Results 1 to 44 of 44
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58

    Any X-country riders riding the Burner?

    Hello everyone,
    I'm having the internal debate about which new 650b Turner to build up. I don't fully understand the X-country vs. All-mountain distinction, but my style of riding has always been singletrack, always earning my downhills, and I love when the trail is technical. I've been leaning on the Burner, because I have read in a few places that though these bikes have a 150mm fork, they climb very well. And I also admit, I'm not loving the bent frame of the Flux. But I could probably get over that. I currently ride a 2008 Flux with a 120mm fork with 2.25 tires. I have really loved this bike. I'm not a racer or a weight weenie, I really just want a good all-round XC mountain bike. This is why I have talked myself down from the sultan and into a 650b wheeled bike. So, like I said the Burner has really piqued my interest, but it may be too beastly for a guy that doesn't huck off things and doesn't load his bike in the back of a pick-up to carry the bike uphill for a downhill ride. Is the burner a little too much travel, weight, etc, and would I be better off with the new Flux? I would like to know what folks think that are XC riders and have decided to take the plunge on the burner. Any Flux 27.5 riders out there, please feel free to chime in too.
    Big Thanks for your input!
    Mike

  2. #2
    It's carbon dontcha know.
    Reputation: 6thElement's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,887
    Have you ever felt underbiked sufficiently on your old Flux that you felt the need for a burly build on a Spot?

    It sounds like the Flux would meet your needs better than the slight weight and extra travel upgrade of the Burner.
    Rolling on 29", 650b, 8.3" and 23mm

  3. #3
    Nothing can stop me now
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,026
    Based on your post. Try the Flux and Czar and pick the one that you like the best. Either would be a good replacement for your old Flux.

    Burner is closer to the Sultan or 5 Spot in "bigness".

    Bob

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,965
    650b Flux with a 130 or 140mm fork!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Thanks 6thElement,
    Most of the time I don't feel underbiked with my flux on the trails I ride. On some of the more epic trails, such as in Moab or Fruita I have done fine on it, but I know I would prefer a Spot on those rides. Those bigger rocky rides are only a few times a year though, but that bigger travel would be fun!

    Any others that have made the jump to a Turner 650b, Burner or Flux, care to make comment? I mean Turner only has 2.1 width tires spec'd on the Burner. I'm surprised they didn't spec 2.35 sized tires. In fact the same wheels and tires on both bikes.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    I'm all about over-forking a XC bike; I always do that to my rigs. I have thought about a 140mm on there. In fact I have a Fox Float 34 150mm fork on the way, because I was convinced that I was going towards the Burner. I got it for a great price, so I jumped on it pretty quick.

    One thing I don't get, and maybe someone can help me out, is that the fork is a take-off from a Santa Cruz, and it is the same fork Turner specs for the XT burner - 150mm travel, 34mm stanchions. But when you go to the Fox website they only sell a 160mm Float 650b fork. Do these forks have a range of 140 - 160mm, and Turner and Santa Cruz are setting them up at 150mm? If so, can they be set-up at 140mm? If so, I could go with a Flux, without having to change forks. Over forking by 20mm I would think would be fine, but I don't know about putting 150mm travel on a bike designed for 120mm.
    Thanks for your comments!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,426
    Flux geo specs probably assume a 32 mm fork chassis. When you go to a 34 mm chassis with Fox, you gain 12 mm of AC without changing travel, so keep that in mind.

    With the info you provided, it sounds like the Flux might be the call. IMO, for smooth to moderate xc choose the Flux (or Czar, even better IMO). For more rugged and chunky stuff, choose the Burner.

    Of course, you can blur those lines by building a burly-ish, over-forked Flux, or a weight weeny Burner, but since you have the choice, I would just build to the frameset that best suits you to begin with, rather than fighting the flow.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freebiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    736
    go for the burner, make sure your fork has the desired/correct offset.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Damn, things are getting more complicated these days, since I built my bike in '08! How do I go about checking the offset with this new fork? BTW, why do you say go for the burner?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Thanks Kosmo,
    Flux maybe, but not the Czar. Great that Dave is making a carbon bike for those who really want that, but I'm an aluminum frame full suspension guy and probably will be for some time.

    Thanks for the tech lesson there. There is a little more science here than I obviously realized. So I'll ask at the risk of sounding dumb, what is AC? I get offset and trail, but I don't know what the "AC" dimension is.

    You are right, better to pick the right rig from the start, then trying to make it something it is not. Now back to trying to decide which is the right rig....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    85
    AC = Axle to Crown, thus the length of the fork.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    82
    Hi guys, i' m in the same situation, except my flux is a 09 DW, with a 120 mm fork. I think the 105 mm rear travel of the old flux are so capable that the 120 mm of the new 650B flux (with a 140 mm fork) should be enough for me.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Wazzou View Post
    Thanks Kosmo,
    Flux maybe, but not the Czar. Great that Dave is making a carbon bike for those who really want that, but I'm an aluminum frame full suspension guy and probably will be for some time.

    Thanks for the tech lesson there. There is a little more science here than I obviously realized. So I'll ask at the risk of sounding dumb, what is AC? I get offset and trail, but I don't know what the "AC" dimension is.

    You are right, better to pick the right rig from the start, then trying to make it something it is not. Now back to trying to decide which is the right rig....
    As noted below AC = Axle to Crown height. To simplify last night's beer-induced complex response, if you switch from a 120 mm Fox 32 to a 120 mm Fox 34, you would gain about 12 mm of AC. I learned this when I replaced my old 32/120 with a 34/140 on the Sultan, and it choppered it out a bit too much for my tastes.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Oh, AC = fork length. I get it. 12mm is pretty big change right there. Given that, I would want to go with a Fox 32 with the Flux. Thanks Kosmo.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Wazzou View Post
    Oh, AC = fork length. I get it. 12mm is pretty big change right there. Given that, I would want to go with a Fox 32 with the Flux. Thanks Kosmo.
    The new Fox 120/32s are pretty stiff, as they are now built on a bit burlier chassis than the 100. I recently switched from a 100 to a 120 on my Czar, and it is a noticeably stiffer fork. Not hugely so, but noticeable. If I were building a Flux, that is what I'd start with.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Plus you have the benefit of the larger wheels to smooth things out some too! Looks like Fox makes a 32mm x 140mm travel, so that would be a nice build. As long as we can now get most of the travel out of our Fox forks, which supposedly we can.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fresh tracks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    203
    Just the thread that I was looking for! I'm in a similar situation, have a 09 flux and need more bike but struggling to decide on how much more. I'm in a bind which way to go - new flux or burner. I go through the spectrum of conditions every ride - 30% smooth trail single track (hardtail territory), 40% mixed single track (flux territory), 30% rock gardens, drop offs (spot territory). With the flux I've "stretched" it into handling the rougher stuff with dropper post, works angleset, spec butcher control front tyre, wide bars, short stem without slowing it down too much on the smoother trails. I haven't overforked the bike, staying with 120mm in the front. It's a lot of fun to ride on all trails and the buzz of the ride definitely is the rougher stuff. There's a slight masochistic fun side to getting down rough trails within a heartbeat of guys riding bikes with 40mm more travel, having to choose the perfect line and working the trail for all its worth. The reason I'm looking at more bike is when things don't go perfectly - there is no safety net riding the flux really fast on rough - stuff up the line and there's not the stiffness nor the extra travel to save me. So..new bike - I need extra capability in the rough - I'd definitely go minimum 140mm fork, which it sounds like either the new flux or burner could take. I'm lightish - 160lbs RTR and I'm not into big gap jumps - I've come up short or long once too many a time. I was at first keen on the burner - performance to spare on the rougher trails but not sure I'd feel like I'd be dragging a boat anchor around on the smooth stuff? The new flux is supposed to more capable, just how much more? Interested to hear what owners of both these bikes think.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trial-sin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    157
    I made the switch from a Soulcraft Plowboy 26" singlespeed to a Burner this past February, and have not regretted a moment of it. It's definitely a big bike for our central NC trails, but still a blast to ride...and it gets even better when I'm able to head to the mountains. I've ridden a number of longer climbs in the Pisgah area, as well as Boone and some hilly trails up in southern VA, and haven't noticed any debilitating bobbing, even with the rear Fox CTD in 'descend' mode...I actually haven't touched that lever since I first put it there. As for the descents...well, that's where I absolutely love this bike.
    When Turner first released the Flux, I almost found myself second guessing my choice, but then I spent a long weekend in the Mills River / Bent Creek area of Pisgah, and all doubt was erased.
    "lift your skinny fists like antennas to heaven"

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,809
    I'm riding a Burner in a cross country fashion and it's pretty great. I use the T-setting on the shock 99% of the time. I tried D but it was too active and sagged more than I wanted. I think if I played around with the air pressure and rebound I could make it feel better but T works just fine so I haven't bothered. My Burner with 9 speed XT/X-9 and a WB Loop fork weighs just about 30 pounds, maybe a smidgeon less. I wanted a stable, comfortable and competent but not sluggish bike that I could ride over sketchy trail sections with the confidence my Fat Bike supplies and the Burner largely delivers. If I had it to do over again, not knowing at the time I purchased my Burner that the Flux was coming, I think I might've gone with the Flux, tho. It would've been a tough call. Really, the functional difference is only, 20mm of travel and a degree in headtube angle. I think the Flux might weigh a bit less with the same parts. I only think about it when I'm not actually on the Burner, though-when I'm riding it, it's perfect! Did a 40 mile trail/dirt road combo on it and it felt just fine, efficient and comfortable...and if I ever travel to places with more challenging terrain, I think I'll be real glad for the Burner.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3
    I have a 2013 Large Turner Burner Black 650 B wheel bike I am about to post for sale if anyone here is interested. It is the 2 x 10 XT build with ENVE wheels and a Rock Shox Reverb dropper seat post. It is in new condition, barely broken in. It has no scratches or dings what-so-ever. I have too many bikes and I am not riding this bike enough to warrant keeping it. Let me know if you are interested.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bullit_cn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by melmtb View Post
    I have a 2013 Large Turner Burner Black 650 B wheel bike I am about to post for sale if anyone here is interested. It is the 2 x 10 XT build with ENVE wheels and a Rock Shox Reverb dropper seat post. It is in new condition, barely broken in. It has no scratches or dings what-so-ever. I have too many bikes and I am not riding this bike enough to warrant keeping it. Let me know if you are interested.
    what makes you not riding it aside from many bikes? whats your favorite by the way?
    Interested to know if you don't mind sharing,
    TIA,
    When trails gets tougher, Just stand up and deliver.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Hey Steve,
    Thanks for posting your XC riding experience on your Burner. Sounds like it is treating you well. I'm getting about a 50/50 response between "votes" for the Flux/Burner. I have the 2008 flux now....I'm leaning on the Burner, for more of a "5-spot" style of ride. Actually, I've never put this much thought into a new bike. With my Flux, I just bought it over the 5-spot, because it just seemed more like my style of riding. But now that I making the leap from 26" to 650b, I'm putting a little more thought into it. I'm not at the point of analysis paralysis though. Not yet...

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fresh tracks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    203
    has anyone ridden both the IBIS HDR 650b and Burner? Like to know what's the same and different between these two.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bullit_cn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,880
    @Wazzou,
    As long as the slacker head angle of the Burner over the Flux is fine with you, then the Burner is your best bet in my opinion.
    Turner bikes are very capable once you over-fork and over-tire(2.35 & up) it. it instantly changes the attitude of the bike.
    I have done it on my Spots, over-fork to 160, over-tire it to 2.35 and even 2.5 and it's totally a different animal from the original intention of DT. It becomes an even more fun bike to ride.
    Now my Spot is setup with 140 front (Xfusion Velvet) and a lighter 2.25 Ardent. The bikes weighs down to 28lbs from the previous weight of almost 32#.
    The Spot still rides great but more of a light trailbike feel. It can climb faster and blast down just as well.
    So if you choose the Burner with the 150 front and 2.1(or even lighter 2.25) tire as stated on Turner starter kit, Then I would say it will serve you well.
    Goodluck!
    Just my 0.2 cents ;-)
    When trails gets tougher, Just stand up and deliver.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Wazzou View Post
    Hey Steve,
    Thanks for posting your XC riding experience on your Burner. Sounds like it is treating you well. I'm getting about a 50/50 response between "votes" for the Flux/Burner. I have the 2008 flux now....I'm leaning on the Burner, for more of a "5-spot" style of ride. Actually, I've never put this much thought into a new bike. With my Flux, I just bought it over the 5-spot, because it just seemed more like my style of riding. But now that I making the leap from 26" to 650b, I'm putting a little more thought into it. I'm not at the point of analysis paralysis though. Not yet...
    I don't think you could go wrong with either frame. You're lucky to have the option, I think--the Burner was it when I bought mine so I didn't have to choose. (or maybe I was the lucky one because the choice was clear?)

    I have to throw some love at the LOOP-fantastic fork. Really works great and complements the Burner very well. A good value too-you can get them online for around $600. (or from your shop if they'll pricematch online stuff--mine did)

    Good luck!

  26. #26
    Nothing can stop me now
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,026
    Not sure you can go wrong with your choices. Pick the one that comes in the color you like? Buy and ride?

    Probably as good advice as any...

    Bob

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edbraunbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    399
    I've done a 6 Hour Relay Race and a XC Race on the Burner. Putting the shock in Climb mode and the fork in the firmest settings help. It feels fine until you hop on a XC rig.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3
    I purchased the Turner to ride a couple of specific areas that I have to drive to to get to them. They have bigger, more diverse terrain than where I normally ride. I usually ride from home to get to my normal riding area and I ride a Santa Cruz Tallboy for that area. It is a more cross country oriented area, and riding streets to get to it makes the 29er a better fit usually.

    They are both great bikes. Different, but very capable, and frankly, either one works at either place. I just have a favorite for my local ride. I don't have a favorite overall. I have bikes in all three wheel sizes and they all work well, they are just different in how they ride and what their strengths are. I also like having a choice of what to ride given how I feel about it all that day. I just have too many bikes at this point in time.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    18
    I've been riding a Sultan for the past two summers and recently picked up a Burner. While on the Sultan I've always had a little bit of a void for a 5 Spot I sold. I'm at 220lbs ready to ride and my rides consist of XC type rides or northern Utah trials. Always going up or coming down with a little traversing in between. No mater the trail I always come across chunk to either hit by choice or no choice and every time I am glad I have the longer travel.
    I say if your not racing for time, go with the longer travel bike and just have fun. Pick a line through rather than dancing around as I watch all my buddies do. I don't miss my 5 Spot any more and I just might put the Sultan up for sale. Burner build with pedals is dead on 27lbs, no dropper and 2.25 schwalbes.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Well the color I want is black, and they both come in that color!

    Your right, I really can't go wrong with either; they are related after all....

    I should just make it easy and stick with my original instinct...the Burner. I mean I already bought the Fox 34mm x 150mm, which works for the Burner and not the Flux. It would be easier to not have to sell that and find an equally good deal on a 32mm fork.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Thanks Steve. 27lbs is a nice XC weight. My '08 Flux weighs about only a 1/4lb less. I am definitely glad to hear that the Burner is replacing your 29er, because for the last 3 years I have been pining for a Sultan. I am only recently changing my mind towards the 650b size, because in the end the 650b just seems to be a better "one mtb" solution.

    Ok, so I thought of a possible compromise. I usually over-fork my bikes by 20mm, but what about under-forking this bike by 10mm to lower the front end a little and steepen the head angle slightly? Is that a big deal to do with the fork I have - Fox Float 34mm x 150mm? Isn't this actually a 160mm fork that is set-up at 150mm for the burner and has a potential range of 140mm - 160mm? I wouldn't do it right away; I would try it at 150mm at first, but it would be nice to know that flexibility is there.

    Anyone here in this thread know if that is a simple change to the fork?

  32. #32
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    557
    Yeah, go with the Burner I reckon. The 1.2lb or so weight difference won't mean much if you're not racing it, especially if you keep a light wheelset as you would on the Flux. And you've got the option of beefing it up to 160mm fork down the line if you want. The Flux would limit you more in that regard.

    I've been thinking about the same flux/burner issue - the Burner would leave me overbiked for 95% of the time, but then I thought eh, what the hell those other 5% would be sweeter on the burner.....
    'I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good' - Syd B

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bullit_cn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,880
    I can guess that under-forking the Burner will result to steeper HA and lower BBH too which ends up almost like the Flux,
    Worth a try...
    When trails gets tougher, Just stand up and deliver.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by steveck View Post
    I've been riding a Sultan for the past two summers and recently picked up a Burner. While on the Sultan I've always had a little bit of a void for a 5 Spot I sold. I'm at 220lbs ready to ride and my rides consist of XC type rides or northern Utah trials. Always going up or coming down with a little traversing in between. No mater the trail I always come across chunk to either hit by choice or no choice and every time I am glad I have the longer travel.
    I say if your not racing for time, go with the longer travel bike and just have fun. Pick a line through rather than dancing around as I watch all my buddies do. I don't miss my 5 Spot any more and I just might put the Sultan up for sale. Burner build with pedals is dead on 27lbs, no dropper and 2.25 schwalbes.
    Could you offer some build highlights? I wouldn't mind shedding a little weight on my Burner, and I can't imagine that your schwalbes are 3 pounds lighter than my Pacentis!

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    18

    Burner Build Highlights

    XTR Trail, (but with a race crank, this will be swapped to a 2x trail)
    ENVE All Mountain Rims with 240 Hubs 24 spoke
    King Head Set
    EC 90 Carbon Post
    Thomson X4 80mm 90deg
    Haven Carbon Bars
    Rear Tire is a Racing Ralph
    Front Tire is a Nobby Nic
    Fox 34 set to 150mm
    Eggbeater 3// Pedals
    Selle Italia Prolink Saddle

    I would think a person could go lighter with XX1, a different saddle, carbon stem, Enve xc wheels, and lighter pedals and even a Fox 32 Float 140 but for me this is a burly build at a great weight.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Any X-country riders riding the Burner?-burner.jpg  


  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,809
    Thanks--nice stuff on there indeed...

  37. #37
    jrm
    jrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,610
    I have my burner set on the light side weighing in around 28lbs with lighter wheelset & tires, a non drop post, 90mm stem and light, but not WW parts. Its kind of a xc set up i guess. Although 142 x 12 rear axles, a 34 150mm travel fork and 140mm of rear travel dont come to mind when one "thinks" of a burner it's still a very capable climber due to its 73 degree SA and doesn't feel sluggish on singletrack and switchbacks due to its 67 HA and long and low profile. When i was considering the two someone suggested that I should consider building up a lighter burner then over building a flux b/c a light burner would be more versatile and more importantly FUN.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    521
    Stevick- I think your build is spot on. Why limit a very capable bike w/XX1 which is VERY limiting IMHO for most riders in real mountain conditions, and Enve XC is just wrong with an internal width of 18mm. That's a road rim! I love my double's versatility and my Enve AM's.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    43
    @ melmtb....check your PM's dude...Very interested in your Burner...

    Thanks for this thread guys...I love my Highline but at 40+ lbs, I am finding it WAY too heavy for XC type riding, but boy is it fun going down...

    A question about over forking....Would it be reasonable to put a 166 with an angleset / short stem on the Burner or would that be too much...I have a spare sitting around is why I ask

    cheers,
    CH

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    58
    Just to update everyone:
    I rented a large Burner from OTE Sports in Fruita this weekend. I had a blast on this bike. It really worked for me in nearly every way. But I had a "duh" moment while on the bike, when I was thinking about the Burner vs. Flux. The Flux is 120mm travel, while the burner is 140mm. Now I may not have this perfectly correct, but for the first 100mm of travel or so on either bike the ride, the hit/bump absorption should feel about the same. The Burner's extra travel really may only come in handy for any bit drops/hits/hucks that push the travel into that 120mm and beyond. The ride of the two should feel very close on all of the "non-extreme stuff." And although the shop had the shock and fork set too high for me to really get through as much travel as I would have liked (I'm a lite weight), I came to the conclusion that with my riding style I just typically don't need the extra travel. And for those who ride Fruita, I rode Mary's, Steve's and Moore Fun, so I do think I put the bike through some decent terrain...especially Moore Fun.

    BUT, all that being said, I am probably choosing the Burner. I don't have the opportunity to test the Flux, but I rode the Burner for a day and what can I say, I like it! So I guess, go with what you know, eh? First, the wheel size is such a nice happy medium. With the travel and those wheels, my favorite difference over my 26er Flux was the ease it went through a rock garden that doesn't have a good line to pick. Tight corners/switchbacks and slow rolling technical riding was great too; I can't say that it felt any less agile than my 26er. Also, the 67 deg head tube angle seemed to be only a positive for me. And the bike climbs well. I climbed pretty well on the tech uphill (west to east) of Moore Fun. Even with that tall front end, the front wheel sticks to the trail, no real bobbing and lifting. The head tube angle probably did make it a little less responsive on the slow tech climbing (picking lines through the rocks and stuff), but the bigger wheels seem to make up for it by rolling over stuff a little bit better. The only thing I will say is that the bike was about 3 lbs heavier than I am used to. When I first got the bike from the shop and picked it up, I was like, "oh boy, this is a beast." And I did feel the weight and the slow rolling (but good gripping) Kenda Nevegals on some of the grunts on Mary's loop - the bike just rolled slower than that ol' 26er, but it is a heavier frame, fork, wheels, etc. So that is the one and only thing that keeps the Flux still in consideration for me. I can save something like 2.5 lbs with the lighter frame and fork. But I would say I'm at 75% Burner and 25% flux. I guess I will just keep gathering parts for now, since the build of either bike is about the same. I'll figure it out here soon....The biggest thing....is that 650b wheel size!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    43
    Thanks for the update Wazz...

    I'd been looking for a 26 Flux for my wife, but after reading your update I think we'll start looking at 650b's / 275's.

    Ch

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,574
    There are a couple of soft rules that keep popping up over the years. It is better to down build a bike than to over build it. Dunno why, but when over forking and upsized tires etc for a designs original intent, the end result is usually a un-balanced bike, especially as the speeds increase. Not just travel un-balance, but with the weight shifted back due to over forking, it is harder to weight the front tire, it has a slacker seat angle and there fore harder to stay on top of a gear climbing. If one is a 'conservative' rider this makes almost no difference, but an aggressive rider will usually be less happy. Like JRM, my wife and I have 'light' Burner set ups, WAY more fun and WAY more rough terrain capable than say a Flux with a 140 on it and some 2.35 Hans D off the Burner. When I say light I mean 32mm x 150 forks, carbon bars, XC brakes and drive train but AM rims as Rideon pointed out, the XC are very narrow. I even try to put the heavy sidewall 'enduro' tires only on the rear of her bike to lighten the front. She has never torn a front tire, but multiple rears.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes View Post
    There are a couple of soft rules that keep popping up over the years. It is better to down build a bike than to over build it. Dunno why, but when over forking and upsized tires etc for a designs original intent, the end result is usually a un-balanced bike, especially as the speeds increase. Not just travel un-balance, but with the weight shifted back due to over forking, it is harder to weight the front tire, it has a slacker seat angle and there fore harder to stay on top of a gear climbing. If one is a 'conservative' rider this makes almost no difference, but an aggressive rider will usually be less happy. Like JRM, my wife and I have 'light' Burner set ups, WAY more fun and WAY more rough terrain capable than say a Flux with a 140 on it and some 2.35 Hans D off the Burner. When I say light I mean 32mm x 150 forks, carbon bars, XC brakes and drive train but AM rims as Rideon pointed out, the XC are very narrow. I even try to put the heavy sidewall 'enduro' tires only on the rear of her bike to lighten the front. She has never torn a front tire, but multiple rears.
    What he needs is a carbon Burner!

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bullit_cn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes View Post
    There are a couple of soft rules that keep popping up over the years. It is better to down build a bike than to over build it. Dunno why, but when over forking and upsized tires etc for a designs original intent, the end result is usually a un-balanced bike, especially as the speeds increase. Not just travel un-balance, but with the weight shifted back due to over forking, it is harder to weight the front tire, it has a slacker seat angle and there fore harder to stay on top of a gear climbing. If one is a 'conservative' rider this makes almost no difference, but an aggressive rider will usually be less happy. Like JRM, my wife and I have 'light' Burner set ups, WAY more fun and WAY more rough terrain capable than say a Flux with a 140 on it and some 2.35 Hans D off the Burner. When I say light I mean 32mm x 150 forks, carbon bars, XC brakes and drive train but AM rims as Rideon pointed out, the XC are very narrow. I even try to put the heavy sidewall 'enduro' tires only on the rear of her bike to lighten the front. She has never torn a front tire, but multiple rears.
    Spot on, Exactly what I did on my spot with 32x140/150 fork and 2.2 lighter tires and it was more fun as all around trail trail bike.
    When trails gets tougher, Just stand up and deliver.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-22-2013, 08:26 PM
  2. Roanoke Area Riders: Come help reclaim an epic back-country trail system!
    By kapusta in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-25-2012, 10:00 AM
  3. I hate riding my Turner Burner :(
    By GNfanatic in forum Turner
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-28-2011, 12:30 PM
  4. Looking for Aggressive Cross-Country Riders for Video
    By splice35mm in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-05-2011, 11:16 PM
  5. Looking for aggressive cross-country riders for video shoot.
    By splice35mm in forum California - Socal
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2011, 06:32 PM

Posting Permissions

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