml fidlock also fits.
With the V1 part of how they hit their price point was they worked with Genio to build the frame with "off the shelf" tubesets.
With V2, they are no longer Genio-built, so I actually wonder if it was partly some sort of constraint related to tubeset selection with their new manufacturing partner.
Edit: not sure if I misread the statement "other Colorado brands" to suggest Privateer is Colorado based but for clarity Privateer is out of the UK. :)
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@Kenny - For me, aesthetics easily, because I can (and basically always do anyway) wear a hydration or hip pack. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my hard earned money on something that looks like a pig with lipstick.
Reply
ohio
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Not buying the water bottle argument. Even on the small there should be room for a bottle. Or better ways to achieve it.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
See post above of the photo of my medium Privateer 141. Water bottle clearance is fine. I've also owned a Jibb, and yes clearance is similar. I'm not sure about the small, the small v1 was 27.5 so I'm not sure if that helps or hinders.
Again I think it's maybe more related to tubeset selection with their new manufacturing partner.
Reply
justwan naride
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Small v1 can take a 650ml bottle with any sideloading cage.
Reply
taprider
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Mike's "I am more of a casual trail runner in a time when it seems the world is really embracing Parkour" comment
+
CBC radio interviews (7:45 this morning) with a doctor/researcher and some Lynn Valley (Fromme) riders regarding the MTB park spinal cord injury study.
+
The "Spinal cord Armageddon!" thread in the NSMB forum is already 5 pages
+
Mike's and other's comments that "this bike would be right at home in Whistler and North Van" and "a NSMB riders type bike"
+
Skook's comment in the forum "In the 14 years between 2008-2022 there were 58 patients in BC with spinal cord injuries related to mountain biking. In the next 2 years there another 21"
=
The impression that all serious/skilled/elite/10,000 hour type riders from the North Shore to Whistler (and those that emulate and/or making it goal to being one of those type riders) are doing the same sport. WE ARE NOT ALL DOING THE SAME SPORT, many local 10,000 hour type riders are more like serious trail runners who are not embracing Parkour type riding. None of the discussion in the general media regarding spinal cord injuries is talking how "park" type riding is a separate branch of evolution from the cross-country and observed trials roots of the sport (Marin Repack downhill was a different root than the high alpine Crested Butte, observed trials Moab and cyclo-cross European type roots).
There has been no or very little discussion about the types of trails most trail networks and trail centres have been building/renovating lately. Smooth flow trails that are easy for inexperienced riders to easily coast down, but are not challenging (or fun for 10,000 hour type riders) unless they go fast enough to hit the increasingly more common jumps, combined with the construction of elevated wood structures, are part of the cause of increasing numbers of injuries (not to mention the increasing desire to produce 5 second social media edits, which is being talked about).
Hey Mike you don't need to apologize for not being what you think is an NSMB type rider. Many of us are not trying to emulate Brandon Semenuk (but appearing more like Josh Bender). I try to emulate how the elite trail runners flow down the trail like deer (or the pursuing cougar), lightly and smoothly, hovering over the ground but barely leaving it. I also try to emulate the elite swimmers that can breast stroke from one end of the pool to the other with only three strokes, and those 60+ year old classic diagonal stride XC skiers that are faster than the 20 year old skate skiers.
I don't think of myself as any less of a North Shore rider than Cam and his 37 lb+ bikes. My bike needs to be less than 27lbs.
My personal challenges are to do 100 trails per day observed trials/xc challenges, where it is more important to ride the challenging uphills and not put a foot down than to take the easy road climbs to preserve energy for the big dangerous hits.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I was watching a deer spring up a 30-ish foot near vertical hillside to get out of my way some years back, and I thought to myself; "if I could pull moves like that I'd never even bother with these stupid wheels."
To be clear, I'm not apologizing for shit. But I am cognizant that there is a huge variety of riding out there, as well as an increasing number of ways to get after that riding, along with equipment that is more and more specifically built to meet particular needs. As such, I feel like I need to clearly state where my own riding sits on the overall spectrum, along with my personal goals and desires, and whatever direction they may be taking at a given point in time.
This is not a bike for me. But it is still a pretty damn awesome bike. Built like a brick shithouse, very clever spec at a very respectable price, and with suspension and handling that everyone can appreciate but that really comes to life for riders who are more assertive/aggressive. In spite of the injury stats, the number of riders who can really let it rip on these kind of bikes is growing. May not be my cup of tea, but I respect and admire the hell out of those who have the sort of chops to make this bike sing.
Reply
taprider
1 month, 4 weeks ago
What would be the bike for you Mike?
ps: deer can be amazing. While traversing a steep grassy slope in interior BC, I heard a weird jet-like noise coming down the slope behind me and turned to see a deer crossing my track with its belly brushing the tall grass to make the noise, and the legs only doing enough work to keep its belly off the ground and keep it plummeting down the slope (no bouncing up-down motion, more just like a torpedo)
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 4 weeks ago
This was an interesting year for me regarding bikes I got to ride. Lots of good light middleweights got ridden, along with a few brawny middleweights and just enough big travel monsters and full power ebikes for me to be clearly reminded what I like and don't like. I think that for at least half of my riding, I would be plenty happy with an SB120 or a Top Fuel. Buuut, that Mondraker Raze I reviewed earlier this summer really impressed me. I could ride that into bigger terrain, and its still light enough and sharp enough that its really nice to pedal everywhere. I am pretty sure that smashy riders would tear it apart at some point, but aside from kinda buggy heel clearance it was almost goldilocks good for me. 130-135mm seems to be about the rear travel inflection point for me these days, where the responsiveness I like intersects with the comfort/confidence I seek, just below the threshold where bikes start to feel "more" than I want.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I think beyond the smashy/non-smashy dichotomy, rider size/weight has to factor into the equation as well. Someone who's a larger rider is inherently going to need a beefier bike/build even if they're just riding mellowish type trails.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
1 month, 3 weeks ago
The irony of all of this, Mike, is that your technical riding is excellent, as we saw this year when you visited Whistler and the Shore. Those places make everyone feel deficient, and you managed your bike and self beautifully.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Now, I'm not going to accuse the NSMB writers/editors/readers/commenters of anything, but I'll bet Mike is a lot closer to 'core' than he's holding himself out to be.
Reply
Andy Eunson
1 month, 3 weeks ago
You’re right tap. And things change at our age too. I find that the slow black trails safer in a sense than easy blue higher speed trails. We all get sucked into things though. Everyone is doing it so I should too kind of thing. I’m starting to hate the way the word progression is used. Bigger and bigger jumps and higher speed isn’t necessarily progressing. Sometimes it’s greater stupidity. Sometimes it’s just different.
I appreciate that Mike opened up with his statement about what his riding style isn’t. I thought," that’s me". Just because I’m old and slower doesn’t mean I’m not a mountain biker.
Back to this bike. Boat anchor. And I don’t like super steep seat angles which I think only exist to make room for rear wheel travel and long droppers along with "playfully" short rear centres. Barf. My personal bike has similar angles but I upgraded it with a head angle adjust to make it steeper to 65.5 and slacker seat tube with a Fairbike off set head so it’s closer to 76°. Now that’s progressive and not regressive. And it climbs way better because I can put power down and turn tight uphill corners more comfortably. It descends just as well. It’s all new and improved until it’s not.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
As someone who's only big "off" was at speed, I can concur, high speed offs suck. I was very lucky, I was "on" that day and that may have helped, but also hindered, because I realised what was going to happen before it did and "braced for impact", i.e. tensed my entire body and hence, I suffered some serious issues from my muscles, but otherwise, body was all fine even though I got slammed back first into a small stand of trees, the hydration pack took the impact mostly - hence why I pretty much never ride without one.
Conversely, while on a trip to CO, I did a side roll off a narrow bit of single track, on a slow tech climb, and the fall away wasn't vertical, but it was damn steep. I was lucky, realise what was going to happen and just held on to the bars tight as I knew there was nothing I could do to stop it, I say luckily because there happened to be a nice, young sapling growing right next to me and I sort of cushioned the roll and then I luckily got pinned in the chest by a fallen branch which stopped me rolling down the 150 of so feet to the bottom.
Reply
Offrhodes42
1 month, 4 weeks ago
"I am more of a casual trail runner in a time when it seems the world is really embracing Parkour." I found that sentence amusing. I did buy a DH bike 2 years ago to go Highland Mountain Bike Park with my son. Being over 50 I feel I have progressed my skills, but I do not push the DH bike anywhere near the intended capabilities. I just went from a 35lb Stumjumper EVO to a Niner Jet 9. The short travel trail bike is definitely my happy spot now. over 4lbs lighter, quicker handling for the tight New England singletrack, and more suited for the constant short and punchy climbs.
Reply
Allen Lloyd
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Modern bikes feel like they were built specifically to not work in east coast jank. When I moved west that was the thing that got me. My short bike was terrifying at speed, where it had been the perfect tool to navigate rock jig saw puzzles. I can't imagine trying to navigate some of the tech I used to ride on my enduro bike the wheelbase and low bottom bracket would be an absolute nightmare.
Reply
Maximum Radness
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Your dwindling wattage is why your reviews are so relatable.
Don’t quit your day job, Mike. You’re tough enough to miss time jumps for the rest of us, for time immemorial.
Reply
justwan naride
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I own v1 of the same bike and the review sounds familiar. These are enduro bikes with a little less travel, not agile trail machines (all mountain then?). Personally I feel mine is great for all day epics, as long as I'm not in a hurry. It will handle almost anything an unknown trail will serve you, either up or down.
The question a potential buyer should ask is whether the 141 is a good choice when the 161 weighs about the same and will be more forgiving when you bite more than you can chew.
Reply
fartymarty
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Mike - how does it compare to your Murmur?
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Always with the Starling stuff... I worry about you sometimes. Okay, My Murmur is about 4 pounds lighter and that weight difference is almost entirely in the wheels. So, just pedaling around, the Murmur feels quicker. But that is probably just wheel mass illusion. The suspension, both in terms of pedaling kinematics and overall ability to swallow a broad range of impacts, is better on the Privateer. The Privateer also feels more stout in terms of frame flex, but that is something that doesn't become too apparent until choosing bad lines at high speed on Lower Porcupine.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 4 weeks ago
At least he's consistent and asking for comparisons that are:
1. relevant; and
2. you're qualified to give.
He could be asking you to compare the Privateer with a particular packet of crisps, which he is also curious about purchasing.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I try to steer clear of potato crisp comparison. That's a landscape almost as fraught with partisan consequence as you'll find with the mustard and cheese fanatics. And they are right up there with Starling aficionados.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Salt and vinegar is the only appropriate choice.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Let's dive deeper:
Kettle Brand Salt and Malt Vinegar is like crack to me (the purple bag).
Miss Vickie's Spicy Dill Pickle is a recent contender to the throne.
When in the US, Tim's Cascade Style S&V are also deadly.
Honourable mention Hardbite Salt & Malt.
Almost all others are pretenders to me.
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@Pete - yes S&V chips that are powerful enough to peel paint off the walls are delightfully sublime.
fartymarty
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Swedish Dill Chips / Crisp get my vote but mustard and cheese sounds good.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 4 weeks ago
What, prawn cocktail isn't good enough for you?
fartymarty
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Sorry, it's the only FS bike I've ridden in the last 5 1/2 years but it's a similarly intentioned bike.
Thanks for the comparison. My Murmur would be a similar 37lb in the current 140/120 "air" build and significantly heavier in the 160/140 "coil" build so get where you are coming from re weight.
My missus worries about me too so you're not alone.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Well Mike, while I agree with you that maybe you aren't the "ideal" tester, as someone with similar riding preferences and self imposed restrictions and age, I think it is actually a very helpful review, really gets across what/how this bike is intended. Think that this is definitely as you said a NSMB riders type bike, built for big, steep, tech, where most riding is going up to enjoy the downs. As to Cam saying all his bike's were over 37lbs, well good for him, but to me that's pig territory for bikes with a 80/20 split towards going DH, all mine are "heavy" by my standards and they're all under 35lbs, including the Proto Prime which was basically built using their DH tubeset for prototyping.
As to not being in touch with mountain biking, nah, I think that's not true, don't buy into all those social media marketing images and videos, most people the world over don't ride like that. We don't stay young forever, most have real jobs and riding is something we do for fun, if we injure ourselves having fun, we can't work, that's not fun.
As to the bike itself, love all that they've done, love the external routing, extra protectors etc., and also the spec/price, but agree with you on that hump, definitely not a fan. Also, yeah, that STA is ridiculously steep, once again pointing to the intent of this bike Winch and plummet.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I do keep the seat on mine slid fully rearward, and I sized down, this helps, but I don't find mine to be limited to winch and plummet at all. Seat tube angle is definitely a personal thing, but I went from crossworx at 79 degrees, to an SC tallboy that was very slack, then to the 141 which is back in the 79 range, and feel back at home.
