Forum menu
Are the bends in the tubes not for practical reasons? Downtube has to allow clearance for the wheel then the top tube follows suit to maintain space for a bottle inside the triangle? I certainly appreciate being able to fit a bottle cage and one of those tool/tube things.
A reasonable question… but they don’t seem to have gained much over the gen1 which was already good for bottle space. Yes it looks like everyone now has room for a wee enduro bag though.
The bendy tubes would probably have gotten an easier ride if they hadn’t also increased the weight, price and progression curve so much
As a reminder:
I listened to the Blister podcast with the designer and the bike sounded awesome, he was really across all the detail.
Didn't expect it to get such a hostile reception, and I don't think the pinkbike review with the XL frame looking so awkward has helped. The medium ones look much more acceptable IMO.
Still too heavy for my requirements though.
Perhaps I’m looking at them more favourably because I have an E161 and think it is very well designed if a little rough and ready in some areas. Mind you, I got the E161 on that double discount deal which made it a similar price to the new 161
I think they look great, purposeful and great stance. Would happily buy one!
It seems that they’ve designed something that can be the ultimate privateer enduro race bike and also a bike park / uplift machine. So much geometry adjustment, a frame built to last rather than built down to a weight, progression to suit really gnarly riders on coils or big volume air shocks. Strong enough to take 200mm dual crown forks. Top tube bent to fit a bigger bottle.
Frame weight is a weird thing because once you’re on a bike it’s very hard to detect. If anything, heavier frames (assuming all else is equal) feel better on rougher trails, which is part of the reason for enduro racers strapping all their tools/water to the frames nowadays. Heavy wheels and tyres do feel different (most prefer lighter) and draggy tyres feel bad when pedalling to everyone (but we accept a certain compromise for grip/damping downhill).
I’m not fast enough or have gnarly enough local trails for the 161 but I hope those who suit it buy it because I bet it’s great, despite the looks!
It might not be the prettiest bike but I don't think it's the ugliest either. I'd happily prioritise function over looks. It looks like you could fit a big bottle, small frame bag and strap a tube in the front triangle which I doubt would be the case without the kinks in the top and down tubes.
I listened to the Blister podcast with the designer and the bike sounded awesome, he was really across all the detail.
Haven't listened to the podcast but the original wasn't designed in house - Redburn Design did it. Sounds like they did it in house this time hence the different design direction.
I'm normally on the side of function over form but the aesthetics are a step backwards.
I loved the Gen 1 161, it looked good, rode well and was easy to service. It also wasn’t 40lb! The new one is ugly, hopefully rides well and weighs the same as a mid weight ebike.
40lb, and then you need to add the weight of water bottle, tools, tubes and other random stuff.
Anyone seen a frame weight? Be interested to know as I've had XL bikes with very similar travel, geo and parts...but 7-8lbs lighter. Maybe there's a lb difference in tyres and shock. 40lbs is crackers. Can see why riders are choosing e-bikes if this is the way things are going.
Interesting Privateer is getting so much negativity for the top tube. I agree, but don't remember seeing others like Canyon or Niner taking such a beating in comments.
4.6kg
If it's 4.6kg without the shock, that would explain the bike being over 40lbs.
Got to begrudgingly admire them for going all in on the "weight doesn't matter" thing.
Is it basically a modern freeride bike, in terms of it's ideal use case?
The 161 is sure built sturdy, if I were looking it would definitely be at the 141 but I’ve no idea how much different that is. I’ve always thought Privateer come up with some very solid build kits too, with my only reservation being the wheels.
What the dickens is “forward thinking geometry” ?
Something Mondraker came up with several years ago…
Friend has a Mk1 161 in raw, bit weighty but rides well. This MK2 misses the mark completely.
One manipulation of the top tube later: https://www.pinkbike.com/photo/26239039
Sadly doesn’t help the other issues
I looked at this press release on my mobile and wondered why they'd shot dark coloured bikes against a dark background with low lighting. Now I've had a chance to look at them on the desktop, I can see why.
As someone has posted above, even if it was heavy, the mk1s were great looking bikes - like longer, slacker Turner Burners which is a good thing!
I'm kind of repeating myself, but I can't get my head around them presumably being aware of the previous bike's reputation for being really good but a bit chonky - and then having a meeting and agreeing "let's make the next one even heavier but not so good looking".
Think we’d all appreciate a higher stack height but there’s got to be a better way than bending the top and down tube to achieve it.
RAAW manage it with straight tubes and achieving higher stacks heights.
@andybrad Hi sorry for the late reply on this. Our single-sided hardware uses just a single bolt head to tighten or remove each pivot bolt. So, rather than needing a second tool to hold a bolt still and prevent it from spinning, you can access and maintain bolts from just one side with a single tool. Hope that clears this up.
@sv It's Great to hear your thoughts on Gen 2; we're stoked about it, too!