Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,763

    Cool-blue Rhythm Couple pics from the garage...

    of the Burner trying to impersonate a 5 spot.


    Was surprised to see the four inch rockers on the Burner had no effect on the BB height or head tube angle compared to stock rockers. How come the RFX geometry changes so much between the five and six inch rockers?

    Running the Talas at 125, HT = 69 degrees and the BB height is 13.25 inches.

    The Romic weighs exactly one pound more than the Float, you're looking at a 29 pound bike.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,758
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    .....you're looking at a 29 pound bike....
    ....is that with or without mud?....


  3. #3
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,135
    Veeeery Nice! Gotta admit on first glance they sure do look similar ... sweet.

    It sounds like the geometry is very close to the 'Spot...your impressions on the ride?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nimai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    93

    New question here. Curious to know

    the ride differences b/n the burner and spot. I am in the market and looking at the burner with swinger or an xce if i can find one. demoe'd a 5 spot yesterday size medium with a z1sl air and and it felt pretty heavy to me. i'm only 150# with gear and thought an xce or burner would suit me better. however, tscheezy's review of the yeti 575 got me thinking about that too. is the warranty sitll kosher with the 125 mm fork? sweet ride though i must say!
    It's all cycle-logical to me.

  5. #5
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,763
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ....is that with or without mud?....
    No such thing as without mud around here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    It sounds like the geometry is very close to the 'Spot...your impressions on the ride?
    Very impressed with the six inch curb drops I did on it.
    Saw Dave's mention of axle path and would be curious what he has to say about it on this bike seeing as the seat stay is about 20 degrees steeper than the stays on my 5" RFX setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nimai
    the ride differences b/n the burner and spot.
    It's probably easier to setup a Burner to ride like a 5 spot than vice versa.
    Frame weight is very close.
    Last edited by airwreck; 04-20-2004 at 11:00 AM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by Nimai
    the ride differences b/n the burner and spot. I am in the market and looking at the burner with swinger or an xce if i can find one. demoe'd a 5 spot yesterday size medium with a z1sl air and and it felt pretty heavy to me. i'm only 150# with gear and thought an xce or burner would suit me better. however, tscheezy's review of the yeti 575 got me thinking about that too. is the warranty sitll kosher with the 125 mm fork? sweet ride though i must say!
    Hey, I had an XCE, also rode it with the Romic rockers, air shock, and the stock coil. I've got a stock Burner now. To be honest I think the Burner is the best of the bunch, but not by much. I rode with XCE with the Romic rockers and didn't really notice much of a difference once I was on the trail. I primarily rode the XCE with an air shock, as I used it for XC riding and liked the climbing characteristics of that shock. The new Burner has a stiffer front triangle, but at 150lbs you probably won't notice much else. I wouldn't sweat the 3.5" vs 4" travel, I found the bike just rode better for me in the 3.5" mode, something was just "off" with the Romic rockers, but that is a highly subjective evaluation.

    Honestly I think for XC riding you'll be very happy with the Burner.

    James

  7. #7
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    When we were in San Francisco and Barny was on her new 18# road bike, we did a bunch of long rides (40, 50, 60, and 80 miles) through very hilly Marin County with me on my 32# Spot. Finally, for the 80-miler, I took the knobbies off and put semi-slicks on. My point is you can ride a Spot on the road if you want, and you can build a Spot to be functionally as light as a Burner without ruining what the bike was meant to do. Most of the weight of concern will be in the wheels, so just have two wheelsets: one road, one offroad. The Z1 SL is probably too much fork for your needs, so get a Spot with a Talas fork and a Swinger air or Float AVA or something to keep the weight near the Burner mark.

    I also own an XCE and find that and the Spot to be quite different. The Spot feels taller, longer, and more "deliberate" in steering even though both bikes are size large and almost identically specced. My Spot has a Romic/Z1 SL setup and my XCE has a Fox Vanilla RC/Vanilla RLC. The Spot handles medium to bigger hits way better, but the XCE is crazy-nice in its compliance in the little to medium stuff (mostly a function of the shocks, less so a function of the travel).

    I'm not trying to talk anyone out of a Burner, but the Arms Race marches on and in a year you will wonder why you didn't go with the long travel bikes.

    And yes, the Yeti was very nice. I would be concerned about it's durability (see the dent post on the Yeti forum) at my weight and riding style (or lack thereof), but you would probably be fine. I would not trust the 5th air though, and have no idea how the bike would ride with a different shock (my disclaimer).

    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,344
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    When we were in San Francisco and Barny was on her new 18# road bike, we did a bunch of long rides (40, 50, 60, and 80 miles) through very hilly Marin County with me on my 32# Spot. Finally, for the 80-miler, I took the knobbies off and put semi-slicks on.

    I'm not trying to talk anyone out of a Burner, but the Arms Race marches on and in a year you will wonder why you didn't go with the long travel bikes.


    tscheezy
    To the two points above:

    1) Quit making us feel bad, I would love to survive an 80 mile ride on my road bike right now, much less pusing a 32 pound FS bike around!!!!

    2) I unfortunately agree with the travel thing. The plush thing is addictive. I bought the burner knowing that I do not need more travel, but now I find myself with a set of X-R rockers and contemplating puting on a Talas fork to increase the travel front and rear. I think the 5-spot provides more options given you can put a 3-way and a Talas on a 5 spot and be less than .5 pound heavier than a Burner. I probably would have bought one if it hadn't been $500 more than the Burner.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nimai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    93

    Smile Kudos to the Turner Riders

    I'm not trying to talk anyone out of a Burner, but the Arms Race marches on and in a year you will wonder why you didn't go with the long travel bikes.--tscheezy


    Thanks so much Tscheezy for your feedback. I have found most Turner riders very objective AND subjective when comparing bikes. Of course it's usually others to their cherished Turners. I don't do a lot of really aggressive riding, rather i am coming from a rigid hardtail and just suffered a bike accident. Once I collect on my claim then i would like to get something for my needs and not my greed. The 5-spot seems like too much bike for me being around 150#. Plus, I don't want to blow all the money on a bike if i can be a little more conservative and get a really sweet ride like the burner at such a sweet price!

    I am not a through and through trail rider, but like to get out most weekends along with some light urban exploration. However, i am looking for a bike i can grow with and move into with the possibility of upgrade options later. The spot is just way to expensive, but no doubt boutique bling bling. "Do I need all that" is what I asked myself, but rather feel as if I would be fine on a four inch travel bike. I demoed a blur and liked the travel, but had other complications and therefore want to look into other bikes with more tire options and so forth. Tough call

    Wtih this supergo deal i could have a real sweet ride for more than a grand less than the spot and capable of coming close to matching it in ride quality. I am light enough hopefully to not notice the travel difference and get away with the burner. Anyhow, I will call Casey and see what he says and go from there. You guys have been so helpful that I feel compelled to stick with a brand like Turner. Thanks again Tscheezy. When ever you respond to a post I feel like that's Turner themselves giving the feedback due to your profound knowledge and realization with their products.

    P.S. Is it better wisdom to buy an outstanding frame with really good components or vice versa? only asking because the guys I demoed the spot from brought out a mountain cycles slix which i really didn't like, but thought that would be a better ride for me. not havin' it.
    It's all cycle-logical to me.

  10. #10
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    Components will break and wear out faster than the frame, so get a really great frame and then upgrade individual components as needed. That said, make sure you start out with top drawer stuff in a few areas which don't need replacing like a Thomson seatpost and stem, and some King hubs and headset. All the other bits come and go...

    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  11. #11
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    Here is my short travel, xc rig . Last night I rebuilt the wheels with some X317s to replace the Rhyno Lites which I just was not needing in terms of strength or weight. I also slapped some Timberwolves on. I tend to like WTB's DNA rubber for its grip and wear, but all of WTB's previous offerings were nothing short of useless here in coastal Alaska's mud. I ended up giving all my tires away before flying back up to Alaska since I knew they would just end up hanging on the wall up here and I figured Pete could hand them out to some needy riders. These show some promise for soft stuff though. I'm gonna go blast around on some new trails I'm building to try them out.



    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Deano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    344

    Keep us informed on those Timberwolves...

    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Here is my short travel, xc rig . Last night I rebuilt the wheels with some X317s to replace the Rhyno Lites which I just was not needing in terms of strength or weight. I also slapped some Timberwolves on. I tend to like WTB's DNA rubber for its grip and wear, but all of WTB's previous offerings were nothing short of useless here in coastal Alaska's mud. I ended up giving all my tires away before flying back up to Alaska since I knew they would just end up hanging on the wall up here and I figured Pete could hand them out to some needy riders. These show some promise for soft stuff though. I'm gonna go blast around on some new trails I'm building to try them out.



    I'll be interested in how those Timberwolves pan out - I too like WTB tyres (but not in the gloop) and have been trying out some Nokian Gazza Duals this last winter which were OK, but not awesome. Just put Motoraptors back on as the trails over here are finally drying out - gotta 50 mile enduro race on Sunday so we'll see how they fare...

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Last night I rebuilt the wheels with some X317s to replace the Rhyno Lites which I just was not needing in terms of strength or weight.
    How do the X317's compare to the Velocity Aeroheats, and how did they fair on your trip? The Hopey's on the XCE, hmmm....

  14. #14
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    It may take a few months to compare the 317s to the Aeroheats. In general, the Mavics are narrower and 50g lighter. The Velocities held up like champs. They remained laser straight despite doing a hell of a lot of drops and me suffering a pile of pinch flats. Very impressive. I broke one spoke and bent another up badly grinding them on a rock when I took a switchback too tight, but the rims laughed it all off. That convinced me that 570g rims like the Rhynos and F219s are just insane overkill for me, especially here at home where the trails are a lot less abusive than Utah. I now have 3 main wheelsets: Hügi 240 disc/F219, King Iso/Velocity Aeroheat, and King Discotech/X317. The Hügis I just use below 20ºF with studded tires when my King ring drives get too sluggish.

    I took the Hopey off the Spot thinking my Maverick fork may be on the way at some point. Looks like it will be a no go until fall though since they probably won't ship for weeks and I head out for my summer field season around May 10. I may fall in love with some other fork by then anyway. Oops.

    The Timberwolves are pretty cool but my chain rubs on the rear tire in the granny ring since the side knobs of the tire stick out so far and my crank sits very close to the chainstay. I may shave some knobs off.

    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,758
    .....tscheezy, let me know how those WTB's fare. I have been toying with the idea, as they look like a good east coast tire, but I am still dreadfully pessimistic about WTB's from past experience. The compounds of the past were horrible for anything less than arid conditions. I have also been eyeing the Hutchie Spiders (2.3) which also seem decent. Thanks,

    Jay


  16. #16
    Rides like wrecking ball
    Reputation: Bulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    How come the RFX geometry changes so much between the five and six inch rockers?
    How much does yours change with just a plate swap (not a fork swap too)? I was very worried before buying my 6" plates. My BB with 5" plates was right at 14", and Turner and several riders on these boards all said to expect my BB to rise about 1". I like higher BB's, but at a point it becomes a handling problem (see also Ells ID). Strange thing was, my BB was raised only 1/4-3/8" with no other equipment changes on the bike. I was very relieved! But it sounds like my experience is far from the rule on the RFX?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hesh to Steel
    With people liking mongoose and trek bikes now, what's next in this crazy world? People disliking the bottlerocket?!

  17. #17
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    Man. I cannot win. The tires rub my chain on the XCE so I tried them on the Spot and they very nearly don't fit through the narrow arch of my '03 Z1 SL (though the bb is a bit wider on the Spot so the chain does not rub). I had to carefully re-dish my front wheel and make sure the tire was mounted straight to keep enough clearance through the fork to allow muck to get through the Zoke. The side knobs are within 3-5mm of the fork's slider. I got a few huge tires in anticipation of the Mav. The Zoke just is not that big-meat-friendly. The tires are pretty heavy, slow, and porky on the road. They really hum along. Good float in soft moss and dirt though.

