Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39
  1. #1
    Waiting to exhale.
    Reputation: SMOKEY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,032

    My head is spinn'n and the wheels are a turn'n !

    What up homers?

    As some of you may know, I sold my spot long ago and took a journey into the world of bikes with only one speed and no squish. I am loving my choice, but I have been creeping around to watch the homer love fests and now I am intrigued...

    This mythical creature called the "5-pack" has caught my eye. Supposedly it has the same pedaling characteristics as a spot but the slack HA and ability to run a 6" fork in the front, and of course the extra beef of the pack front triangle.

    So, does anyone know what the angles [Ireally are[/I] ?

    Competitive cyclist says:

    HA: 68.5 BB: 13.5 CS: 16.9

    Is this right? If so, why do I read some peeps saying that the BB is something like 14.5" and the HA is more like 69.5?

    Then there's the leverage ratio. (important for big' uns like me) is it really lowered? Also how does the Push 5.5 mod work into all this?

    Its alot of questions and YES I used the search and all it did was confuse me and make me want to vomit. Can anyone clear this up into one clear answer?
    Quite possibly the slowest single speeder on earth.
    Now skating 'cause its cheaper.

  2. #2
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Hey Smokey, good to "see you", man.

    I think most everyone is a little confused about the 5 Pack. The rear triangle and rocker are from the 5 Spot, so the leverage ratio is the same as the stock Spot. It is a little higher than your old Spot, because Turner increased the travel from 5.1 to 5.3in. The front triangle is indeed beefier.

    PUSH mod will affect the geometry of a regular 5 Spot by increasing the BB height, to compensate for additional axle to crown height of a PIKE or Z1 so that the tall fork doesn't change the head angle. The travel is 5.7in, I believe. The leverage ratio goes up to almost that of a 6 Pack.

    The head angle of the 5 Pack, I thought, was half a degree steeper. Competitive cyclist might give values with a 6in fork mounted, I am not sure. Others will hopefully fill in the blanks.

    _MK
    .
    "No man goes before his time -- unless the boss leaves early."
    -- Marx, Groucho

  3. #3
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    This mythical creature called the "5-pack" has caught my eye.

    So, does anyone know what the angles [Ireally are[/I] ?

    Competitive cyclist says:

    HA: 68.5 BB: 13.5 CS: 16.9

    Is this right?
    I've been looking into the 5 pack as well. I emailed Turner about it a little while back and asked specifically about the geo listed on Competitive Cyclists website. In his reply Jarett from Turner said that CC's Geometry "looks correct."


    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    If so, why do I read some peeps saying that the BB is something like 14.5" and the HA is more like 69.5?
    There is one poster who put a RFX Front Tri and Swingarm with Spot rockers, which probably creates different angles than the RFX front with Spot swingarm and rockers. I asked Jarett about this as well but it wasn't addressed in his reply, and I just haven't gotten around to asking about it again. Personally, I don't think I want that steep of a HA.


    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    Then there's the leverage ratio. (important for big' uns like me) is it really lowered?
    It is lower, Jarett stated that this would be an excellent bike for a bigger guy because of that. My assumption is that it's the same as the Spot, but I don't know for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    Its alot of questions and YES I used the search and all it did was confuse me and make me want to vomit.
    That's interesting, I got confused also, and was frustrated ...but didn't feel like vomiting.


    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    Can anyone clear this up into one clear answer?
    I'm sure DT can. If I find out any more info I'll post it here.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 05-09-2006 at 04:34 PM.

  4. #4
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    Smokey, I thought you had fallen into your bong and drowned. Welcome home!

    I get confused on the 5-Pack too. Given the SAME fork (say, 6") as on a stock 6-Pack, a 5-Pack SHOULD have a shallower head angle. The Spot seat stay is shorter by about 1/2" and so settles the bike back a little (I know because this is what I have). The shorter rocker off the Spot should contribute to this effect. I think the Comp Cyclist numbers assume you are also running a 5" fork, not 6". If you put a Van 36 or 150mm Z1 on there, it will be shallower than a stock 5-Spot or stock 6-Pack.

    PS, whatever you do, if you get a new Turner, DON'T WEIGH IT AGAIN!!!
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  5. #5
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    Can anyone clear this up into one clear answer?
    OK, I called Turner and spoke with Jarett. Topics of conversation in no particular order:

    Differences between 5 Pack with RFX rear and Spot rear:
    • Geometry overall should be similar/same. Competitive Cyclists numbers are accurate (my assumption is that they are done with a 5" travel fork). He didn't state for sure whether they at Turner have actually done complete measurements of both varieties, but I would guess they have at some point.
    • Chainstay length of RFX is longer, so wheelbase will be longer than with Spot stay. This will likely result in differences in handling of each configuration.
    • Seatstay length of RFX rear is longer, which will alter the BB height "a hair" (Increase it, maybe? I forget what he said. ). Probably not enought to make a significant difference in handling.
    • RFX rear can accommodate a 2.5" tire. Spot rear can handle a ~2.3" tire, depending on manufacturer. Others on this forum I'm sure have first-hand knowledge of what works and what doesn't.


    Draw your own conclusions regarding how all these factors effect the actual ride.

    Other stuff:
    • Greg at Turner was really the first do put a 5 Pack together.
    • He runs (or ran) a 130mm fork up front. This may have changed. Jarett suggested that I speak with Greg if I wanted more detailed info about his set-up. I'm good for now, but if you're looking for more info...
    • Jarett also mentioned "some people" on this forum were pushing the Spot beyond its capabilites, which let to the release of the 5 Pack commercially. I think I know who he was referring to.
    • The RFX Front can handle a DC fork, the HT is plenty strong. I mentioned that I would like to run an adjustable fork (4" for climbing, 5" for trail riding, 6" for descending) and he said it would be fine.


    I hope this provides some clarity. It did for me. Although, to truly get an idea of how this bike rides I want to actually ride it. And given that it's a pretty obscure configuration I don't think that's going to happen.

    My apologies to Jarett if I misquoted or misinterpreted anything he said.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 05-09-2006 at 06:28 PM.

  6. #6
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,459
    Patrick - you were in the ATL where my version of a 5 Pack lives.
    Nothing to see here.

  7. #7
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,135
    Welcome back Broham!
    Yeah the combination of options are dizzying. It's pretty cool you can custom tweak the geometry with a litle mix and match. The tough part is deciding which to choose. Probably the best thing is to get a very clear decisive idea what you want out of the change and then find/ask for the component combination that achieves it.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  8. #8
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    [LIST[*]Seatstay length of RFX rear is longer, which will alter the BB height "a hair" (Increase it, maybe? I forget what he said. ). Probably not enought to make a significant difference in handling.[*]RFX rear can accommodate a 2.5" tire. Spot rear can handle a ~2.3" tire, depending on manufacturer. Others on this forum I'm sure have first-hand knowledge of what works and what doesn't.[/LIST]
    The RFX seat stay is a full 1/2" longer. That means the rear end rides by that much higher with the RFX seat stay verses the Spot's. That equals about 0.3" in bb height. I actually run a Spot stay on my 6-Pack precisely for that reason: to lower the bb.

    The RFX stays clear a full 3.0 tire on a 65mm wide rim. I've done it. The Spot will easily clear a 2.6 with room to spare for mud. One thing Turners aren't hurting for it's tire clearance.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,758
    Smokes! Welcome back bro-

    I know this isn't much help tonite, but my RFX Stays (TNT) & rockers should be back from Olympic in a week or so & I can get measurements/ angles of all the different configurations then. Until then, just stare into the eyes of a ninja


  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,758
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    The RFX seat stay is a full 1/2" longer. That means the rear end rides by that much higher with the RFX seat stay verses the Spot's. That equals about 0.3" in bb height. I actually run a Spot stay on my 6-Pack precisely for that reason: to lower the bb.

    The RFX stays clear a full 3.0 tire on a 65mm wide rim. I've done it. The Spot will easily clear a 2.6 with room to spare for mud. One thing Turners aren't hurting for it's tire clearance.
    ...interestingly enough, when I put the 6" rockers on with the Spot stays in my earlier investigations (couple months back), it actually lowered the BB a bit...I know, it's shocking. I had to double check to be sure I was seeing it right. I don't have the rockers right now to verify this, but try throwing the 6" rockers on your Spot & measure it up....


  11. #11
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,365
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ...interestingly enough, when I put the 6" rockers on with the Spot stays in my earlier investigations (couple months back), it actually lowered the BB a bit...I know, it's shocking. I had to double check to be sure I was seeing it right. I don't have the rockers right now to verify this, but try throwing the 6" rockers on your Spot & measure it up....
    The rockers do add a more complicated element since there are so many out there. I think the RFX type "A" rockers and the current Pack rockers are near clones. The type "B" RFX rockers definitely jacked the back of the bike up. The Spot rockers seem to occupy some middle ground. Combine the Pack rockers with a short stay like off the Spot and you have a pleasantly slouchy rig.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  12. #12
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    The RFX seat stay is a full 1/2" longer. That means the rear end rides by that much higher with the RFX seat stay verses the Spot's. That equals about 0.3" in bb height.
    That would explain why the 5 Pack's HA is steeper with the RFX rear than with the Spot rear, given the same fork length. Unless one used a longer fork (6" instead of 5"). But with differing front and rear travel then the bike may feel unbalanced. Anyone running 6" up front and 5" in the rear, or have an opinion on doing so?

    So, this is what I've got.

    RFX front with Spot rear and rockers.
    68.5* HA, 13.5" BB, 16.9" chainstay.
    This version looks like it would be in between the standard Spot and RFX in handling, with the ability to take more abuse and would be a better descender than the Spot, but with a shoter chainstay it climb better than the RFX. This is the standard 5 Pack configuration

    RFX front with RFX rear and Spot rockers.
    69.5* HA, 14.25" BB (measured), 17.1" chainstay. IMO, these #'s are definitely different enough to make significant differnence in handling.
    In this configuration the frame could handle even more aggressive riding, but the steeper HA seems to push this bike further away from the desired geometry for freeriding. Any thoughts on this? This is the only 5 Pack in this configuration that I've read about.


    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    The RFX stays clear a full 3.0 tire on a 65mm wide rim. I've done it. The Spot will easily clear a 2.6 with room to spare for mud. One thing Turners aren't hurting for it's tire clearance.
    Jarett was probably being conservative with the numbers he quoted to me. It's good to hear this won't be an issue. Not that I'm planning on running 3.0's on my trail bike.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 05-10-2006 at 01:59 AM.

  13. #13
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Patrick - you were in the ATL where my version of a 5 Pack lives.
    I know, I know . Although I'm pretty sure I need a large and IIRC yours is smaller (smurf-sized?). I don't know that I'd get a good feel for the ride if the size isn't right (or at least close). Next time, though, I'll be sure to get in touch.

    Patrick
    Last edited by PCinSC; 05-10-2006 at 12:52 AM.

  14. #14
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,102
    Good to hear from you again Smokes! Your posts (and humor) have been missed.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Bling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,589
    good to hear from you, man.
    Former Homer...Ventana convert: extreme poseur!

  16. #16
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,001
    After reading the title, I thought for sure Smokey found his long awaited EBM.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,257

    Wtf!

    Wow, I thought you had left the bike world and started riding mini bikes or somthin! Looking forward to the humor.

    If you tell me exactly what fork and rear end you want to run I will "build" it up and give you the #'s. BB height is harder to nail unless I have the exact diameter of the tires you will run.

    Greg was running the 36 Talus on his 5pack and tweaked the geometry with the talus adjuster to get the steering where he wanted depending on terrain. He sold it last week and is back on his single speed Nitrous. He likes being in the wrong gear all the time.

    DT

  18. #18
    Baked Alaskan
    Reputation: AK Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,813

    The Return of Smokey.

    Yo Smokey!!!!!!!!!!! Welcome back from the land of Uno. Glad to hear you're looking at getting another Turner. Just when you think you're out -- they pull you back in...
    The red couch has moved from Alaska to Florida...

  19. #19
    Waiting to exhale.
    Reputation: SMOKEY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,032
    Thanks for the warm welcome back! If you guys are this cool on a forum, imagine how dope it would be to meet up with you guys at one of your annual Turner love fests and ride!

    Anyways, Thanks to DT who was nice enough to offer such a nice offer... By the way I saw one of the new 6-pack adds in some bike magazine and it said something about not having time to fool around with patents and gimmicks, DT would rather ride (or something like that). I imagined a certain other bike "maker" reading it... I laughed out loud in the book store! sweetness! ! !

    I dunno guys, do I smell a pack in the future... or is it called the RFX?... Fock !? Thats what I get for staying away for so long... Next thing you guys will tell me is Push industries and Turner bikes teamed together and produced the worlds first TNT designed EBM! ! ! .... and zilla is gonna plate it in gold! ! !
    Quite possibly the slowest single speeder on earth.
    Now skating 'cause its cheaper.

  20. #20
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,446
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    .. Next thing you guys will tell me is Push industries and Turner bikes teamed together and produced the worlds first TNT designed EBM! ! ! .... and zilla is gonna plate it in gold! ! !
    Damn Smokey, you are clairvoyant! The cat is out of the bag.
    Allthough, like most push products, the release date has been pushed back a few months...
    pun intended.
    ****

  21. #21
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEY
    This mythical creature called the "5-pack" has caught my eye. Supposedly it has the same pedaling characteristics as a spot but the slack HA and ability to run a 6" fork in the front, and of course the extra beef of the pack front triangle.

    So, does anyone know what the angles [Ireally are[/I] ?

    Competitive cyclist says:

    HA: 68.5 BB: 13.5 CS: 16.9

    Is this right?
    I'm not trying to clutter up the board by resurrecting this old thread, but I found out some new info that may be useful to others that are interested and (in the future) happen to do a search for "5 Pack" in the Turner forum.

    CC used a RS Pike to determine the geometry they have on their website. So with a fork with an A-C length of ~518mm the HA of the 5 Pack will be 68.5* with a 13.5" BB height (obviously depending on tire height). It seems that using a 150mm travel fork (~535mm A-C length) will slacken it to about RFX angles, to just under 68* (I think). It should also increase the BB height a little.

    Patrick

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation: gonzostrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,258
    other than uniqueness, what is the practical reason for wanting to have 5" of rear travel on a 6-Pack/RFX?

  23. #23
    long standing member
    Reputation: PCinSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzostrike
    other than uniqueness, what is the practical reason for wanting to have 5" of rear travel on a 6-Pack/RFX?
    I can't necessarily speak for others, but being a "larger" guy I'm interested in it for the reduced average leverage ratio of the rear shock: 2.5:1 for the 5 Pack versus 3:1 for the RFX. For the vast majority of my riding the full RFX would most likely be overkill anyway, so with the 5 Pack I'd be getting, in essence, a beefed-up Spot. If I weighed under 200lbs and wasn't planning on dropping off of anything I'd probably just get the Spot.

    Patrick

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,758
    Quote Originally Posted by PCinSC
    I can't necessarily speak for others, but being a "larger" guy I'm interested in it for the reduced average leverage ratio of the rear shock: 2.5:1 for the 5 Pack versus 3:1 for the RFX. For the vast majority of my riding the full RFX would most likely be overkill anyway, so with the 5 Pack I'd be getting, in essence, a beefed-up Spot. If I weighed under 200lbs and wasn't planning on dropping off of anything I'd probably just get the Spot.

    Patrick
    ...pretty much same here. 5" is more than enough travel for the majority of riding we have around here. The Spot was a great ride, but I found myself having to refrain from riding the smattering of 4-6' drops on the local trails. The weight difference was basically nill between the Spot & RFx5 (RFX front & Spot rockers/ rear). I also have DT's blessing for flogging the bike therefore giving me a much more versatile do-all ride.

    PS. I don't think DT would have thought too kindly of me running the 66SL on the Spot either


  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Clyde S Dale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,143
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    ...pretty much same here. 5" is more than enough travel for the majority of riding we have around here. The Spot was a great ride, but I found myself having to refrain from riding the smattering of 4-6' drops on the local trails. The weight difference was basically nill between the Spot & RFx5 (RFX front & Spot rockers/ rear). I also have DT's blessing for flogging the bike therefore giving me a much more versatile do-all ride.
    I've been watching this thread with interest and I have the same concerns. Five inches of travel suits me well, but a properly built RFX would be overkill for me (unless I could have a Flux, too). At my weight I'd love to jump my 'Spot more, but when I blow it I tend to screw it up well and good. A little extra beef at the front triangle would be nice.


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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