Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 118

Thread: R F X

  1. #1
    from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
    Reputation: derekr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,478

    R F X

    Hi all,

    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.......

    Cheers

    Derek
    Visit - www.gravity-sports.co.uk - Exclusive high end MTB Products

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Is their service that bad? The bike still runs well, no?

  3. #3
    from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
    Reputation: derekr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,478
    Hi mate,

    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....
    Visit - www.gravity-sports.co.uk - Exclusive high end MTB Products

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,576

    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.

    DT

  5. #5
    Making fat cool since '71
    Reputation: ImaKlyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    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.

    Brock...
    Are the wheels roundish? Ride it.

    Disciples Of Dirt, come ride with us.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,519
    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.

  7. #7
    I'm more of a dog person
    Reputation: unclekittykiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    864

    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.

  8. #8
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    The geo on the site is close. Same as 5 Spots size for size or an inch shorter for long travel adjuster posts?
    DT
    go with the spot-length seat tubes please (15/17/19 etc).
    Reasons:
    • 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.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Serotta b1kr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    278
    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.

  10. #10
    Well Biked
    Reputation: scepticshock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,650
    Another vote for Spot seat tube lengths. A large with a 19" ST and a 5" dropping post would be perfect.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    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

  12. #12
    Hisforever
    Reputation: SHAHEEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,645

    rear axle

    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.
    Jesus Saves




  13. #13
    Wicketed
    Reputation: swan lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    565
    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

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G-AIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,504
    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.

    TG

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    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!
    Very good points 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.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AZ mtber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    68
    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.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,882
    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.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,447
    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 will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    726
    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.

  20. #20
    Captain Underpants
    Reputation: Random Drivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,281

    I like the current 08 sizes

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    . 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.
    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.

    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.

  21. #21
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Random Drivel
    No 1.5 or tapered HT please. Some eyelets for panniers might be nice.
    I agree on the tapered head tube, no thanks!

    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"!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by syadasti
    I 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.
    .
    Good point! its not going to gain much stiffness as its one peice.
    Enjoy every ride!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: weaver84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    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.
    DT
    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!

    -- >6.3" and <7.2lbs wow, sounds good to me.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    "15-17-19"

    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?

    Thanks DT,

    JG
    Ride On!

  25. #25
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,956
    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

  26. #26
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg
    I seem to remember reading a post from DT thinking that 1.5" was bogus.
    1.5 is kinda bogus for DC forks, where turning radius is limited by bigger tubing. I don't know of any DC forks currently available with 1.5 steerers. Having two crowns (and the extra lock on the steerer tube typically provided by an upper crown) renders 1.5 somewhat redundant.

    1.5 does make sense for single crown forks, now that all manufacturers have joined the party. Regardless of steerer tube & stem diameter, a 1.5 head tube makes for larger diameter bearing races, top & bottom. This means more bearing race contact area which is the greatest limitation of 1.125 headsets IMHO.

    Good luck finding tools and spacers at the LBS though....

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,029
    For me, the major reason I like 1.5 is stack height.....and that is more of an issue with longer (double crown) forks. My current 1.5 headset is 6.5mm total stack height with DM stem and 3/4 inch rise bars...I would run it lower if I could. A standard headest would add a full inch to the bar height. Large stack heights also limit the ability to fine tune head tube angle/bb height with a double crown via sliding the crowns. Head tube size has nothing to do with steering angle. That is dictated by stanchion width, crown offset, bumper thickness, and top tube diameter at stanchion contact..all are/can be independant of head tube size.

    While not the only reason, this was a major factor to why I did not buy a current DHR (and bought something else).

  28. #28
    from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
    Reputation: derekr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,478
    Yeah 1.5 headtube would be sweet, as for the seattube length its not really an issue. My medium Nicolai has an 18" seattube which is long but dosent really make much difference.

    BTW thanks for the great response DT, Nicolai should take note!!!!!
    Visit - www.gravity-sports.co.uk - Exclusive high end MTB Products

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    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"!
    The big load is only seen on the bottom. Tapered HT with 1.5 on the bottom makes more sense which is why its becoming popular pretty fast. You can still run older 1.125 forks if you want too just like 1.5 HT. Its not a full-on FR bike, no need for a full 1.5 setup. Besides you also mentioned you wanted lower weight (like the 08) as one of your goals - so what do you really want? Can't have it all at the same time.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    1.5 is kinda bogus for DC forks, where turning radius is limited by bigger tubing. I don't know of any DC forks currently available with 1.5 steerers. Having two crowns (and the extra lock on the steerer tube typically provided by an upper crown) renders 1.5 somewhat redundant.

    1.5 does make sense for single crown forks, now that all manufacturers have joined the party. Regardless of steerer tube & stem diameter, a 1.5 head tube makes for larger diameter bearing races, top & bottom. This means more bearing race contact area which is the greatest limitation of 1.125 headsets IMHO.

    Good luck finding tools and spacers at the LBS though....
    For those that want to use the RFX as a long-legged trail bike, is a 1.5 stem available in anything much longer than 50mm?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jon Edwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    439
    On seat tubes i'll go for shorter please. Currently on an 18"/med 02 RFX. My reasoning - Sure for trail riding DHs I only drop 3" or so. For proper DH and FR stuff I jam the post all the way into the frame, and it just allows sufficient clearance to get a foot flat on the floor whilst positioned over the saddle. Why do I want that? - it makes getting started on steep technical terrain much easier (usually when I've been stalled by the guy in front ). I also ride pretty low - its not unusual to find Minion prints on my shorts - I have a love of steep technical alpine wheels-on-the-ground hairpinny stuff. Being able to get right over the back is pretty important.

