from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
R F X
When is the frame estimated to be available?
Is it likely to have a 12mm rear?
Is the geom on the Turner website correct?
Currently riding a Nicolai but the service and support is below par imho, and turners is renowned so.......
Is their service that bad? The bike still runs well, no?
from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
Yeah the frame is awesome and i'm speaking about my next frame as in 2010ish, just wondering when the RFX was coming out as i'm very interested in hearing about it.
The Nicolai is the best frame i've ridden and the quality is absolute perfection BUT i'm not impressed with their after service in the uk, the German guys are great but they dont want to deal direct they pass you on the the uk guys and everything seems to be a hasle for them and when a question is asked you get a blunt poor few word reply. I just expect when i buy a top end frame that the service would be up there on par aswell; i think thats only fair no? I dont enjoy waiting almost 2 weeks for the likes of a mech hanger when my mate called Turner on the Friday 5pm and had his new mech hanger at 8am the next day! Now thats service, even when i owned my cove frames silverfish in the uk (Who are now the Turner distributor) were an awesome company to deal with! So helpful and quick to respond. I am not the only uk based Nicolai owner who think the service is poor, like i said especially for frames in the region of £1600+.
But in answer to you question no the bike is amazing, its almost on pure principal at the moment i feel i'll go elesewhere for my next frame; although maybe it'll be possible to deal direct with Germany who knows....
since you brought it up.....
The geo on the site is close. travel is going up and so is BB by a tenth, weight down and the solid model reproduction on site is NOT what the bike will look like, but since we are not done with the new design the orphan will hold a spot on-line.
SeatTube lengths. Same as 5 Spots size for size or an inch shorter for long travel adjuster posts? How many 'long travel' posts are actually available and homer approved? I want to hear a reason, not just a vote. I will need some good arguments in either favor to sway the medium from a 16 to a 17 or vice versa for example. Here is my argument. A medium should be a 17" seat tube, why? Because after the seat goes down a few inches it don't matter how much more it goes after that. Logic? After watching riders for years and seeing a picture or 2 of riders rolling drops with the seat down, there is soooo much room between the chest and seat with seat only half way between XC height and the frame, dropping the frame another inch is pointless. I really think most riders over estimate their flexibility in 'getting low'. Once the seat is below the chest it is just flapping in the wind anyway. Leaving the ST the same length as the 5 Spot size for size will keep those that will put a 150mm travel XC type fork and use if for super enduro riding from whining about too much post showing. Bring it on.
Ha, ha! When my post is "down" for dh/whatever there is still 5" showing (on an xl). I get crap from the cool kids, but I can handle it.
IMO the current seat tube heights are fine. I ride a 19" DW Spot and have a 34 inseam so my bike shows a lot of post at XC height. I run a GravityDropper and when dropped 3" I sometimes knock my HR monitor off my chest because I get so low rolling steep drops and chutes. However, I prefer the "standard" ST heights and would rather deal with occassionally having the seat touch my chest than having more post showing. I could go QR and lower it more but that would be a pain and a waste of time to stop and adjust just for a littel more clearance. Let's stay with a standard 15, 17, 19, etc.
I'm more of a dog person
stay the course
i agree. stay with the standard sizes, this is not a slopestyle frame where you need the seat xtra low for pulling no-cans and such. most people who will buy the RFX will use it for pedaling around all day.
go with the spot-length seat tubes please (15/17/19 etc).
Originally Posted by turnerbikes
- consistency between sizes. With a 16" seat tube, some 5'-9" folks would jump to a large, thinking of the medium as too short.
- As you said, the spot lengths already allow riders to easily run 5" drop posts, or drop a regular post 7-8". Plenty!
- Hard to say without looking at CAD, but I would expect that being able to drop the seat any further than the 'spot lengths allow, would result in the tire rubbing the back of the seat at full travel on med. & small sizes.
- Typical customer! For every Kelly Mcgary, you'll have 2000 RFX buyers who will use this as a rough trail bike, no tricks, plenty of climbing. Slopestyle seems like more of a media event, more than a riding style.
While we're on it, my RFX wishlist!
- DHR/Highline/Saint style thru-axle der. hanger, 135x10mm
- 1.5 headtube
- extra cable stops for gravity dropper etc.
- Keep the weight inline with the '08. There are always other brands if people want to lug excess weight around.
- ISCG tabs of course
- 1-2 extra m5 bosses for attaching a mini-fender to the swing-arm. I'm sure some will not like this idea, but here in the PNW it would make you a hero!
Last edited by FM; 01-21-2009 at 10:44 AM.
Not a homer, but I hope you don't mind me putting in my .02 cents. Especially since I plan to buy an DWL RFX. I am more in the super enduro crowd and don't use a gravity dropper post. I just jump off and lower the post before I downhill using a qr. The DWL spot sizes seem right to me. When I drop the post, I never drop it all the way down, only about 3 inches or so. I can't imagine needing another inch and I am already pretty close to the top of of my 350 mm Thomson post. I really wouldn't want more seat post showing and I don't want to get a bigger seat post.
I think the hard question is who is the target audience for the RFX?
fill what's empty, empty what's full, and scratch where it itches.
Another vote for Spot seat tube lengths. A large with a 19" ST and a 5" dropping post would be perfect.
And another vote for Spot seat tube length. A bike that is ment to be pedaled should have enought seat tube for a larger range of seat heights. If you were going with the original DW design ( more freeride/dh lite) ya go shorter, but looks like its going to be an update of the current model which is a great climber that is going to be ridden and not pushed to the top. I think the shorter seat tube is great for bikes that can be climbed but arnt any good at it Slopestyle/dh lite= short
All mountain/free lite= Long
on paper a 12mm thru axle sounds awesome for strength and line stability reasons. I wonder how many prospective future rfx buyers would decide against the 2010 rfx due to not having this hub / wheel combo???
For the Gravity seatpost owner/user crowd the 1" less ST seems optimal. I am second guessing shorter ST based on tire to butt grappling crash experience I just had. I do not want to relive what happened so i would vote keep the spot lenghts.
At 5'10" I ride a medium (18.5") 6pack, and a medium (17") flux. I drop the post on the former for really steep stuff, and generally a few inches is more than enough.
If the new rfx is designed to be more of an all mountain machine then i reckon stick with the spot sizes. For the majority of time spent in the saddle (i.e climbing and contouring) then IMO it is better not to have too much post as this can lead to a more flexy feel to the ride, even with a thomson post. there is a lot of leverage going through a long post. If the RFX is intended to be more of a freeride frame then a 16" would make sense, to give the option of going super low. but how many riders realistically will be using the rfx for freeride?
to counterbalance my own arguement, i just bought a 16" hardtail, so it is no deal breaker for me. but it looks better when you don't have a seatpost as long as your arm showing...
'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
Shorter ST. With a shorter ST, the TT will connect to the DT at a lower point (I assume). This means better stand-over and to some point lower center of gravity. Looks like a I am in the minority on this one. Oh well! I also have short legs (32" inseam) for my 6'1" height.
Another question, Why more travel? If it is a "trail bike" do people really need more travel? Maybe its better for the DW design?
Also bummed the BB is going up. Sounds like with a 170 mm fork the BB will be quite high again.
I definitely think tabs for a dropper post is key. If you don't use one its no big deal. If you use on and there are no tabs then you have zip ties and funky routing along the TT. I think more and more riders will be using these posts as more become available. I think at this point a lot of riders are so concerned about weight they would rather not add an extra pound to their bike.
Looking forward to seeing the bike.
Very good points FM!
Originally Posted by FM
I love the thru axle on my Dhr, 135X10 is what i would want on a AM/FR bike. 12mm is odd in 135 length and is really only needed for Dh in the 150mm application.
What I'm having trouble understanding is who this bike is for? Long travel trail or light freeride. A little more weight is worth the strength for someone like me.
My vote is for spot seat tube lengths 15-17-19
I have used my RFX and 5 Spot in the past to do all my riding, and have always been able to drop my seat post more than enough for downs. However, if the seat tube was shortened, I would have a huge amount of seat post exposed for normal riding.