    Deano- it's funny but I love my Nokians and have not run tires I like better for our local conditions yet. Their real shortcoming is they are slippery on bare wet rock.

    jncarpenter- I don't know if they tweaked the DNA compound on these, but it seems pretty soft. I generally have had pretty good luck with DNA rubber those few times I tried WTB's other tires here at home when it is wet out. The tread patterns fell so pathetically short that I immediately gave up on the tires in general, so I cannot say for sure, but the DNA rubber itself seemed alright to me.

    Anyway, I also have some Tioga Factory DH 2.3s coming eventually also. Those have a similar tread pattern, but may not have the goofy knobs sticking out the side trying to grab my chain or fork.

    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  18. #18
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,763
    I've been getting some quality time on the Timberwolves for a couple months now and am really enjoying them, especially through high speed turns. I think WTB did a good job on this tire for traction, cornering, braking, and climbing in soft conditions.

    WTB calls it sticky outside knobs and fast rubber down the center. These knobs are so large that I think making them too soft wouldn't be good. But they do feel soft, just not quite as soft as the new stick-e Kendas.

    The tires are actually 2.5, and mine weighed almost 1000gs, did you get a chance to weigh yours tscheezy? The 2.3 Weirwolfs look puny in comparison. I'd like to see a 2.35 Timberwolf.

    My other tire du jour lately has been the Nevegals, they are big like the Timberwolfs, the 2.35 is only slightly smaller than the 2.5, and they're a couple hundred grams lighter. The neve get's the call for wet roots and rocks, it does pack up a bit more than the Timberwolf.

    I got no issues with tire and chain rub on my RFX, on f219's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog
    How much does yours change with just a plate swap (not a fork swap too)?
    So it sounds like you're running the six inch rockers with a Z1? That was FM's setup until he went Z150, we've had an earlier thread where all this got covered.

    The only numbers I have are Z150 x 6 inch rocker, BB =14.75"
    Vanilla 125 x 5 inch rocker, BB is closer to 13"
    and that's both with 2.5 tires.
    Been enjoying the low COG lately with the 125x5 setup.

    My RFX changes alot with the rocker switch and now I'm curious why the Burner didn't. Also like to know the effect on axle path the more veritical seat stays create. Might have to toss it out there for the suspension guru's who would have stumbled into this thread back in the old WBTB days.

  19. #19
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    My RFX changes alot with the rocker switch and now I'm curious why the Burner didn't.
    There is a fundamental difference between the RFX and the Burner rocker change (remember that the two sets of rockers you are applying to the Burner were NOT designed for the Burner, but rather for the XCE). On the RFX, the two rockers are designed to change travel while still using they same shock. On the XCE, the two rockers are designed to keep the same travel using different shocks. Read that again if it didn't sink in initially .

    On the XCE, the two sets of rockers were supposed to keep the geometry and travel the same when switching from a 1.75" to a 1.5" shock. The "starting" point for each rocker and shock is the same (the i2i of each shock was 6.5"). However, with the 1.75" stroke Vanilla, the extra 0.25" of shaft movement at the end of the stroke (remember the starting i2i is 6.5", so after compressing 1.75" the compressed i2i is 4.75") causes the suspension to finish at a lower point than the suspension would with the same rockers but a 1.5" stroke shock. The 1.5" stroke Romic needed a higher leverage ratio rocker (XR) to produce 4" of travel, otherwise it would stop at 3.6" like the stock Burner does. Effectively, your bike now enjoys a lower bb height at bottom-out than it did with the other rockers. You did not add the 0.4" of travel at the top of the suspension when you switched rockers, you added it at the bottom.

    The RFX does the opposite. The bb height at bottom-out is the same with each rocker (more or less), so to increase travel when going from 5" to 6" rockers, the starting point has to be higher. Remember, this all occurs with the same shock: a 7.5" i2i.

    Does that make any sense?

    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  20. #20
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    Umtay, some Timberwolf feedback.

    I am guessing the casing is similar to the Weirwolf 2.5 or Motoraptor 2.4, but the side knobs stick out far enough to qualify the Timerwolf as a true 2.5" (which the other WTB tires are not). They come pretty close to causing clearance issues with my '03 Z1 SL. No worries in back though and the chain clears them with a few mm to spare running an '03 XT bb with a 113mm spindle.

    They seem to be simply "too big" sometimes. I am getting used to looking down and seeing a rubber monstrosity on the front of my bike, but it took a ride or two. This after running a Weirwolf 2.5 almost exclusively in Utah. The pressure the size allows me to run here at home (~lower 30s in back, upper 20s in front) is a nice addition to the bike's small-bump sensitivity. My usual mud meats are Nokian Core 2.3s which employ a noticeably smaller casing requiring a little higher pressure (~upper 30s in back, lower 30s in front). I don't think WTB's DNA rubber is any "stickier" than other tires I have used. They don't make me look forward to diagonal wet-log crossings any more than other tires anyway. They do like to paw their way up soft climbs though, and really don't pack up at all. In fact, they shed our local soft, wet dirt as well as any tire I have tried. I like a big tire that can deal with soft wet mud well. Normally mud tires are skinny to slice down through the goo to find terra-firma. That is nice and all until you want a nice big footprint to stay on top of thick moss and a few inches of soggy pine-needly forest floor detritus. They corner fine and are reasonable in terms of weight for riding offroad, but I would not call them "fast". Their main selling point seems to be all-out acceleration and braking traction on surfaces too loose or soft for other tires. On pavement they seem ponderously slow and porky more from a knob spacing point of view than actual gram counting. Going around a gradual bend they make the whole bike hum with vibration.

    In general I would recommend them to someone looking for a REALLY BIG tire which is well suited to very soft conditions and are not specifically shopping for a sticky, slow-rebounding tire. I don't imagine they would be much fun on hardpack or desert rock where the widely-spaced, tall knobs would slow you down and squirm all over (but hey, what do I know?).

    A kinda blurry shot from today's foray into the dark northern woods.

    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HubbaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog
    How much does yours change with just a plate swap (not a fork swap too)? I was very worried before buying my 6" plates. My BB with 5" plates was right at 14", and Turner and several riders on these boards all said to expect my BB to rise about 1". I like higher BB's, but at a point it becomes a handling problem (see also Ells ID). Strange thing was, my BB was raised only 1/4-3/8" with no other equipment changes on the bike. I was very relieved! But it sounds like my experience is far from the rule on the RFX?
    I've ridden my rfx for two seasons now in the 5 'n 5 mode, I tried on a set of six inch rockers at one point (I own both sets), it felt a little higher but I also noticed a steeper head angle that I didn't like so I dropped it back to five inch mode (I should have measured the bb difference!)
    I do quite a bit of shuttling during the summer so I appreciate the slacker head angle.


    Clem

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lambone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    Man. I cannot win. The tires rub my chain on the XCE so I tried them on the Spot and they very nearly don't fit through the narrow arch of my '03 Z1 SL (though the bb is a bit wider on the Spot so the chain does not rub). I had to carefully re-dish my front wheel and make sure the tire was mounted straight to keep enough clearance through the fork to allow muck to get through the Zoke. The side knobs are within 3-5mm of the fork's slider. I got a few huge tires in anticipation of the Mav. The Zoke just is not that big-meat-friendly. The tires are pretty heavy, slow, and porky on the road. They really hum along. Good float in soft moss and dirt though.

    tscheezy
    My Timberwolves fit great on my Spot. I'm liking them, a bit sluggish on the uphill, but they never slip. On the way down it's like wearing mountaineering boots, these things stomp over anything in their path.

    I use MotoRaptors for more XC oriented rides, and switch the Timberwolves on if it's wet or I'm feeling like bombing stuff.

Similar Threads

  1. Voodoo Sobo pics and a couple of questions.
    By Irk in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-18-2004, 03:15 PM
  2. Couple of more Fruita Pics.
    By TJ. in forum Passion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-21-2004, 07:11 PM
  3. Couple pics from Sunday
    By Duckman in forum Passion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-18-2004, 05:57 AM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-12-2004, 05:23 PM
  5. just testing a couple of pics
    By ricochet in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-26-2004, 10:27 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
  •