It's more versatile than say, my Ripmo AF was. Similar descending capabilities (or maybe slightly higher since it's less flimsy feeling, not sure if Mike meant that as a joke but it was a very accurate description of me and anyone who might enjoy the bike, kudos there!) . But, it's less lethargic feeling (yes it pedals better than a ripmo AF, at least set up how I like each bike).
On roads the bike feels a tad tank like, compared to say my Revel rascal, but thats a small price to pay for confidence when riding hard and fast. I really enjoy the bike on any single track, even mellow.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I am willing to bet that almost all of the tanklike perception I struggled with was down to wheel and tire mass. I was otherwise very happy with the pedaling behavior, and especially impressed with how effectively it managed chunky climbs. The wheel and tire thing is just one of those basic compromises that riders choose to suit their own needs. I struggle with it because of my own preconceptions, but at the same time I sure do love how bikes like this work on the descents.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 4 weeks ago
@ Kenny, I'd be curious to hear your body proportions, even, or more legs than torso, or more torso than legs? Personally, I've got long legs for my height and I guess I'm hard stuck in my ways of liking to be able to put down proper power and not have to spin because I can't properly engage the bigger leg muscles. Anything over 74* for me is too steep and I immediately can feel it in the front of the knee. Maybe that's just it, I got into MTBing because it was easy on the knees using more glute/hamstring, back of the legs than those needing the need interaction as much and so engaging the quads mroe than the hamstring/glutes doesn't sit well with my knees.
Side note, I helped a friend spec and build a Ranger a couple years back and absolutely love that thing, especially the weight, which to me was crazy considering just a basic XT build with SID fork, thing sits just under 28lbs and man does it accelerate.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Could be part of it for sure, I'm 5’11” but have a very long torso and pretty short femurs. Never though much about that aspect, but intuitively I could see that a shorter femur would handle steeper seat tube angles more easily, all else being equal.
To me, with a steep seat tube angle I feel almost in the same position as when I'm standing, it's feels powerful but in a different way than a very slack seat tube feels. Sort of like the difference between a seated leg press and a squat. Not a perfect example but to me that's the sensation I get.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Strange that you should compare the squat to seated leg press, it's how I think of it as well and then look at the world records to see which allows more power and well, the seated leg press record is double that of the squat.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
There are some simple reasons why the leg press easier than a squat. For starters, the leg press is an inclined plane, so the amount of resistance you're actually working against is roughly half of what's loaded on the machine. The second is that the leg press fully supports the user, not so for a squat. The two are completely different exercises. It would be like comparing climbing times on your fav trail between your bike and an ebike.
Edit: A good squat is also far more aesthetically pleasing than a leg press, so there's also that to consider if one is so inclined ;)
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Lol I regretted the comparison almost as soon as I made it.
With a leg press you have almost no stability concerns, a more "equitable" comparison might be a leg press where you're sitting on a yoga ball (not saying that such a thing exists).
I just meant that you can recruit plenty of muscle in either position (people say steep seat tubes don't allow them to recruit the "big" muscles in their legs which just seems wrong).
When climbing gets steep I really appreciate having my weight more above the bottom bracket with my body fairly upright, rather than behind it and having to hinge way forward, which makes my hip angles relative to my torso more acute which reduces my power, and being hinged forward also impairs my breathing. But again that's more body shape specific.
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@ Kenny - I was replying to Lynx.
To your comment though there can definitely be an appreciable difference in leg power and muscle usage depending on seat tube steepness. What's critical is seat position in relation to the bottom bracket. Too far forward (or too far backwards) in relation to the bottom bracket will negatively affect leg drive.
My thoughts are that xc/trail/enduro bikes should be designed around rider biomechanics first and then have other factors such as wheelbase and suspension layout fit around that ideal design. The more pedally the bike the more importantly the human factor of bike design should be considered.
taprider
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@Mark
and for the more pedally bikes, to consider the average seated pedalling position from flat terrain to steep climbs, since a rider can always slide back and forth on the saddle
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@ taprider - yeah for pedally mtn bikes I'd personally go with a design that is based on the rider being in a seated position for climbing on a roughly 15% grade. My feeling is to optimize the bike more towards the seated position where you spend most of your time and have the highest average effort output. I think seat position doesn't matter much for descending as it's down and for the flats you're usually not working too hard. I think the new bikes are close, but are more optimized around suspension design and bike geometry rather than around rider positioning.
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Another "cheat" for mountain bikes is that they almost all have droppers now. Like mark says on the flats you're not typically mashing for peak output, so you can also err slightly on the steep side since you can lower the seat an inch on flats or slight downhills and reduce hand pressure.
Brian Tuulos
1 month, 4 weeks ago
It would be nice to know the frame only weight. My knolly fugitive that's also 150/140mm, with a coil shock, decent but not fancy parts is 33.5 lbs. EXO tires mind you... but still. I'm trying to figure how this is 37lbs. Privateer might be throwing extra aluminum at the design for the sake of reliability and no warranty claims. Fugitive frame with air shock is ~9.25 lbs (verified) for reference, if I remember right
Reply
Perry Schebel
1 month, 4 weeks ago
website shows 10.6lbs (w/o shock or axle). though i'm skeptical that's accurate (perhaps shock is included?), as the P1 was 2lbs lighter...
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 4 weeks ago
That's crazy if true, as yeah that's about 2lb heavier than my V1.
That said I'm sure my V1 is north of 37lb anyways. I haven't weighed it, but I move my parts from frame to frame and have weighed previous iterations.
I don't want to weigh it though - I like it too much. I worry if I see the weight it'll get in my head. Some say "never meet your heroes", I say never weigh your bikes. :D
Reply
cyclotoine
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Still riding the V1 I put a deposit down on in 2020. Nothing is original for no good reason but it is about 37.5 lbs in the XL size with EXO+ tires and 32H WAO union wheels.. alloy bars, XT DT, turbine cranks, Atlas pedals, PNW loam dropper... RS SDU shock and Lyric Ultimate (160mm). There is no question it is a heavy bike. Climbing traction is good but this is not a sprightly feeling bike.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 4 weeks ago
>10.6 lbs frame without shock or axle
What!?
Reply
taprider
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Yeah! Holycrap, that would be the weight of three frames without shocks or axles in my mind
Reply
ohio
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Yeah, that can't be right. Both Geometron and Raaw aluminum frames are sub 9lbs w/o shock and its not like those are lightweights...
Edit: and a Specialized Status 170 is listed at 10 lb 8.3 oz, I believe including the DHX coil (~2lbs). I think that Privateer 141 weight MUST include the shock.
Reply
Timer
1 month, 3 weeks ago
And keep in mind that Knollys tend to already be overbuilt for reliability. Truly light alu frames in this class, like the Giant Trance X or Scott Genius, would weigh even less.
Reply
[user profile deleted]
1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment has been removed.
Kos
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Agree with Taprider, above. I've aged out to the point of being happy to ride mostly modest-ish curvy paths through the forest — with occasional “lapses” to serious ground-level chunk stuff.
Not the prototypical NSMB rider.
But I sure like the company here!
And I at least think I've got the perfect version of the bike Mike described above:
2018 Slash with an X2 and coil fork. Pedals well, smooth as butter, has 150/160 travel, and weighs a pound more than my Top Fuel. I think the frame weights of the two are within a half pound.
Reply
taprider
1 month, 3 weeks ago
"Not the prototypical NSMB rider"!?
Don't sell yourself short. You may be one of the invisible-majority-type NSMB riders.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
It's interesting that what's garnered so much chatter over this bike are two things (aesthetics and weight) that could easily be argued shouldn't really be concerns for a bike of this class.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Yeah, but especially when it's a V2 of a prior model, people are going to make relative comparisons to the prior version, and relative comparisons to similar bikes from other brands. And the big differences are looks and weight.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
True, but I don't see them as being so far out of what would be considered a normal range that they warrant such negativity.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
But Mark, everything is so good these days. If a bike looks good and is light in addition to all that other stuff, what are we supposed to do with that? Privateer is driving reader engagement and I am here for it.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Yup
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I dunno, it almost feels like people just need something to complain about. I mean if everything is so good and people are happy with their lives then why is there so much angst being expressed here?