    While we're on it, my RFX wishlist!
    DHR/Highline/Saint style thru-axle der. hanger, 135x10mm

    10mm or 12mm, not fussed, but definitely yes to a proper bolt through and uber-hanger
    1.5 headtube
    Yes please. Future proofing as much as anything.
    extra cable stops for gravity dropper etc.
    Yes please. Will be getting one for the Megavalanche
    Keep the weight inline with the '08. There are always other brands if people want to lug excess weight around.
    Yes please (assuming advances in design/technology means that it'll still be as strong as my '02 )
    ISCG tabs of course
    Definitely

    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!
    Oh yes. UK rider - makes the PNW look like a desert. Supply the fender too if you like - something properly integrated like the Acerbis/Marzocchi fender of a couple of years back.

    I feel like I've answered these questions LOADS of times now...!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,576

    Thanks

    Well that was quick, 15-17-19 it is.

    It will certainly have the tapered head tube, one of you told us months ago when I argued against the 1.5", that the Crown/Steerer junction is where the bigger fork will have the stiffness advantage. That slapped me in the head and over the line from a 1.125 to bigger design. The reason for the tapered is stems stems and mooooooore stems. This bike will be shipped all over the world and to some dark corners of the United States. 1.125" stems are everywhere, cheap light strong heavy long short and available. The head tube and top tube junction can also be lighter, the stem lighter, the upper head bearing lighter. With the RFX being the ultimate grey area bike between a trail bike and FR and padded up descending, dropping weight where it is not needed is good.
    Almost every fork in the 545-560mm class on your bikes or in the shops has 1.125, this will fit fine with either a big diameter bearing with 1.125" crown race, or, for those that want to steepen it up a bit a 'zero stack' lower bearing set. We will stock headsets for this frame with both zero and also standard bearings with 2crown races for standard 1.5", standard 1.125.

    ISCG O5 of course.

    Thru axle rear. yes of course, not sure which way to go though. There is a lot of talk in the industry about the Syntace X12 set up. The basics are that it is slotted dropout faces so you can set the bike on the wheel just like the bigger travel fork models have done for years. the BIG difference is that one must have a bit longer axle caps or ends to engage the frame. Basically a 135 turns into a 142mm over all length. I have talked to King and they can fit the 12 thru, but have not made an axle to fit this system yet. Industry Nine already does it for their German market. Mavic and DT Swiss already offer 'long nosed hubs' for this dropout style. Shimano is giving me the cold shoulder so I have no idea what they are doing. Seems like Saint at least should have the optional hub caps. I have been told their designs will take the 12mm axle thru the hub and cassette, but nothing as to what they are doing in 2010. I did not contact Hadley yet, but I am sure Mike can do anything with his hubs if this becomes 'the way'. Anyone have any gossip from other brands?

    There will be extra cable guides on the top tube for the remote control seat posts.

    The weight will be in the low 7s. Honestly! If one is to race Megavalanche or Dville etc it has to be lightish as well as strong.

    It will be spec'd with the RP23, but in the 8.5 x 2.5 length, the compression ratio will make it a prime candidate for the coil shock addict. I will think about buying a little box of the DHX RC4s as an option as I know some of you must have coil but will not be able to swing the 6-8 hundred for a CCDB or Avy. The RC4 resy is pretty big though, so fitting it will make it tough to keep all the tubes straight!! argh.

    The reason the travel is creeping above 160 as posted on line is that the dw-link pedals so well, why not! The BB will go to 14.1", WITH 2.5 Nevegals, and WITH a 550mm A-C 'fork" sitting under a standard 1.5" diameter external headset cup. This is considerably lower than the 07-08 RFX with same parts and tires, both at rest and Certainly with rider sitting on it. If someone wants an even longer fork with minimal geo change then the zero stack lower head bearing shows it's advantage by reducing overall height by about 15mm.

    I have heard from the Slope Style dreamers and this bike ain't SS, the BB has to be in the rideable range in big chunk down and UP hill. Fact is NO REAL SS riders ride a bike with this much travel I would say that the Bottle Rocket is the poster bike of the SS crowd. If anyone wants a SS 'style' bike Chainlove probably still has some, this ain't it.

    DT

  33. #33
    I'm more of a dog person
    Reputation: unclekittykiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg
    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?
    the 1.5 HT allows the use of a 1.5 steerer, obviously. a 1.5 steerer is MUCH stiffer than a 1.125 steerer. DT was talking about 1.5 HT being bogus on a DHR because that bike runs a DC fork already - no need for a 1.5.

  34. #34
    I'm more of a dog person
    Reputation: unclekittykiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by juan_speeder
    For those that want to use the RFX as a long-legged trail bike, is a 1.5 stem available in anything much longer than 50mm?
    i have a 70mm race face d2 1.5 stem on my bottlerocket.

  35. #35
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    It will certainly have the tapered head tube
    DT
    Hey DT, I understand the merits of the tapered head tube. The thing that sucks currently is having to buy two headsets to get both diameter cups. If you are going to adopt this new "standard", can you please put some leverage on the headset MFG's to offer an option for tapered headtubes?

  36. #36
    Hisforever
    Reputation: SHAHEEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,645

    Chris King & full length cable routing tabs

    FM, Chris king is the headset. 1.5 or 1 1/8 is possible. I just got one headset for dual duty...pretty cool


    Dave, What about the derailleur cable mounts?? any chance they can become full length housing mounts like the DHR???
    Jesus Saves




  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Hey DT, I understand the merits of the tapered head tube. The thing that sucks currently is having to buy two headsets to get both diameter cups. If you are going to adopt this new "standard", can you please put some leverage on the headset MFG's to offer an option for tapered headtubes?
    For 2010 MY most headset maker should have them. I believe you can order the tapered setup directly from Canecreek and King right now.

    There is a thread with Evil and Spooky employees discussing tapered HT here.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Hey DT, I understand the merits of the tapered head tube. The thing that sucks currently is having to buy two headsets to get both diameter cups. If you are going to adopt this new "standard", can you please put some leverage on the headset MFG's to offer an option for tapered headtubes?
    FSA also has the Gravity line of tapered headsets.

    They are going to offer 1.5" lower with a 1.125" upper and a 1.5" lower to 1.125 reducer. Should cover everyone at a good price point.

  39. #39
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Good info, thanks guys

    With that, I happily embrace the advent of the tapered head tube!

    Now about those fender mounts.......

  40. #40
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,027
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Hey DT, I understand the merits of the tapered head tube. The thing that sucks currently is having to buy two headsets to get both diameter cups. If you are going to adopt this new "standard", can you please put some leverage on the headset MFG's to offer an option for tapered headtubes?
    You already have to buy two headsets for the RFX. First you buy a CK, and then when you get fed up with the creaking and loosening you buy an FSA or CC.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  41. #41
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    You already have to buy two headsets for the RFX. First you buy a CK, and then when you get fed up with the creaking and loosening you buy an FSA or CC.
    Oddly enough, that's been pretty much opposite of my experience. None of the FSA's survived a PNW winter for my crew.
    My 1.125 king occasionally needs re-tightening after a crash, but my 1.5 king has been quiet and maintenance free.

    Anyway if the creak doesn't bother Gee, I think can tune it out too.


  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    432
    DT,

    1.5 all they way! Not a big fan of the tapered idea, as it will add cost and complexity for mininal weight savings. There are plenty of 1.5 stems up to 90mm and the 1.5 interface is extremelty stiff and inspires confidence with 160mm+ forks and bike setups. Plus 1.5 looks bada$$ as the tapered steerers/headtube look like Trek/Spechy bikes. Plus guys can stiil run 1.5 or 1.125 forks they may already have.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    "I will think about buying a little box of the DHX RC4s as an option as I know some of you must have coil but will not be able to swing the 6-8 hundred for a CCDB or Avy".

    Thanks DT, that's excellent and I would like to try the RC4 as well.

    Sounds the 010' RFX will be my next bike afterall and after another year of thrashing the 06' RFX. Should be about the right time for me to upgrade frames when this thing comes out next year.

    Good stuff, I would prefer to stick with Turner instead of jumping ship to another brand just for a few extra features or sizing/geo that I am after.

    JG
    Ride On!

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    "Oddly enough, that's been pretty much opposite of my experience. None of the FSA's survived a PNW winter for my crew".

    I have had good luck running the FSA DH Pro ($30) here in the NorthWet' myself on the RFX. I have almost 3yrs on my current headset with no probs and still runnin' strong.

    JG
    Ride On!

  45. #45
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Quote Originally Posted by jgusta
    I have had good luck running the FSA DH Pro ($30) here in the NorthWet' myself on the RFX. I have almost 3yrs on my current headset with no probs and still runnin' strong.
    JG
    Yeah, I think there was a "bad batch", cause I know of 5+ people who bought 1.5 Orbit xtreme pros, including ebxtreme, and none lasted more than 4 months. I have heard their cheaper headsets are actually more durable

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AndyN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Yeah, I think there was a "bad batch", cause I know of 5+ people who bought 1.5 Orbit xtreme pros, including ebxtreme, and none lasted more than 4 months. I have heard their cheaper headsets are actually more durable

    My Orbit Xtreme Pro must have been part of that bad batch cause it only lasted 3 months in dry climate on my HL.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G-AIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,504

    weight?

    Why is weight so important on the RFX, but does not seem like a concern on the SPOT. A new L Spot weighs 7.0 lbs. and the new RFX is going to weigh 7.2? That seems like very little difference for two very differen bikes. The old Spots used to weigh 6.2 lbs and other 5.5" travel bikes are trying to stay in the low 6s.

    I think this is another confusing factor for people trying to chose between these two bikes. While many of us know there is a major difference, a lot of people look at them on paper and don't see that. They end up getting sucked into the RFX because they can do it with minimal weight penalties. In reality many of those riders would be much happier on the SPOT.

    How about shaving some weight off the SPOT?

    By the way, It looks like the new RFX is going to be pretty bad a@@. Looking forward to seeing it. I will be returning from overseas summer of 2010, so this should be perfect timing.

    TG

  48. #48
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,172
    Sounds great so far!

    My request:
    05/06 TT length! At least on the large.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  49. #49
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes

    Thru axle rear. yes of course, not sure which way to go though. There is a lot of talk in the industry about the Syntace X12 set up.
    DT

    Info on said syntace x12.


    And a good video here


    Looks dope!


  50. #50
    Pixie Dust Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,349
    My $.02 on the weight thing is that the first generation are probably a little overbuilt to give a margin of error in the stiffness (and probably longevity) department. I suspect that as more FEA analysis is done and more rider input is received, you'll see material being taken out, tubes getting thinner where it makes sense, and other tweaks to wring a little weight out of the frames. After seeing the weights of the DWL bikes relative to the rocker bikes so far, I will be surprised if there is only a .2 lb. difference between the Spot and the RFX.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2w4s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    I have heard from the Slope Style dreamers and this bike ain't SS, the BB has to be in the rideable range in big chunk down and UP hill. Fact is NO REAL SS riders ride a bike with this much travel I would say that the Bottle Rocket is the poster bike of the SS crowd. If anyone wants a SS 'style' bike Chainlove probably still has some, this ain't it.

    DT
    Dave, fwiw i think you're confused about what some of us were requesting. I don't believe anybody is asking for a SS bike, we're asking for a more mini DH bike that can be pedaled uphill, you know low weight, snappy handling but stable at speed. an SS bike is a short travel burly bike meant for hucking, a low BB is not necessary. Anyhow, I'm sure the new RFX will be sweet and I can't wait to see it.
    nothing witty here...

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,156
    First time I have seen that. I like it but how is it dfferent than maxle?

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    Dave, fwiw i think you're confused about what some of us were requesting. I don't believe anybody is asking for a SS bike, we're asking for a more mini DH bike that can be pedaled uphill, you know low weight, snappy handling but stable at speed. an SS bike is a short travel burly bike meant for hucking, a low BB is not necessary. Anyhow, I'm sure the new RFX will be sweet and I can't wait to see it.
    Yes, make sure there is a discernable difference between the Spot and RFX, especially since there is no HL by keeping the Spot for "all trail" duties (aggro XC to some AM) and RFX for "aggro all mountain" (aggro/heavy duty trail to some DH/FR). Ideally being a mini DH bike that can still pedal and get up the hills is exactly what I am looking for myself and is why I gleaned at the Commencal Supreme for this. And yes, the Intense SS and new Uzzi look pretty sweet too.

    As others have said, if the Spot and RFX are too similar, than it confuses the consumer even more as to which bike to get and they are more likely to have more than one Turner if there is a big enough difference between the two. Today's Spot already looks like it does pretty well as an aggro trail/AM bike, especially with the builds people are using and would put it in the same category and competition as the new Intense Tracer, which is a good "do all", versatile trail bike that can handle the descents pretty well. That is why I think Intense has a lot going for them this year by offering a good, distinguishable line up with each bike serving a somewhat definable purpose.

    Please keep, or make the new RFX to be the perfect AM/FR'er or mini DH bike that can still climb when needed.

    Thanks,

    JG
    Last edited by jgusta; 01-23-2009 at 12:38 PM.
    Ride On!

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Serotta b1kr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    278
    The dwl RFX sounds right on to me. I can't wait to get mine!
    fill what's empty, empty what's full, and scratch where it itches.

  55. #55
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Serotta b1kr
    The dwl RFX sounds right on to me. I can't wait to get mine!
    And it just keeps getting better...
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  56. #56
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,027
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    we're asking for a more mini DH bike that can be pedaled uphill
    That's not possible. With the ultra-slack angles it will pedal uphill like crap.

    The reason the highline pedals uphill well (for it's weight) is because of the angles. Same thing with the knolly DT.

    The RFX should downhill better than the spot, but slopestyle is too limiting in scope. Even intense says NOT to trail ride their slopestyle bike due to the geometry and strength (riding with the seat in trail-riding positions).

    A resonable BB and resonable angles are of course resonable, but a mini DH bike isn't going to be good for much else than mini DH IMO, which might be the downhill part of your ride, but I'd rather suffer less overall. It's not like the old 6packs and RFXs sucked at DH.


    If turner were to build a SS bike, it should not be the RFX. I fear that a lot of people buy the SS bikes because they are the "in" thing, not because they'll necessarily be the best bike. It seems that whatever the current "fad" is, those types of bikes are pushed and people buy them, but a lot of people end up with a bike that doesn't really fit them.

    Take a spot, beef up the tubes, slack out the angles, drop the BB, keep the travel and shock, and call that "slope style". Make less of then than you think you'll need, then make a few more the next year if it really sells. Call it the s-spot.
    Last edited by Jayem; 01-23-2009 at 11:42 AM.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  57. #57
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    That's not possible. With the ultra-slack angles it will pedal uphill like crap.
    that won't be an issue; it'll come with a mini engine...
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2w4s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    That's not possible. With the ultra-slack angles it will pedal uphill like crap.
    dammit, i wish somebody had told me this 4 years ago when I got my first MiniDH bike and rode it everywhere thru rocks, uphill and downhill.

    make the seattube steeper and voila, it works just fine.
    nothing witty here...

  59. #59
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    make the seattube steeper and voila, it works just fine.
    Sounds like you want an Intense SS bike. But Steep ST and slack HA sounds like a recipe for a confused bike; IMHO. But when I say slack I mean 65* or less slack not 67*
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,374
    I like everything so far about the RFX except for one thing and it has been stated many times before, but I'll say it again - please lower the BB height. 14" (or 14+") for the latest config. is just too high. Dropping it to 13.75-13.8" is by no means putting it in the (and I hesitate to even use the term) SS category. The Yeti 7 with 178mm of travel is using a 13.8" BB height with a 545mm axle to crown fork. The Yeti is by no means a SS bike and I honestly think the RFX gets more things right geometry/fit-wise than the 7, except for the BB height. Dave, please reconsider the BB height based around a 160mm fork and drop it about 1/4". Cheers.

  61. #61
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy
    Dave, please reconsider the BB height based around a 160mm fork and drop it about 1/4". Cheers.
    I second that.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  62. #62
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,566
    C'mon, are there really that many slopwstyle riders out there willing to pay $2500 plus for a slopestyle frame? Why; when the bottle rocket is available for what, half the price or less? IMO, slopestyle and the RFX do not belong together.
    ****

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2w4s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    Sounds like you want an Intense SS bike. But Steep ST and slack HA sounds like a recipe for a confused bike; IMHO. But when I say slack I mean 65* or less slack not 67*
    I would like an Intense SS, but it has a slack Seattube angle. I know you ride a 6point, it has a steep seattube and slackish HA so i'm not sure what you're saying. I also want a 66HA, 72SA and ~13.75 BB, does that sound confused?

    C'mon, are there really that many slopwstyle riders out there willing to pay $2500 plus for a slopestyle frame? Why; when the bottle rocket is available for what, half the price or less? IMO, slopestyle and the RFX do not belong together.
    Again, I don't think anybody is asking for a true SS bike. Is it really that confusing?
    nothing witty here...

  64. #64
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325

    Regarding the BB height

    Maybe people are fixating on the numbers without considering what DT said:

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    The BB will go to 14.1", WITH 2.5 Nevegals, and WITH a 550mm A-C 'fork" sitting under a standard 1.5" diameter external headset cup. This is considerably lower than the 07-08 RFX with same parts and tires, both at rest and Certainly with rider sitting on it. If someone wants an even longer fork with minimal geo change then the zero stack lower head bearing shows it's advantage by reducing overall height by about 15mm.
    DT
    The '08's were spec'd at 14.1", but that was with smaller tires and a 535mm fork. With the specs DT mentions above you'd be pushing 14.75" on an '08.

    So really he's dropping the BB at least 1/2" compared to the '08, maybe more depending on build. AND increasing travel & sag.

    So numbers aside, I think it will ride nice and low

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    "That's not possible. With the ultra-slack angles it will pedal uphill like crap"

    But, that's where ETA, U-turn, etc, come into play on the climbs. I can get my 67deg HA "revised RFX" up to 70-71 deg with ETA fully compressed and helps plently, especially up long and steep fireroad climbs. With RFX bike weight close to 36lbs in a large, I couldn't climb anything long comfortably without steeping the HA with the adjustable fork. I think you can slack the new RFX down to 66.5 deg (w/540-545mm a2c 160mm fork and 2.5 tires) and it will still climb alright when combined with an adjustable fork with at least 2-4" of adjustability and climbing friendly ST angle.

    JG
    Ride On!

  66. #66
    the refurbished one
    Reputation: hball's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    704
    no tapered headtube. looks just ugly and fork change between 2 or 3 bikes would no longer be possible. just marketing crap. 1.5 didnt make it to all bikes, so why should 1.5-1.125? unnecessary new standard #1!

    no X12 as long as there is no KING kit available. unnecessary new standard #2!
    does it need a thru axle? the dw seems to bee so much stiffer. is there sth. that ismmmmore then stiff?

    just stay with the geo as it is now. 07/08 and/or current 5spot are spot on!

    BB ist just right at 14"-14.1" @ 160mm!! everything under 14" is for CC racers. or are you all riding just fireroads!?
    i would be fine with 14.5" too.

    cheers
    Sokrates is dead, Galilei is dead, Newton is dead, Einstein is dead, Pantani is dead and i am feeling sick too.

  67. #67
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    I also want a 66HA, 72SA and ~13.75 BB, does that sound confused?
    Nope. I just had a different idea of a mini DH bike.
    Quote Originally Posted by hball
    BB ist just right at 14"-14.1" @ 160mm!! everything under 14" is for CC racers. or are you all riding just fireroads!?
    cheers
    No. my guess is we pump more than we pedal.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,374
    Quote Originally Posted by hball
    everything under 14" is for CC racers. or are you all riding just fireroads!?
    i would be fine with 14.5" too.

    cheers
    My Sunday is under 14" with 8" of travel, my Meta 6 is 13.6" with 6" of travel. There are plenty of examples of bikes with 6" or more of travel and sub-14" BB heights. I can guarantee you that I ride some super-rocky trails and have no issue. 14.5 is rediculous.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2w4s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    Nope. I just had a different idea of a mini DH bike.
    haha, we probably have the same idea but i've just given up hope of actually seeing one built for mass production any time soon. ideally I'd like a 65HA, 13"BB with exact scaled down DH dimensions like the IH SSO. What's your idea?

    FM is right though, the new RFX's geo looks pretty spot on, lower than the '07-'08 by 1/2 inch with more travel, I really can't wait to see it.
    nothing witty here...

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2w4s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy
    My Sunday is under 14" with 8" of travel, my Meta 6 is 13.6" with 6" of travel. There are plenty of examples of bikes with 6" or more of travel and sub-14" BB heights. I can guarantee you that I ride some super-rocky trails and have no issue. 14.5 is rediculous.

    [DEVILSADVOCATE]but do you CLIMB super-rocky trails?[/DEVILSADVOCATE]
    nothing witty here...

