Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,096

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: madsedan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,429
    Man, thats a beautiful bike, if I didn't have kids I'd be ordering one of those lol.
    Hardrock 29er, Niner EMD9, Cannondale F29, Camber Expert, 650b Nickel all gone.
    2014 Giant Anthem 27.5 here.

  3. #3
    Killer of Chains
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,798
    I don't like how BikeRadar listed the frame only price. Compared to the Range, it makes the Burner seems incredibly cheap. The Range Killer-B starts COMPLETE at the price of the Burner FRAME ONLY.

    Also, BikeRadar doesn't seem to give a real good reason why they rate both the Range and the Burner only 4 stars, and the 26" Enduro Evo Carbon as 5.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    98
    I'm just glad the "speed sustain" is better.

  5. #5
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,938
    Playing Devil's advocate...

    There are 130-140mm rear travel 29ers out there right now with the Burner's CS length. With a frame weight of 7.1 pounds, and the Burner's angles, looks to me like its trying to be a more AM machine, but if so, why not 150 or 160 out back? While I'm sure the it is a fine frame, as Turners are, the numbers on paper are not adding up. Point is, with the Burner's number I'm not sure I'd be swayed away from a longer travel 29er, nor from a 26" bike with 160 out back.

  6. #6
    Rohloff
    Reputation: bsdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by madsedan View Post
    Man, thats a beautiful bike, if I didn't have kids I'd be ordering one of those lol.
    There's some wisdom hidden in this post.

  7. #7
    Committed
    Reputation: 1soulrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Playing Devil's advocate...

    There are 130-140mm rear travel 29ers out there right now with the Burner's CS length. With a frame weight of 7.1 pounds, and the Burner's angles, looks to me like its trying to be a more AM machine, but if so, why not 150 or 160 out back? While I'm sure the it is a fine frame, as Turners are, the numbers on paper are not adding up. Point is, with the Burner's number I'm not sure I'd be swayed away from a longer travel 29er, nor from a 26" bike with 160 out back.
    Quality of suspension is more important than quanity in this case.
    I have spent the last couple seasons on a Turner 5Spot with 140mm rear travel, coming off years of 160mm +/_ bikes. I found the superb quality of travel mated to an extremely stiff frame made for a more capable and confidence inspiring ride than the travel numbers would indicate. The frames I owned before the Spot included the SC Nomad, Intense 6.6, and latest version of the Turner RFX. I've never missed the extra 20mm of travel.
    The Burner is a 27.5 Spot, so expect it to be quite AM capable with the right build.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Playing Devil's advocate...

    There are 130-140mm rear travel 29ers out there right now with the Burner's CS length. With a frame weight of 7.1 pounds, and the Burner's angles, looks to me like its trying to be a more AM machine, but if so, why not 150 or 160 out back? While I'm sure the it is a fine frame, as Turners are, the numbers on paper are not adding up. Point is, with the Burner's number I'm not sure I'd be swayed away from a longer travel 29er, nor from a 26" bike with 160 out back.
    Flex is probably your answer. I'm pretty sure, even with carbon farme and 34mm forks the Burner will be much tighter . Another problem with AM 29ers is tire weight is really getting up there and rear tire clearance for any decent rubber can be marginal on some designs.

    Saying that I like the idea of a TBLTc shod in light wheels and tires as a trail bike.

  9. #9
    Rohloff
    Reputation: bsdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Playing Devil's advocate...

    There are 130-140mm rear travel 29ers out there right now with the Burner's CS length. With a frame weight of 7.1 pounds, and the Burner's angles, looks to me like its trying to be a more AM machine, but if so, why not 150 or 160 out back? While I'm sure the it is a fine frame, as Turners are, the numbers on paper are not adding up. Point is, with the Burner's number I'm not sure I'd be swayed away from a longer travel 29er, nor from a 26" bike with 160 out back.
    agreed

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •