The Burner is one of the best as I've tried it in Vegas Outdoor Demo. It handles like a champ with it's low CG. 67.5 degree head angle I believe. It didn't have too much travel at 130mm I believe but it used it well. It was plush but it climbed well, even out of saddle with the DW Link rear end.
However, Dave Turner sent me a note that they have decided to redesign the frame after Outerbike (or Turner User demo) in Utah since it was just a bit too low for broad appeal to users and other regions. So, it will be a while. He may get a bike to me or other media by December.
Dave Turner sent me a note that they have decided to redesign the frame after Outerbike (or Turner User demo) in Utah since it was just a bit too low for broad appeal to users and other regions. So, it will be a while. He may get a bike to me or other media by December.
fc
So this is what I see after I post my low BB smack at Turner
Hmmm, really good news IMO and glad to see it. DW Link anti squat can only do so much. I think the Burner was sporting a 13" BB or close to it. Crazy for a 140mm bike
Francois - how will the riders be rating the bikes?
I read the equipment review in the ski mags, and though they can be bogus , the idea is to list a few categories of performance and rate the ski on a 1 -5 scale in each category Then average the results for overall winners.
For bikes, I can think of a few, such as: climbing, descending, cornering, maneuverability in singletrack, ease of airing, general flickability/handling.
You would have to ride the same trails and control for tires and tire widths.
Anybody think this is a good/bad idea?
Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.
I would like to see a point system for the various peramiters but rather than a 5 point scale more like a 50 point scale to seperate the ones that are closer, most 5 or even 10 point ratings can seperate nearly identical bikes too much; lets not get like the German magazines though.
I read the equipment review in the ski mags, and though they can be bogus , the idea is to list a few categories of performance and rate the ski on a 1 -5 scale in each category Then average the results for overall winners.
For bikes, I can think of a few, such as: climbing, descending, cornering, maneuverability in singletrack, ease of airing, general flickability/handling.
You would have to ride the same trails and control for tires and tire widths.
Speaking of the Burner what's the deal with this redesign?
Outerbike (Intebike?) had mention from Turner that it was actually in production
Let me guess...he's gonna lower the BB even more
They finally have the new Geometry on the website.Looks about an inch longer in the wheelbase than the 5 spot. Finally some contemporary geometry from Turner. Maybe ibis and Santa Cruz may follow?
My son normally rides a Blur TRc but he is loving the Norco Sight 650b. It is a very easy bike to ride well.
He is big for 12 yrs old. Size is medium. With this bike he has schooled his teacher.
I don't want to pre-empt the shootout, but I've got some questions about the Sight B.
Would you happen to have the weight of the medium? How tall is your son? What stem length is he running on it? I'm 5'7" and going by just the numbers, I'd think the small would fit me.
Better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
I don't want to pre-empt the shootout, but I've got some questions about the Sight B.
Would you happen to have the weight of the medium? How tall is your son? What stem length is he running on it? I'm 5'7" and going by just the numbers, I'd think the small would fit me.
The Sight is 29.6 lbs bone stock without pedals. It has a chain an MRP chain guide and a Reverb dropping post and Hans Dampf tires.
I changed the tires, saddle, cogset and got it down to 28 lbs.
My son is 5'5" and I'm 5'8". It fits me perfect and it's just a hair big for him.
They finally have the new Geometry on the website.Looks about an inch longer in the wheelbase than the 5 spot. Finally some contemporary geometry from Turner. Maybe ibis and Santa Cruz may follow?
What do you consider to be "contemporary geometry"?
They finally have the new Geometry on the website.Looks about an inch longer in the wheelbase than the 5 spot. Finally some contemporary geometry from Turner. Maybe ibis and Santa Cruz may follow?
Still listed with a 13" BB height
What do you mean by "contemporary geometry"? Longer TT, reach, WB, etc???
Also of note in the build sections are Stans Arch rims which aren't even available to my knowledge and 2.1 Nevegal tires F/B which seems odd for a bike like this and a longish 90mm stem.
The Sight is 29.6 lbs bone stock without pedals. It has a chain an MRP chain guide and a Reverb dropping post and Hans Dampf tires.
I changed the tires, saddle, cogset and got it down to 28 lbs.
My son is 5'5" and I'm 5'8". It fits me perfect and it's just a hair big for him.
There's something odd about the Norco Sight sizing. I rode a 2012 Sight out at Wilder Ranch for a couple of hours and felt like the large was a good fit for me at 5'10" while the medium felt a bit cramped. The ETT on the large was listed at 24.1", the medium was a bit over 23" and I usually like top tubes around 23-23.5". I also (very briefly) tested a medium Intense Carbine SL and medium Specialized SJ Evo Expert, both of which felt like perfect fits at 23.0" ETT and a large Ibis Mojo HD which felt slightly too large at 23.8".
What do you mean by "contemporary geometry"? Longer TT, reach, WB, etc???
Also of note in the build sections are Stans Arch rims which aren't even available to my knowledge and 2.1 Nevegal tires F/B which seems odd for a bike like this and a longish 90mm stem.
DT said that the 13" BB height would be with short tires and that the full builds would ship with an 80mm stem.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by FireLikeIYA