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,374
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    [DEVILSADVOCATE]but do you CLIMB super-rocky trails?[/DEVILSADVOCATE]
    Absolutely
    But I do have (a)shorter than 175mm cranks (b)a hub with high engagement points (c)skill

  72. #72
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy
    Absolutely
    But I do have (a)shorter than 175mm cranks (b)a hub with high engagement points (c)skill
    Darn, I have all but (c). How critical is (c)?
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G-AIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    I would like an Intense SS, but it has a slack Seattube angle.
    The Intense SS has a 74* ST angle. Sounds pretty steep to me.

    Have you checked out the THE PATH's Ventana El Ciclon? 66* HA, 74* SA, 13.1BB, 5" of travel. Word is it is very stable climbing.

    TG

  74. #74
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    haha, we probably have the same idea but i've just given up hope of actually seeing one built for mass production any time soon.
    You might just want one of these bikes:

    EL CICLON “PATH SPECIAL EDITION

    HA = 66*
    BB = 13.1
    SA = 74
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Maybe people are fixating on the numbers without considering what DT said:



    The '08's were spec'd at 14.1", but that was with smaller tires and a 535mm fork. With the specs DT mentions above you'd be pushing 14.75" on an '08.

    So really he's dropping the BB at least 1/2" compared to the '08, maybe more depending on build. AND increasing travel & sag.

    So numbers aside, I think it will ride nice and low
    Good point, the 2010 RFX should feel much lower and allow for more fork/shock possibilities without jacking you up too high. On my 06' RFX with smallish 541mm (160mm) fork and beefy 2.4 tires, my BB ht was 14.75". Now with shorter spot seat stay, it crept down just a bit to 14.5" and would be much lower with smaller tires in the 2.3 size, but I don't like small, low volumed tires for rougher riding.

    So, I love the idea of a 14-14.1" BB with big 2.5 tires, should be just about right and if those want lower, just run smaller tires or low volumed tires like Maxxis HR's and Minions in 2.35 size. I am pretty sure those would drop me down about another 1/2" or so from my current set-up, but I would miss the cush and compliancy of the big beefs (2.4 Conti RQ's) that I have come to love in the rough and still roll well in most other conditions.

    JG
    Ride On!

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2w4s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    You might just want one of these bikes:

    EL CICLON “PATH SPECIAL EDITION

    HA = 66*
    BB = 13.1
    SA = 74
    let's just say that i've talked to tani several times about that bike.
    nothing witty here...

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G-AIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    let's just say that i've talked to tani several times about that bike.
    Me too. What's holding you back? Have you had a chance to ride one yet?

    TG

  78. #78
    the refurbished one
    Reputation: hball's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy
    ...14.5 is rediculous.
    so, the 07/08 RFX is ridiculous!?

    i drove some bikes with BBs under 14" and they just dont work in the terrain we have here. you are smacking your pedals on section where you have to pedal (if you dont, you have to walk) or you hit your bash extrem hard on "step ups".

    they feel different and fine when its going down and you do not have to pedal a lot. thats why the most DH bikes with low BBs feel right, but its their geo too.

    the RFX is for up and down and tech flat trails.

    take the specy sx trail for example. it is called to have a low center of gravity and it turns like on rails but it has 14+" BB.

    long speach short, the estimated 14,1" are a good compromise in my opinion. DT should stick to the geo and other numbers he has right now. it will ride sweet!

    cheers
    Sokrates is dead, Galilei is dead, Newton is dead, Einstein is dead, Pantani is dead and i am feeling sick too.

  79. #79
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    hball,

    Which region are you in? Incidentally, once I put a CCDB on my 06 RFX, pedal strikes were more common.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2w4s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by G-AIR
    Me too. What's holding you back? Have you had a chance to ride one yet?

    TG
    i'm waiting to meet a super rich model/movie star, marry her and become a trophy husband. Actually, I'm trying to decide if I want to build a hardtail or a susp. bike. I still have my 6point and really do like it and I'm not sure I want to get rid of it yet.
    nothing witty here...

  81. #81
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,412
    I've teetered on a 14+" BB on my previous DW link bike and much prefer my current carvy non-DW set up with a 13.25" BB (73 SA & 67HA, 6"). My silly low BB does take some awareness - but it is all second nature now and I did not have any issues on my rides on the Sierra Crest (Hole in the Ground).

    For me, low = carving and stability. More sports car than tractor.

    Just the fact that Dave is asking for feedback from the enthusiast community, makes me want to get on the homer wagon. Nice one! You guys have it good!

    P

  82. #82
    the refurbished one
    Reputation: hball's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    hball,

    Which region are you in?...
    southern germany. bawü, bavaria, pfalz, lago di garda (italy), swiss alps are the regions i am talking about.
    Sokrates is dead, Galilei is dead, Newton is dead, Einstein is dead, Pantani is dead and i am feeling sick too.

  83. #83
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,027
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    dammit, i wish somebody had told me this 4 years ago when I got my first MiniDH bike and rode it everywhere thru rocks, uphill and downhill.

    make the seattube steeper and voila, it works just fine.
    Just because you rode it everywhere does not mean it's worth a damn at climbing. It's simply the way things are. I rode my full-on DH bikes up some pretty long/big climbs, but they also sucked at it. If you're going to adjust the seatube, then why leave the HT angle alone? If you want it slacker you can always put a bigger fork on it, that would be a hell of a lot more versatile than starting with a low bike and then putting a bigger fork on it to make it ultra-chopper (62° ht anyone?).

    Having a steep seattube isn't going to reduce the front wheel-flop up steep stuff much that you'll get with an ultra-slack headtube angle, it also shifts your weight back further, which isn't going to help either.

    As I said before, this isn't the bike to be trying to do this with, it would only make it better at slope style downhill, and the RFX isn't about one discipline.

    BB shouldn't be jacked way to high, so 14" is a good number, but going to 13.5 gets rediculous with a bike that is meant to be ridden everywhere.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  84. #84
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,566
    Allright, I did a little photochopping with a pic of an '08 RFX. Dropped the BB, slackened the head tube, and threw a bunch of steaze at it. This is what came out, here's your slopestyle RFX:

    ****

  85. #85
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,172
    Yes, 74deg. seat angle would be very welcome, indeed. You know, they have lay back seat posts and droppers, but not lay forward ones. I always struggle with the seat angles being too slack.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  86. #86
    Making fat cool since '71
    Reputation: ImaKlyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    Just another vote for the 2010 RFX being bent more towards FR/DH than long-legged trail bike. '08 ST/TT sizing though (at least on XL's thank you...). I "need" a FR bike, I want another Turner, liked the DW platforms I've ridden (small sample size).

    Brock...
    Are the wheels roundish? Ride it.

    Disciples Of Dirt, come ride with us.

  87. #87
    from 0 - sideways 3.2 sec
    Reputation: derekr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,478
    Since the RFX is going to be 6"+ bike it would be insane not to consider the 1.5 HT and 12mm rear, if anyone dosent want these options get a 5 spot? Otherwise the bikes will be too similar except for travel. Those are *some* of the options i'm liking about the new RFX.

    As for bottom bracket height 14.5" seems way too high, my Nicolai is 13.5" and although i have the odd pedal strike (Due to midstroke blow thru) it dosent feel low slung atall.
    I used to ride a VP-Free with around 14.5"+ BB and it was way too high, most people messed with different sized shocks to lower it. I live in N/E Scotland and its very rocky here and have no problems climbing, if you have a solid suspension setup that dosent wallow and bob BB height over 13" shouldnt be a problem.

    Just my 2p worth
    Visit - www.gravity-sports.co.uk - Exclusive high end MTB Products

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by derekr
    Since the RFX is going to be 6"+ bike it would be insane not to consider the 1.5 HT and 12mm rear, if anyone dosent want these options get a 5 spot? Otherwise the bikes will be too similar except for travel. Those are *some* of the options i'm liking about the new RFX.

    As for bottom bracket height 14.5" seems way too high, my Nicolai is 13.5" and although i have the odd pedal strike (Due to midstroke blow thru) it dosent feel low slung atall.
    I used to ride a VP-Free with around 14.5"+ BB and it was way too high, most people messed with different sized shocks to lower it. I live in N/E Scotland and its very rocky here and have no problems climbing, if you have a solid suspension setup that dosent wallow and bob BB height over 13" shouldnt be a problem.

    Just my 2p worth
    Where did you get 14.5"?

  89. #89
    Monkey Wrench
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    351
    I'm all for a tapered head tube on this bike. It will open up fork options which will be geared specifically to bikes like the RFX, plus, you can always run an adapter cup on the lower half to use a traditional 1 1/8 fork.

    X12 is a great system. I love my RWS skewers on the DT EX1750's, and to have it that much more solid in the rear without going to the bigger chainline (which would mean heavier parts all around) would be wonderful. It is quite similar to the Maxle rear end (correct me if I'm wrong), so it would be worth exploring who is closer to making it a standard. If we already have I9, DT, Mavic, Hope, Sun/Ringle, Acros, and Tune on board, there isn't alot to complain about for hub availability. I'm sure Chris King will come around when they see the standard take off. Shimano tried to make a thru-Saint rear hub work, and the standard flopped - they need to see it coming from the outside when it comes to trail/FR bikes.

    An extra high BB will kill the handling of this bike. If you need more BB clearance, get yourself a Hammerschmidt. If you still hit your pedals on rocks, get a hub with quick engagement and work on your timing skills.
    Let me fix your bike @ ordinarybicycle.net in Louisville, CO

  90. #90
    the refurbished one
    Reputation: hball's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    704

    New question here. huh!?

    i was me talking about 14.5". reading the thread helps sometimes!

    every 07/08 RFX with 2.5" tires and a fox 36 up front will end with a ~14.5" BB.
    and now you are all saying these bikes ride like crap and are ridiculous floppy!?

    are you riding a RFX at the moment or what are you talking about?

    and do not forget that the BB height is not a static height. the riding height of the BB varied with shock and fork sag.

    no matter what the new BB height will be, it is more important that the new RFX handles as balanced as the old one does.

    and i have no doubt that DT will do everything that this happens!

    cheers
    Sokrates is dead, Galilei is dead, Newton is dead, Einstein is dead, Pantani is dead and i am feeling sick too.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by hball
    i was me talking about 14.5". reading the thread helps sometimes!

    every 07/08 RFX with 2.5" tires and a fox 36 up front will end with a ~14.5" BB.
    and now you are all saying these bikes ride like crap and are ridiculous floppy!?

    are you riding a RFX at the moment or what are you talking about?
    Is this aimed at me? I thought this thread was about the '10 RFX, about which DT stated:

    Quote Originally Posted by Turnerbikes
    The reason the travel is creeping above 160 as posted on line is that the dw-link pedals so well, why not! The BB will go to 14.1", WITH 2.5 Nevegals, and WITH a 550mm A-C 'fork" sitting under a standard 1.5" diameter external headset cup. This is considerably lower than the 07-08 RFX with same parts and tires, both at rest and Certainly with rider sitting on it. If someone wants an even longer fork with minimal geo change then the zero stack lower head bearing shows it's advantage by reducing overall height by about 15mm.

  92. #92
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,391
    I get the feeling there's gonna be a proto-type @ Sea Otter.

    Lots o RFX talk going on.

  93. #93
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,027
    Quote Originally Posted by hball
    i was me talking about 14.5". reading the thread helps sometimes!

    every 07/08 RFX with 2.5" tires and a fox 36 up front will end with a ~14.5" BB.
    and now you are all saying these bikes ride like crap and are ridiculous floppy!?

    are you riding a RFX at the moment or what are you talking about?

    and do not forget that the BB height is not a static height. the riding height of the BB varied with shock and fork sag.

    no matter what the new BB height will be, it is more important that the new RFX handles as balanced as the old one does.

    and i have no doubt that DT will do everything that this happens!

    cheers
    My 05 6pack was no higher than 14.25 with a 170mm 66 and 2.5ish tires.

    The 07/08 RFXs were dropped down a little more, so around 14 to 14.1 is right on the money with the OEM shock size.

    Once again, I'm all for reasonable BB height, it could even be sub 14, but it can't be like 13.5, DT realizes that people are going to put different forks on there, some people will put Fox 36s and lyrics, and some will go with 66 ATAs and maybe rc3s/totems. I think the worst possible situation would be to put a shorter fork on it and have the angles be too steep. It should be resonably slack with the "normal" sized forks that will go on the bike. If a fox talas gives a 13.75" BB and the 66 RC3 gives 14.1, then that is just the way it has to be. If it wasn't like that the bike would get too low with the shorter forks, or too high with the longer ones. I think people keep missing the point that this bike is going to be outfitted with different kinds of forks, which is one of the benefits of the RFX (versatility).
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  94. #94
    Committed
    Reputation: 1soulrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    The 07/08 RFXs were dropped down a little more, so around 14 to 14.1 is right on the money with the OEM shock size.
    My 07/08 RFX sat at 14.3" with a TALAS 36 (160mm) and 2.25/2.3 tires. To get the bb to 14.1 you would need a shorter fork or way tiny tires. 14.5 bb with bigger tires is common for the 07/08.

  95. #95
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,027
    Quote Originally Posted by 1soulrider
    My 07/08 RFX sat at 14.3" with a TALAS 36 (160mm) and 2.25/2.3 tires. To get the bb to 14.1 you would need a shorter fork or way tiny tires. 14.5 bb with bigger tires is common for the 07/08.
    Damn...wierd. I thought they were slightly lower than the 'packs.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  96. #96
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Wouldn't surprise me in the least. DT is somewhat of a marketing genious.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    It will be spec'd with the RP23, but in the 8.5 x 2.5 length, the compression ratio will make it a prime candidate for the coil shock addict. I will think about buying a little box of the DHX RC4s as an option as I know some of you must have coil but will not be able to swing the 6-8 hundred for a CCDB or Avy. The RC4 resy is pretty big though, so fitting it will make it tough to keep all the tubes straight!! argh.

    DT
    Dave,
    I would hope you would consider the 8.75 x 2.5" shock size instead of the 8.5x2.5".
    Using a 8.75" i2i allows owners to switch it to 8.5" i2i and lower the BB height. This would appease the folks that want a lower BB. Also, you can use a 8.75x2.75 shock for more travel as another option.
    I guess the only issue would be the rp23 doesn't come in 8.75" i2i. But I am sure you could get FOX to help you out.
    I don't understand why you wouldn't build that flexibility into the bike!

  98. #98
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,325
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine
    I don't understand why you wouldn't build that flexibility into the bike!
    'Cause it's a DW link and supposedly they don't work like that. According to DW & Turner you've got to run the stock rockers, shock length and correct sag to get the suspension kinematics working properly. A shorter shock would change the angles of the swing links and then you'd get anti-stoke instead of anti-squat. Or something.

    Anyways... if you want a lower BB just get a 5-spot and put a Talas 36 on it, done!

    At 1/2+ lower than the '08 RFX and with more travel & sag too, it'll be plenty low.
    Last edited by FM; 01-26-2009 at 10:38 PM.

  99. #99
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,412
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    'Cause it's a DW link and supposedly they don't work like that. According to DW & Turner you've got to run the stock rockers, shock length and correct sag to get the suspension kinematics working properly. A shorter shock would change the angles of the swing links and then you'd get anti-stoke instead of anti-squat. Or something.

    Anyways... if you want a lower BB just get a 5-spot and put a Talas 36 on it, done!

    At 1/2+ lower than the '08 with more travel & sag too, it'll be plenty low.
    I had a DW-Link 04 Iron Horse Hollowpoint that had adjustable travel built in. 3.75" & 4.5" It even had a 5" rocker. Did it have an effect? I'm sure it did, but not that any riders pronounced negativity on. So it is possible, but the Turner version might be super tweaky for a very specific effect.

    Wormvine is referring to what can be done to an IH 6 Point (perhaps even 7 Point). He has loads of DW link riding/modding experience, and his point is very valid. I like it! I can have my low BB, and the rock crawlers can have their high BB.

    Wormvine's idea is valid to the point that without various rockers and shock lengths, I don't know what you homers will be experimenting with after the DW conversion. Perhaps Turner Tequila or post ride darkies.

    P

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,613
    I couldn't imagine reading through all the garbage and building a bike from it...More power to ya DT.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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