Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    182

    120mm on Turner Czar?

    Any Czars out there with this? Reccomended?
    Thanx,
    Max

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,425
    I've run both 100 and 120, and I'm pretty darn sure I'll stick with the 120. The extra cush expands the range of the bike. The rear suspension easily "keeps up" with the extra travel. It doesn't lift the front end too much for steep climbing, though, of course, the extra almost-inch is noticeable on super-steep stuff. It lifts the BB just a tad, making it easier to pedal through chunkier stuff. It's a little heavier, but it's also got a little stouter chassis, and I'm not a tiny guy (~195).

    I live with pretty bumpy trails right out my door, and use the bike for endurance racing and long trail rides. No pure xc racing. If I lived somewhere like Bend, Oregon and was an xc guy, I'd probably stick with the 100.

    Finally, if you're not a hard core racer, and will only own one bike, I would unquestionably go with the 120, which makes the Czar an amazing Mama Bear, do everything bike (see LeeL's pix for examples of what this so-called xc bike can do).
    The drive towards achievement and success is the motive power of civilization.

  3. #3
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,562
    It would be cool if the bike had 120mm in the rear but that might be asking too much

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    178
    I'm intending on running a 95/120 Talas on it, as I see it that's racer sharp + hilly plush compromise. Though my present 2013 Talas is way too plush even on the climb setting so I'm going to get the internals set to stiff first. (some cartridge bleed or whatever)

    I spoke to DT about the offset, but it will just turn a bit slower perhaps in the lanky mode - but be a bit more stable downhill.

    We have two frames waiting to be built, hopefully next couple of weeks I will report back and be able to compare to my outgoing Tallboy!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    182
    Thanx for the replys.It all sounds positive.I am intending on all purpose bike with the occasional race involved.I prefer a racy bike and feel 100mm travel is enough.
    Currently riding Anthem X29 and am about to try the fork at 120mm.Been looking at an upgrade and the Czar and new Tallboy are my options.Funny as I have also been looking at the Talas fork as an option.
    Thanx,
    Max

  6. #6
    Dog is my co-pilot
    Reputation: clunkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    73
    (I spoke to DT about the offset, but it will just turn a bit slower perhaps in the lanky mode - but be a bit more stable downhill.)
    Does turner recommend a 51mm offset for the Czar? My lbs says that fox will put a 51mm crown on a 2014 talas 120 and then you can add a 5mm spacer clip to the talas piston and make it a 100/120 ,sounds like the best of both worlds (except for weight)
    [SIZE=3]race bicycles not dogs[/SIZE]

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: velo bum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    284
    I have almost ten months in on the Czar and have tried it with both rockshox offsets at 100mm and both fox offsets at 100mm. I'm currently running a 120 fox with 51 offset and I think kosmo summed it up pretty well! I would say its probably a bit better trail bike for the masses with the 120 but its still a pretty individual thing. If I were going to use the bike a s a pure race rig I would go back to the rockshox 100 with 46 offset, pure magic!

  8. #8
    Niner's are the best!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    57
    It sounds like the same exact story the Jet9 RDO had. Nine labeled it there top of the line race bike (which it is), but throw a 120mm fox on it and it become this awesome trail bike.

    One of my riding buds is going threw this with the new czar. I tell him put a 120mm on the czar as opposed to building a new flux 650b. For an ubber awesome trailbike.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamaDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    159
    I've been running the 120 from the start.. it's a bit of a read, but we talked about it in the build thread.

    Turner Czar Build Thread

    The stability from the 51 offset 120 front end is amazing. The bike is as nimbal as any other bike I've ever ridden. It's an amazing step.

    If I was a racer, for sure 100 is all you need. Buuuuutttt. For trail riders..you might like that extra 20 in the front. The bigger fork might be a little heavier, but not too bad.

  10. #10
    Supersonic Garfield
    Reputation: Trond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    515

    120mm on Turner Czar?

    Quote Originally Posted by clunkin View Post
    Does turner recommend a 51mm offset for the Czar?
    I tried to find info for this as well. Anyone know the answer? Sorry to derail the thread.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,298
    I dont specifically recommend the 51, I have ridden a 46 SID and that is my favorite. The 51 is the lightest quickest feel steering, but on low speed climbs it wanders more than the 46. The fork with the greater trail # ( 46) also feels more stable in the rough like it has a slacker HA and exhibits more of that '29r' stability that is so nice in ripping chunk. The fault with the less off set forks is tighter turns. the greater the offset the easier it is to finish a tight turn 'inside'.

    Everyone at Turner Bikes has ridden them all and the 44 Fox is the one that seems a little too much. BUT, we all rode them in the early months of testing and they were fine until we put on the other offets. ie, you will get accustomed to whatever you installed starting with the first pedal strokes and you wont know the difference until you compare side by side. So if you get a deal on a Fox with 44, the bike will ride fine, just more planted than the other offsets.

    Our complete bikes are spec'd with 51s.

    DT

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    33
    I am really curious to try a 120 out on my Czar. The RockShox web site has absolutely no info on offset on their SID forks, and the company will not take a call from a lowly customer, only dealers.

    How do I figure out which SID has a 46mm offset? Looks like the 2014 SIDs should be in the shops shortly.

    Is the SID XX the recommended 120 fork for the Czar?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    497
    Bumping this. Any info on offset of SID forks? ALL 46mm? And @Turnerbikes: I'm a bit confused but doesn't a 51 offset have great trail than a 46?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    253
    The SID is available in both 46mm and 51mm offset:
    Universal Cycles -- Rock Shox SID RCT3 Solo Air 29er Fork 2013

    Here is a rake/trail calculator:
    Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net

    I used the spec 69.8 degree HTA and 57mm for the tire width. A fork offset of 46mm gives a trail of 88mm and an offset of 51mm gives a trail of 83mm. Offset goes up, trail goes down. Offset goes down, trail goes up.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    497
    Thanks Savechief - great info.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    178

    Re: 120mm on Turner Czar?

    I've had a good day in the hills with my 95/120 talas on the czar I'm really not sure about the 120 setting, I felt it squashing the back end to much. But, and it's a big but I've not been that happy with the 2013 talas. Unless you load it up with air it ramps through its travel even on climb mode too much.

    So, because I've got loads of pressure in it, it's somewhat imbalanced.

    I've spoken to mojo (fox service uk) and they are aware of this and making and upgrade to 2014 internals available.

    The bike was fantastic at climbing on the 95 setting!



    Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    641
    well its not offering a cool 120 mm in the rear, so does that make it too hot for you or who it is intended for? mkay? vs your "cool" cool vs hot, wtf, explain that?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamaDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by freebiker View Post
    well its not offering a cool 120 mm in the rear, so does that make it too hot for you or who it is intended for? mkay? vs your "cool" cool vs hot, wtf, explain that?
    To be honest, I don't really understand your post. That said, I'm gonna take a shot at answering it, although it'll probably be the wrong answer.

    I personally love the 120 on this bike. I did Kernville a couple weeks ago and this was the fastest bike in our group. In fact, there was this one switchback on the plunge, you know the one if you've ridden it, where 3 guys were walking with there DH rigs and full gear, my buddy to the "fast" rail around the outside line.. I was trying to close up on him so I took the jump from rock to rock to rock line.. That solicited a downhilling term that sounded like "Phuc..." uttered by one on the DH crew..on foot. The Czar didn't even flinch to the abuse.

    Of the bikes on this ride, the front runners were all 6 plus inches of travel..except for one, very fast Czar. The 120 fork gave it that little extra, that combined with it's handling and it's stiffness and the classic Turner bottomless feel, in my view make this a perfect trail bike.

    I was very sad to see my 5 Spot go.. but I don't miss it riding the Czar.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,425
    Quote Originally Posted by YamaDan View Post
    To be honest, I don't really understand your post. That said, I'm gonna take a shot at answering it, although it'll probably be the wrong answer.

    I personally love the 120 on this bike. I did Kernville a couple weeks ago and this was the fastest bike in our group. In fact, there was this one switchback on the plunge, you know the one if you've ridden it, where 3 guys were walking with there DH rigs and full gear, my buddy to the "fast" rail around the outside line.. I was trying to close up on him so I took the jump from rock to rock to rock line.. That solicited a downhilling term that sounded like "Phuc..." uttered by one on the DH crew..on foot. The Czar didn't even flinch to the abuse.

    Of the bikes on this ride, the front runners were all 6 plus inches of travel..except for one, very fast Czar. The 120 fork gave it that little extra, that combined with it's handling and it's stiffness and the classic Turner bottomless feel, in my view make this a perfect trail bike.

    I was very sad to see my 5 Spot go.. but I don't miss it riding the Czar.
    While I don't (quite) ride my Czar like you are describing -- for which I can guarantee you DT is grateful -- your writeup DOES have me jonesing for the surely-all-but-inevitable carbon fiber 140 mm Sultan replacement! Fingers crossed, anyway.

    One thing that gets overlooked by most is that the 120 is now on a different platform than the 100. Heavier? A bit. Noticeable stiffer? Inarguable.
    The drive towards achievement and success is the motive power of civilization.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    61
    So Turner Flux reviews say it has a "racey" feel and comes with 120. Czar is obviously a mean XC race bike but, according to reviews, is also capable of trail riding. This creates a gray area that would cause someone in the market for an "XC+" bike (me) to really fret over which one. The last thing I really want to do is spend $7000 for a bike on which I feel I need to replace the shock. The bigger predicament is the nearest turner dealer is 6 hours away but he doesn't stock any (in other words, a demo is in feasible). So the question is, in light of the current 120 vs 100 discussion, Flux or Czar? And, would you consider the Flux a worthy-enough race bike?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamaDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by ugly View Post
    So Turner Flux reviews say it has a "racey" feel and comes with 120. Czar is obviously a mean XC race bike but, according to reviews, is also capable of trail riding. This creates a gray area that would cause someone in the market for an "XC+" bike (me) to really fret over which one. The last thing I really want to do is spend $7000 for a bike on which I feel I need to replace the shock. The bigger predicament is the nearest turner dealer is 6 hours away but he doesn't stock any (in other words, a demo is in feasible). So the question is, in light of the current 120 vs 100 discussion, Flux or Czar? And, would you consider the Flux a worthy-enough race bike?
    Czar is 29er, Flux is 27.5.. The fork is not the issue. For me, the 29er is a faster race bike.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,858
    Quote Originally Posted by ugly View Post
    So the question is, in light of the current 120 vs 100 discussion, Flux or Czar? And, would you consider the Flux a worthy-enough race bike?
    To answer your second question first- yes, absolutely. Haven't ridden the new one, but having owned an '05 and '10 Flux, and raced a '09 Spot with some success, this one should more than hold its own in terms of weight/efficiency with most XC race bikes.

    That said, the geometry of the latest Flux has been noticeably slanted away from the XC end of the spectrum. It's not out of line with what most other 120mm 27.5 bikes are doing, but the net effect of a slacker head angle, longer reach (to accommodate a shorter stem), and longer chain stays give it a significantly longer wheelbase than the Czar. No one is going to accuse the 27.5 Flux of being nervous, that's for sure.

    It also has the same bottom bracket height but more travel, so a slightly lower ride height after sag. This will also add to the stable, "in the bike" feel, but at the expense of having to pay more attention to pedal strokes in rough terrain.

    This is to say nothing of the obvious differences in travel, wheel size, or materials, but I think all are consistent with the Czar placing a slight premium on "fast", and the Flux on "fun". Maybe DT will give his take straight from the horse's mouth, or someone else who has ridden both will chime in, but after spending way too much time comparing the numbers that is my takeaway.
    A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,298
    Miles said it perfectly.

    Happy trails!

    DT

Similar Threads

  1. RR: Turner Carbon Czar
    By YamaDan in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-09-2014, 07:57 PM
  2. Turner Czar??
    By scottryana in forum Turner
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 08-01-2013, 10:31 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 02:24 PM
  4. Turner Czar Build-up
    By drtdiva in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-26-2013, 11:58 AM
  5. Turner Czar
    By RFXR in forum Turner
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-12-2012, 07:15 AM

Posting Permissions

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