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Part of it is that regardless of relevance, looks and weight are low hanging fruit for casual bike discussion so lots of comments appear.
The biggest improvement they made compared to v1 is the anti-rise curve, and it's a great improvement, but that's probably too abstract for the mass market to really pick up on.
I'm certainly not complaining, but I do wonder what part privateer's change from working with Genio played in the aesthetic and weight changes. Not sure what happened but I hope they kiss and make up, if things went sideways.
Reply
Kenny
1 month, 4 weeks ago
I have a gen 1 privateer 141 and absolutely love it. Also sized down, this was key.
As someone who mostly pedals but still wants to be able to ride basically anything on the north shore, man it is just so awesome.
Reply
bushtrucker
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Heavy, ugly, expensive. Pick three. Not a bike I'd own but I'm here for ya words Mike. Keep it up!
Reply
Sweaman2
1 month, 4 weeks ago
Your photos of the rocks brings back memories. One year I took my Forbidden Druid to Hurricance and St George. Suffice to say that I don't think there are many places less suited to a robust high pivot bike than there. Much like you after about an hour of short sharp VO2 max climbs up a petrified dune followed by a short, sharp janky descent I was wishing for something lighter and snappier... Next time down there I saved on baggage fees and rented a Pivot 429 Trail. I feel like the privateer is in the same boat, some bikes are just designed for specific riders and places.
Reply
Grinder
1 month, 4 weeks ago
The Maxxgrip compound is awesome in the wet but it also adds a noticeable amount of drag. I regularly switch front wheels with different tire compounds depending on conditions.
I rented a 37 lb aluminum Norco Optic in Fernie this summer. My experience was similar, it was an awesome technical climber and super stable on the descents despite having only 125 mm of travel. I loved the ride but my energy stores were spent rather quickly. In the final verdict, handling that much mass (on a trail bike) was too much for me to ever entertain buying it, at least with the metal frame. Seems like every new generation of bikes adds another 10% to the mass. Sorry, at some point weight does matter.
Reply
Abies
1 month, 3 weeks ago
This bike makes my Knolly look downright aesthetically pleasing, lol
Kidding aside, it sounds like everything I'd want in a bike other than looks.
Reply
BarryW
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Always a pleasure reading the words you share with us Mike.
But a few thoughts . . .
I'm riding a size large, 485 reach, 65 (maybe less) head angle, 135mm rear, fully coil suspended 'trail' bike with the only significant difference being mine weighs about 40lbs, and only has 430 chainstays and only yesterday I had a ball riding green flow/singletrack to the tune of 18.5 miles. And when I read reviews like this I always wonder if the 'tiring' aspect is more about cornering technique than the weight of the bike. And I'm often interested in this concept that people complain about getting modern 'trail' bikes to turn. I've ridden other bikes for sure, and sure they can be different, but you also ride them differently. On a short wheelbase bike on a tight corner you don't need to lean the bike so deeply and separate the body and bike, but do that and holy hell do the longer bikes rip around corners!
And maybe it's a factor of many riders going through this slow, evolutionary change in both bike design AND how one rides a bike 'optimally'. Myself I rode mtb only very casually and long ago, then got a super modern bike when I jumped in a few years ago. So I didn't have to overcome the learning of that evolution. Instead I'm drawing from massive miles spent riding motorcycles on the street and it's interesting how the super impressive parking lot turns on a big motorcycle feel a lot like tight, flat corners on my mtb. Sure, not exactly apple to apple, but the pear is influential to my apple! And if course Mike, you wrote about the bike from your perspective, and honestly that's why so many of us here want to read your stuff.
But while I'll agree that there are massive differences between how bikes can ride, I think this bike just needs new school technique to make it shine on the more mellow stuff. And yes, I do realise I'm biased towards my own chosen ride and setup. And perhaps doing nothing more than shallow justification for my own questionable equipment choices.
And the groupthink on the top tube is hilarious. Personally I think it looks better than the previous one.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
BarryW, point, but useless as you left out any information about yourself.... what do you weigh? How tall are you? How old are you? All of that makes a difference, for absolutely firkin sure it does. I don't care what people say to justify their "pigs" they're still fat pigs and while sure they can be fun and you can pedal them all day, should it really be so much work to get them to ride nicely?
Reply
BarryW
1 month, 3 weeks ago
43 years old, 5'11", 170lbs.
Funny that's your only response but nothing about my thoughts regarding HOW bikes are riden.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
OK, here's a response Barry...It's easier to play happy with what you've got/bought, because well, you paid your hard earned money for it, than maybe own up to the short comings of it and admit to maybe, yeah, wasn't as great a buy as I thought, if I had chosen different and spent more. I'll own up to most of my bikes are heavy, to me, especially after building up a 28lbs Ranger, 4lbs is a lot, but then again, I built mine on super tight budgets and I'm still smiling at the end of the day because I'm getting out and having fun on them, even if a bit more worn out than if I had the extra $$$ to build something lighter, it's what I can afford and it's way better than lot of others ride, but I'll never say my bikes are light and not more work to get around.
Or maybe, you just like bikes that weigh a tonne, me, I'm with Mike, for a bike in this segment, that's way too heavy, it even as I said makes my pre-production Prime seem light and that think is a pig and a tank, but it is what it is and yes I've done 5 hour rides on it in a wide variety of terrain from mellow XC with lots of climbing to Flowy ST, to Chunk and Steep and you know what, I still had a good time, but I could have also done it all on my Phantom and not been as worn out when it was all done and said, from having to man handle the extra weight around.
Reply
BarryW
1 month, 3 weeks ago
So no response to the idea of riding style being inherently different with modern frame shapes Lynx?
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Yeah, of course as you move the front wheel further out you're going to have to adjust your riding style to weight the front properly, it's physics, but not everyone is in love with the modern easy rider geo - me personally, I have no issues descending with any of my "old" school bikes as you might say, I don't need to go as fast or like to just point and plow, I like to be in control, the reason, or at least majority of the reason, I can clean/ride something, it's why I enjoy my rigid Unit so much, it makes even the short travel Phantom feel almost like no work when it gets rough and chunky.
Also, you didn't mention which bike you were referring to, because as we all know, most recently from the PB Trail Bike Review, that 2 bikes that look identical on paper can handle and feel VASTLY different, depending on who is designing/manufacturing said bike, the suspension design, shock tune, suspension manufacturer and is it the most recent or something a bit not, that makes a massive difference, so you cannot blanket statement that you have no trouble riding YOUR bike with similar geo and heavy AF without what you deem much issue and that Mike must be a wuss or inferior rider because he finds this bike to basically be a pig when speeds are slower.
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I need to be crystal clear on this - the privateer handles beautifully. I was never criticizing its manners. It is well balanced, sturdy, and the suspension kinematics and bottom bracket height combine beautifully to allow for some total superhero moments in techy riding. For me, weight is weight. I totally understand that really good traction and chassis stability comes at a price, as does a bike built tough enough to take a beating. I had a long conversation recently with a friend who is absolutely in love with BOTH his Privateer models, and has extensive riding experience in the exact places I was riding. His bikes are all heavier than 37 pounds as well, and he is happy to ride them long distances.
Me? Not so much. I feel every ounce of that mass, and when it comes to making those inevitable compromises in how we build our personal bikes, I usually opt to take the lighter route knowing that I will enjoy pedaling it more, will ultimately prefer pushing, carrying and lunging a lighter bike through the tech stuff, and at the end of a long day will feel less hammered. That is entirely subjective. For me, I feel more tired riding a heavier bike longer distances than I do riding a lighter one. If I am trying to ride those distances at all fast, the fatigue factor only increases for me. For me. I have nothing but respect for others who chose to build their bikes on the heavy side to optimize what they like most in their riding.
That said, whenever I was riding real trail, the Privateer was great. And the rougher the trail got, the better the bike worked. When I was riding pavement or dirt roads, it felt like a thousand slow deaths. When I was carrying it or pushing it up some chunky shit that I had blown my attempt at riding, then too.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
So what you're really saying is that you prefer a lighter bike because you don't like riding real trail all that much?
/s
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Zing!
Reply
BarryW
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I do hear you about the weight Mike, but as someone that people would have referred to as 'slender' I've been packing an extra 15lbs I've only just about gotten rid of.
And I honestly couldn't claim to feel that difference in my weight when it comes to riding up hills. Cardio fitness 100%, but not the small amount overweight. It's often fascinating with bikes how so many are bothered by the extra few pounds (kilos!) when so many of us are carrying around a little extra ourselves.
Reply
Please log in to leave a comment.