My favorite medium RFX front triangle size is still the '06 RFX (18in seat tube and 23.4in top tube). I am 5'10" with a 33-34in bike inseam and have no trouble running a 4in gravity dropper on this bike. I have used it in for shuttled runs, resorts, long rides and never felt like the seat didn't drop far enough.
I would certainly not shorten the seat tube beyond 17in. It would really make the RFX almost impossible to fit for us tweeners.
Yep, I agree with the others. A 19" seat post is plenty short for a large as long as it still gives enough room to use a 4 or 5" drop post like the AM or KS for someone at the low end of the large range (5'11"-6').
I also like FM's suggestions (don't care about the mud fender mounts though. I live in NV)
-Stops for Adjustable seat post remote cable
-1.5 Head tube
-ISCG tabs for the Hammerschmidt.
Go Dave. Anxious to see/ride the final iteration. If you need me to thrash any prototypes ala Aquaholic and the Sultan, please send one up.
I imagine a tapered HT would make more sense compared to 1.5 for the RFX unless its going to be very FR biased.
I like the 09 spot sizing as far as ST with 15-17-19.
ISCG tabs are fine but I don't think the suspension can be optimized work well with a Hammerschmidt and middle chainring at the same time. Can this be overcome with multiple link mount holes - that would be unique desirable feature if executed well.
Not sure if having 12mm dropouts is a huge deal on DW-link RFX in the same vein as the last version with the solid rear-end on mini-links. People can get a 135x10mm if that's what they want and then they can still use a QR wheel in a pinch.
I'd like an optional mini fender.
I like the current 08 sizes
Agree. After I drop the seat on my RFX 4", another inch really does not seem to matter. The current XL seems just right at 21" with a 24.5 ETT, tho you could drop it an inch and I'd not complain. I would complain if it ever went past 21", tho.
Originally Posted by turnerbikes
Hoping the shock stroke/length does not change, as I'd like to carry over my CCDB (tho I understand if they do end up changing).
No 1.5 or tapered HT please. Some eyelets for panniers might be nice.
I agree on the tapered head tube, no thanks!
Originally Posted by Random Drivel
For a bike that will be predominately get spec'd with long travel single crown forks, 1.5 is the new standard. Every major fork and headset is finally available in 1.5. Now that selection is no longer a limitation, there is no downside to 1.5 (unless you want to run dual crown, then turning radius could be an issue).
I've run 1.125" steerer tube forks on both my RFX and Highline.. but with the added surface of the 1.5" bearing races, the headset on my highline is quieter and stays adjusted longer.
Just my .02c for DT.... make it 1.5"!
Good point! its not going to gain much stiffness as its one peice.
Originally Posted by syadasti
Personally it's not about having room at the chest. It's about getting my sack of seeds around the saddle (okay, my baggy shorts Which is easy to do with my current 19" spot. So... +1 on the 15 17 19!
Originally Posted by turnerbikes
-- >6.3" and <7.2lbs wow, sounds good to me.
I am for that too! Make the large 18.5" at the absolute lowest and 19.5" at the highest. I ride a 06' RFX with 20" ST with 4" GD post and it is comfy on the steep climbs and general trail riding but a little tall for more aggro, slopy-style riding with <1" seat post left in the lowered position on the downs (would go lower, but need a 5" dropper post for that). I am 5'11" with long'ish inseam, 34" and always had 19" ST bikes that were a good compromise for up/down with good standover.
Oh, how about a full length head tube, like 5.5" in a large, so people can run the least amount of spacers while obtaining adequate bar height. And 135 x 10mm is fine too, since I can transfer my current wheelset to new RFX frame, that just may be the deal breaker for me. 27.2mm ST diameter would be good to keep my GD post without having to use shims as well. ISCG is nice, but I am yet to have to use a chain device on the 06' RFX with a solid AM/FR build ridden frequently on rough terrain and never lost a chain yet. Must be due to running good chain length or something?
And lastly, how about coil shock options for those who don't want air, nor can spend $600 on a Cane Creek DB?
Can somebody explain me the benefits of 1.5" headtube? I seem to remember reading a post from DT thinking that 1.5" was bogus. Is it because the bigger headset is sturdier?
Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun