Results 1 to 54 of 54
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    627

    RFX 4.0 VS. Burner 3.1

    don't think this has been posted yet, another good review of the RFX with a bit of comparison to the Burner

    Video Review of the new Turner RFX - Real World Test

    Anyone have more insight on how the RFX pedals/climbs compared to the Turner Burner? Do you sacrifice any nimbleness or responsiveness in slow moving terrain? Seems that if you don't loose anything on the climbs the RFX would be a no brainer choice since it would outperform the Burner on the descents?

    So I guess my question is is there any reason to choose the Burner over the new RFX maybe besides a slight cost savings?

    Not trying to undermine the Burner as its a rad "do it all" bike.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    193
    I'd take the burner if i did most my riding in relatively flat terrain. The mini-DH properties of the burner are really good so.. if you want a bike for XC and all mountain the burner would be great, where the RFX will be a bit much for the XC element.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    I don't know about that Adaka... I woulda been with that thinking up until recently when I started a new line of thought on the travel vs. terrain. In the last few days my mind went spinning off down this different view of how much travel is trail, All-Mountain or Enduro? Why should a less aggressive rider choose less comfort? A less aggressive, i.e., someone not totally enduroripping every descent, still wants maximum control and more than likely even MORE comfort which is achieved with more travel. Then we have geometry.... the same geo that makes it possible for the more enduroific riders to rail the descents is also the same geometry that is easier to ride all the time and will help them progress on tough terrain more quickly, or at least more confidently. An awesome rider like Kidwoo would kick most of our asses on a Cromag hardtail, as it has the slack head angle and fat tire clearance of an all'duro bike like RFX. Will it be as comforatable for a long Ride? No way, but a good rider will be standing up a lot, picking good lines, leaping over a lot of chatter etc and make a less comfortable bike work. The 'trail' rider that is 'over biked' will be enjoying more traction, control and comfort and that is where the line just went gray for me. Anyone else have a comment on this?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    123
    I think you've tried to invent three new pieces of sarcastic enduro slang (or sarcduroslang as I've always liked to call it)!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    311
    I ride a Burner 3.0 as my everyday bike and have ridden the RFX 2x.

    The RFX rides nearly the same as a Burner. It turns a little easier in uphill switchbacks. It can take a little bigger hits. But the two geometries basically overlay. The tiny bit higher BB is cancelled out by the sag. Virtual top tube, reach etc.. all the nearly the same.

    I am a big guy and ride reasonably aggressive, I do not shy away from a good climb. I can generate some twist in the Burner, I was not able to feel that twist in the RFX, just like its not there in my Czar.

    At no point did I feel that the RFX was too slack. It actually felt as responsive or more responsive than my Burner.

    I did ride the RFX with the Pike and the Fox36RC2. At the time I found that the Pike is much more suited. Since then I have put a Fox36 on my Burner and it felt like $hit. But now I have it working right, 15 PSI less than recommended and low speed compression dialed as low as it will go.

    Short answer is that the RFX climbs better than a Burner. I love my Burner, but am very much looking forward to getting a big box from Turner soon.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fresh tracks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes View Post
    I don't know about that Adaka... I woulda been with that thinking up until recently when I started a new line of thought on the travel vs. terrain. In the last few days my mind went spinning off down this different view of how much travel is trail, All-Mountain or Enduro? Why should a less aggressive rider choose less comfort? A less aggressive, i.e., someone not totally enduroripping every descent, still wants maximum control and more than likely even MORE comfort which is achieved with more travel. Then we have geometry.... the same geo that makes it possible for the more enduroific riders to rail the descents is also the same geometry that is easier to ride all the time and will help them progress on tough terrain more quickly, or at least more confidently. An awesome rider like Kidwoo would kick most of our asses on a Cromag hardtail, as it has the slack head angle and fat tire clearance of an all'duro bike like RFX. Will it be as comforatable for a long Ride? No way, but a good rider will be standing up a lot, picking good lines, leaping over a lot of chatter etc and make a less comfortable bike work. The 'trail' rider that is 'over biked' will be enjoying more traction, control and comfort and that is where the line just went gray for me. Anyone else have a comment on this?
    I think there's definitely merit in this view. There is a confidence and comfort booster in having a bike with more travel than you necessarily need. The only times when it becomes a negative is when the trails turn really mild and the extra travel sucks the life out of the trail, flattening mild trail features that would have otherwise held more interest and challenge. The other is when your friends are putting down the hammer on those less technical trails and you're lugging the bigger bike trying to chase them down. There is a way to put some of that challenge back though on those mild days - go light fast rolling tyres.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by fresh tracks View Post
    The other is when your friends are putting down the hammer on those less technical trails and you're lugging the bigger bike trying to chase them down.
    The RFX is lighter and stiffer than the Burner. I would not want to race against myself on a Burner VS an RFX on any trail.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    406
    I own a Burner 3.0 and just ordered an RFX. Living in the PNW I see use for both bikes and am excited to get a full Turner stable again!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,575
    I like your logic DT, I have no issues riding my Warden (sorry, but the RFX hadn't been released when I bought!) on easier trails that for 90% of the time don't come near to pushing the bike to its limit. As you say, more comfort and traction when the going is easy, and more enduroability when it gets endurognarly. I thought long and hard about whether to go for one of the new-school trail bikes (Endorphin, Scout, Flux etc) or a more serious AM bike (Warden, Patrol, RFX etc) and so far don't regret my decision one bit (side note, the Burner sat squarely in the middle of those two categories in my mind, and I would have bought one if I wasn't smack bang in between L and XL). Maybe ask me again after February, I've got a riding vacation planned with a couple of all-day epics and one over-nighter....

    So following on from this logic, will the Burner be made obsolete by the new carbon flux, which hopefully has 130mm travel and Burner-like geometry?

  10. #10
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,302
    Is there an upper limit to the travel in this scenario? I have been squarely in the over-biked/under-skilled category of rider for as long as over-bikes were available. Why not look at a 180, 190 or 200 mm travel RFX type bike? With the DW link and the ability to tune in climbing ability and maintain descending cush and control, is more always going to be better within the limits of what others have said here?

  11. #11
    "Furruccio....Bite Me!"
    Reputation: Zeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by rmac View Post
    Is there an upper limit to the travel in this scenario? I have been squarely in the over-biked/under-skilled category of rider for as long as over-bikes were available.?
    Agreed. I refer to it as bringing a gun to a knife fight

  12. #12
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by fresh tracks View Post
    I think there's definitely merit in this view. There is a confidence and comfort booster in having a bike with more travel than you necessarily need. The only times when it becomes a negative is when the trails turn really mild and the extra travel sucks the life out of the trail, flattening mild trail features that would have otherwise held more interest and challenge. The other is when your friends are putting down the hammer on those less technical trails and you're lugging the bigger bike trying to chase them down. There is a way to put some of that challenge back though on those mild days - go light fast rolling tyres.
    ^^this^^


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    This is why I have two bikes. The RFX is hardly the tool for the job on a longish, backcountry ride with 6000' of climbing. I would rather take my shorter travel, lighter 29r for that.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by rmac View Post
    is more always going to be better within the limits of what others have said here?
    The upper limit is always being pushed, if you can build a bike at 27lbs and have an extra 20mm of forgiveness, why not?

    See this snapshot of history;

    1994
    The first 150 production Turner mountain bike frames were built by Ventana Mountain Bikes USA. These bikes were known only as “the Turner bike” until reviewed by the magazine “Mountain Bike Action”, where the magazine dubbed it the “Turner Burner”.[4] The “Turner Burner” name would be applied to many of Turner’s future designs. The Burner has 2.75” inches rear suspension travel with a down hill race option of 3.6 inches.

    I am sure that some one in 1994 was thinking that 2.75" of travel for an XC bike is overkill and 3.6" is just crazy, when could you ever need that much suspension?????

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    311
    The RFX is going to be my shorter travel lighter bike.


  16. #16
    Kiwi that Flew
    Reputation: deanopatoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    740
    The RFX will be my heavy build 5Spot/Lyrik replacement. My Flux covers the other riding spectrum.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    Quote Originally Posted by deanopatoni View Post
    The RFX will be my heavy build 5Spot/Lyrik replacement. My Flux covers the other riding spectrum.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Same here. I'm also hoping to put a Lyrik on it with an ELEVENSIX.

    On the other hand, I was amazed how well the HD3 pedaled. On some of those longer mile days I anticipate it being a hard choice as to which bike to grab.

  18. #18
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,302
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Same here. I'm also hoping to put a Lyrik on it with an ELEVENSIX.

    On the other hand, I was amazed how well the HD3 pedaled. On some of those longer mile days I anticipate it being a hard choice as to which bike to grab.
    I still love my '10 Spot/Lyrik. I was thinking it may have close to 10,000 miles on it by now. Maybe if the RFX was a 180 bike/fork I would be more tempted.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by rmac View Post
    I still love my '10 Spot/Lyrik. I was thinking it may have close to 10,000 miles on it by now. Maybe if the RFX was a 180 bike/fork I would be more tempted.
    On paper, I was certain that I did not even want an RFX since its so close to my 5 month old Burner, but then I rode one.

    There is more that went into this bike than just adding a bit a travel.

    (and you can run a 180mm travel fork)

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    Quote Originally Posted by rmac View Post
    I still love my '10 Spot/Lyrik. I was thinking it may have close to 10,000 miles on it by now. Maybe if the RFX was a 180 bike/fork I would be more tempted.
    Well then, maybe I could tempt you with a Ti coil MX tune or Pushed Monarch Plus off my 2010 5 spot. I won't be needing them here shortly.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    627
    cool thanks for some more insight

    currently own a Burner 3.0 and its been quite the quiver killer...not sure If i would ever need to sell it, but want to try a carbon bike next.

    I like riding everything from xc,am,dh, and jumping so bikes like the RFX and HD3 are on the radar....Could you do all that stuff on a 2.75" xc bike from the 90's?...Sure, but why would you want to

  22. #22
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,652
    As a 57 year old man I'm with Dave on this. I too bought a Warden and my wife would have a conniption if I replaced it so soon. The Warden is currently my only mountain bike and it is not too much on tamer trails. Is it comfortable? Absolutely. It handles the tight & twisty sections very well. It could be lighter, but the RFX takes care of that nicely. As for 6000' of climbing, I'm going to assume 6000' of descending as well and I'm not willing to compromise on that.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  23. #23
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,302
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Well then, maybe I could tempt you with a Ti coil MX tune or Pushed Monarch Plus off my 2010 5 spot. I won't be needing them here shortly.
    Someone will definitely want that...

    Quote Originally Posted by renoirbud View Post
    On paper, I was certain that I did not even want an RFX since its so close to my 5 month old Burner, but then I rode one.

    There is more that went into this bike than just adding a bit a travel.

    (and you can run a 180mm travel fork)
    Understood. No intention of demeaning the RFX (although it did sound a little like that in my earlier comment). I am just one of those riders that usually waits for a bike to break a couple of times before buying a new one (and the Spot has put up with me longer than any previous bike).

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    500
    Dave, I understand what you are thinking hear. I might add though as I add travel does the bike become more capable of travelling faster over rougher terrain? Do I need to run burlier rims, tires, bigger brakes? Do I need a frame that is stronger/heavier? This might be a little off topic but I think its worth considering. It kind of baffles me that as bikes have become more capable trail builders are building smoother more buffed out trails. So how does a bike designer choose what to follow? Do you build short travel but with slacker head angles, lower BB's and longer WB? It allmost is a decision each rider needs to think about. The trails they like what is the correct tool. As with any tool the better I expect it to perform the more it becomes specific to the task. I can try and use the multi-tool but than does it do anything well? I can only imagine how difficult it must be to decide what trend to follow or ignore when choosing what to design. Perhaps the reason for the long wait for the RFX 4.0. Do I need a new bike? My 05' SixPack is still fun to ride but would I have more fun on a new one? So maybe 6" provides more comfort than 4" but does that 6" bike end up weighing 2-3lbs more? Does that 6" bike mean I can descend faster? and do I want that front wheel farther out in front of me? now can I get around that tight corner? Well I would come back to what is the best tool for a given trail. Really it all comes back to there is always going to be compromises but how can I minimize them? Glad to see the new RFX geo where its at.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    I can assure you 'Racer, that the RFX has the least amount of compromises of any of the bikes on the market in it's class regardless of where one rides, how fast or how well. haha

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    Best tool for a given trail? DHracer, translated what I think DT is saying is that he didn't design the RFX to ride Flowtobahn trails. If the trend he wanted to follow was IMBA spec'd one-way flow trails with berms to help you turn and a tranny on every jump to help you land then my guess is the RFX would have the shortest chainstays on the planet.

    Build it burly as your endurolicious ride or consider a lighter build and it becomes a sweet trail bike that tips the scales at 27lb. You can have your cake and eat it too. Don't overthink it.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    500
    I will be in Palm Desert first week of Nov. visiting the parents hopefully I can get over to see you and Demo a RFX. if I can't any time frame when Jeff at DIRT MERCHANT BIKES might recieve his? Thanks

  28. #28
    roots, rocks, rhythm
    Reputation: Dawgprimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    657
    Completely agree with DT!
    My thoughts exactly and the reason I use my '08 RFX as my XC/free ride bike!
    Not the best climber then a Flux/Czar (As an example) but it makes up on the down! I have owed and rode a 5-spot which I enjoyed!!
    I want the comfort and the slack head angle is not an issue for me because of the down.

    I guess for me the issue I have with the new RFX is that it is Carbon (Small issue...hell I still ride my '00 RFX!) and it won't come in XXL.
    (Weight for me is not an issue and I am happy with aluminium. Also, I understand that DT is in the business to make $$ and XXL don't make him any.)

    cheers,
    kevin

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    31
    In same boat as some others here. Built up a Burner 3.0 10 months ago thinking this would be the last bike I would ever need (already have a hardtail, roadbike, a 2011 Flux - and now a Cyclosys on order).

    The Flux (eBay) and Burner entered the stable after trying to keep up with some pals riding their FS rigs on some gnarly descents and finding out how severely disadvantaged I was on my hardtail.

    Fast forward to now and I'm left wondering if I should have waited for the RFX, had I known it was in the pipeline at the time. From what I read here including from DT himself is the RFX wins on both descending and climbing with no compromise anywhere.

    Seriously thinking of ditching both the Flux and Burner in favour of an RFX, as if I do selling the Flux and Burner would probably pay for the RFX anyway!

    The only reservations I have is that it's carbon & with a push-fit BB. It's a beautiful looking bike and carbon must save some weight, but as it would be my last bike purchase (like the Burner was supposed to be!) I'm left wondering what kind of state it would be in 10 years down the road compared to the bombproof Burner.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Agster View Post
    The only reservations I have is that it's carbon & with a push-fit BB. It's a beautiful looking bike and carbon must save some weight, but as it would be my last bike purchase (like the Burner was supposed to be!) I'm left wondering what kind of state it would be in 10 years down the road compared to the bombproof Burner.
    I would be more concerned about metal fatigue in an aluminum frame 10 years from now than how the carbon is holding up. As for press-fit, that is a can of worms. I have it on one bike and have never had any issues. I would think most of the horror stories are from cheaply made carbon frames that don't have the strict QA/QC that comes with a top-notch outfit like Turner. If the shell is out of tolerance of course it's going to creak or have play but even then you could solve the problem with a press fit bb that threads together inside the shell.

    Boost is more annoying IMO.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    311
    I have had multiple bikes with PF30 BBs, I have never had an issue.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    The only reason we put the PF30 BB in the RFX was because of the Czar. It has been a non issue. I was going thru the demos before Saturdays demo and popped chains off the ring to check the bearings, and even the cheapo BB that comes with GX are spinning fine, and on the morning group ride I didn't hear a peep out of them. I DID hear the noise of the one chain I forgot to lube.... These bikes are washed after every event, I know they are not that old, but in the threaded Shimano BB days I went thru 2 BB a year personally. When we spec a Shimano crank we use Praxis and have only heard of one bearing go out, and that was not a PF problem it was random bearing quality issue. We are now offering the Wheels Thread together BB for those that want an upgrade as they come with Enduro bearings and spin like greased glass. As for those that whine about special tools? Same type used for headset R&R.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    I think the issue with press fit is more about creaking than bad bearings? I use grease that contains high amounts of PTFE. Certainly locktite is a no no.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    31
    Yes my concern about press fit was more to do with play developing over time. If play developed due to wear on the BB then no problem just fit a new one, if on the frame itself then I guess your pooped. I've not had press fit before so maybe I'm worrying about nothing, after all headsets are press fit regardless of the frame material. A BB gets more abuse though and being an old school engineer threaded just sounds like a more solid connection.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Agster View Post
    Yes my concern about press fit was more to do with play developing over time. If play developed due to wear on the BB then no problem just fit a new one, if on the frame itself then I guess your pooped. I've not had press fit before so maybe I'm worrying about nothing, after all headsets are press fit regardless of the frame material. A BB gets more abuse though and being an old school engineer threaded just sounds like a more solid connection.
    If you had a sloppy shell that wasn't within a mm or hair of 46mm then this is the solution. ENDURO TORQTITE PF30 BOTTOM BRACKET

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    If you had a sloppy shell that wasn't within a mm or hair of 46mm then this is the solution. ENDURO TORQTITE PF30 BOTTOM BRACKET
    Thanks for the link. I guess this and the Wheels BB DT mentions above alleviates my press fit concerns to an extent. I hope some of the other BB manufacturers (e.g. Chris King, Hope) adopt similar solutions in the future. The fact that manufacturers are coming out with these products at all shows that sloppy/worn BB/frame connections can be a problem with press fit, though I can understand why press fit rather than threaded inserts are favored on carbon frames - easier/cheaper to manufacture.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,565
    Very interested in comparing the Burner v3.1 to the RFX myself. The Burner pedals better than any bike I've ridden before but I can sometimes feel it's weight on longer climbs. I've ridden quite a few bikes with over 150mm of travel before and none of them ever feel spritely so I'm very keen on trying one that does!

  38. #38
    Crazed Country Rebel
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,305
    Does anyone know the difference in weight between the frames? I'm guessing it's minimal - if not slightly in favor of the burner.
    Stupid, but sometimes witty. Occasionally brilliant. Slow and fat though.

    Mike Vandeman Sucks Dong

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    31
    According to the Turner website the Burner frame is roughly half a pound heavier...about 250ml of water or half a small water bottle -so don't think the weight difference would be noticeable.

    sm md lg xl
    Burner 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.4
    RFX 6.27 6.53 6.78 6.96
    Last edited by Agster; 10-26-2015 at 11:12 PM.

  40. #40
    Yay! Bikes !
    Reputation: Nick.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Agster View Post
    Thanks for the link. I guess this and the Wheels BB DT mentions above alleviates my press fit concerns to an extent. I hope some of the other BB manufacturers (e.g. Chris King, Hope) adopt similar solutions in the future. The fact that manufacturers are coming out with these products at all shows that sloppy/worn BB/frame connections can be a problem with press fit, though I can understand why press fit rather than threaded inserts are favored on carbon frames - easier/cheaper to manufacture.
    if it hasn't already been mentioned, check this out:
    CONVERSION BB | Praxis Cycles

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    Hey guys,

    Pardon the late reply, I'm the guy in the video that also wrote that review. I've been on Turner for at least 4 years and have known them in and out since 08 or so. Pretty much have a few years on DW link Turners, Sultan, Burner and maybe just a couple hours on RFX now but when I could I put that thing through hell, didn't hold back anything at all. You can't see in the video but solid 2' drops, fast corners etc, you name it.

    Pretty much everything in there and in that video is correct and accurate. I just bought another Burner for myself but probably would have maybe bought an RFX if I could have (I'm a tall ass ****er - just a hair too big for XL but that's what I rode all of 2015). Also our company picked up maybe another 8 brands for next year and I had a choice of everything from Intense to you name it, and I still chose the Turner (and an aluminum one at that), versus something the Intense Carbine 29er, also a super fun and awesome bike.

    Basically I am surprised at how XC the Burner actually is. I figured it would be way more AM for some reason. It climbs amazingly well. That said I clocked my strava times down from the Wasatch Crest down, through the bike parks and some rough ass shit and the Burner eats all of this up. Fastest times ever on the Burner. It really is truly a do it all bike and does it all so well. My one and only complaint actually is just the fork. Not sure if its because I'm a big dude, but remarkably it felt just a hair underpowered for me (that feeling I described in that blog post). So on this new Burner I just ordered and got in, I went to a 160 pike (instead of 150) -- just showed up today actually, and I think this will make enough of a difference to help with that little ommph for just a hair more that I was feeling with the XL Burner with the 150 fork.

    This begs the question about the needs for the RFX (going back to the OP's question and DT's comment too). I've also ridden Ibis Mojo and Pivot Mach 6 (both 6" DW bikes) recently. I took the Mach 6 up and down some super steep shit, stuff that is really fun and a real challenge (Black Forest here in Park City, if anyone's ridden it, which drops you to lower T&G & Link). Basically the Mach 6 climbed so much poorer than the RFX, and was powerful as hell on the downhills for our terrain, almost too powerful. Very similar geometry to the RFX, I believe. I hit my fastest strava time downhill on this too but honestly it was almost boring. This super sketch terrain was almost dull on it, which is cool, but not totally awesome in my opinion. Between the Burner and most 6" bikes I'd actually take the Burner just cause it'd be funner and harder (the reason you're riding that stuff in the first place). But not too hard. The Burner is super flickable too. I like it's slightly longer rear triangle too. It is perfectly "Turner" and there is something to be said for that.

    Admittedly doing the same trail on an RFX would have been way better and funner versus the Mach 6. Basically RFX blows all of them away mostly what I said about balance is spot on and it's the #1 aspect. It is also super super playful too. Ibis bottom bracket is too tall. Just don't like the Pivot... (I had a Mach 429 for about a year, it was a great bike -- but not a fan of that bike and most pivots anyways now).

    The bottom bracket height on the RFX is perfect. Also the Rockshox 2015 and 2016 suspension is way better than what I've ridden at least of the 2016 36 / external res Fox stuff which is stiff and harsh (was on both the Pivot and Ibis, so maybe this is also why I don't like them as much).

    I'm also tall as hell so this adds to me testing the ability of climbing of the RFX. You can see the video. I was really quite surprised with the bike in that regard too. I'm actually surprised with both the Burner and the RFX in general, both are surprisingly amazing bikes. I keep waiting for turner to f'k up something with their bikes over the last couple years at least but haven't seen it yet. Even the King Khan is completely awesome (you gotta try one of those on trail if you haven't yet -- gotta ride it almost to understand). Both the Burner and the RFX have turned me back to 27.5 mostly because they do so well. I'm tall so I usually roll with 29er.

    So basically the RFX is great. Surprisingly good. But it's totally overkill for pretty much anything around here. We have killer awesome, and some challenging terrain (besides our super buff trails too). I still think 140 / 150mm rear travel is the sweet spot for bikes around here at least. The RFX has killer technical ability, but really sorta patches its way into killer climbing too (DW link has a habit of that). You can ride an RFX all day too. I was remarkably impressed. So it can do it all, but just note that it is overkill in my opinion.

    I think there are two ways to really get the most out of the RFX. Be a little bit of a novice rider looking for an awesome experience (burner does that too), or really really push yourself hard on it to get challenging. There is really only one place where I'd personally choose the RFX any day of the week -- southern Utah.

    We should have a bunch if demo for next year we anticipate so I'll also report back in 6 months and I'm sure I'll have some good seat time in them too and see if what I'm saying still holds up. I'll also report back about the Burner 3.1 too with that 160 fork, everything else will be standard (all rockshox stuff, carbon wheels).

    cheers, Andre

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    So, take home message is the RFX is not as much fun because it makes most trails too easy?

    Thanks for the write-up but not sure about the rationale. Less bike equates to more fun? But I think I see your point. For most riding (especially a place like Park City) the RFX is overkill. But the lines are getting blurred with the latest generation of bikes. The 6" travel bikes of today climb and descend better than ever. The HD3 climbs way better than the Mojo SL or HDR. If the RFX climbs half as good or nearly as good as the 5spot or Burner then I only see more fun.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    RFX probably climbs about 75% of the Burner, maybe even more.

    But yes that is what I'm saying. I think the RFX will be a blast and I'll find out for sure ( that's the beauty of doing what we do). But yes I think in a lot of ways and places yes it will be overkill. I know the lines are blurring, we're looking at carrying something like 4 or 5 enduro-esque trailbikes next year. Almost all of them climb well too single or double pivot (some really shifted my perspective on single pivot's climbing ability as shocks are getting so much better). This said I'll still take something like a 140 rear bike personally most of the time. Like I said I had the choice of a whole slew and chose the (aluminum) Burner. Aluminum and DW / turner Burners are totally sweet. Carbon wheels pushes that even further.

    But of course everyone has their own opinions and needs, what I want might not be right for anyone else. There has been some talk about demand for the Burner now that RFX is here (sorta like a Bronson + versus a 5010). I still think there is need for the ~140 Burner, personally. I'm definitely going to try the RFX on the Crest and some of these trails too, and I'll report back for sure... Maybe I'm wrong and more bike is better, you never know..

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,954
    I think the difference between the Burner and RFX would be more dramatic if the RFX rode more like a plow bike. I don't know, not having ridden the RFX, but say for example, the Nomad? Seems there's a bit of a transition.
    Last edited by rockman; 11-19-2015 at 08:16 AM.

  45. #45
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,302
    Interesting reading your perspective Andre. I think for the more average rider (like myself), enthusiastic but less competent, there is still an attraction to the bigger bike over the Burner. Many of the average/enthusiastic riders still want to go faster downhill through the wide open and rocky sections of their local trails and I think the bigger bike allows a wider safety margin/comfort zone to test higher speeds. When I think of these sections on my local trails I know I would like a bigger bike to go a little bit faster but I can see how riding it on a lesser bike would be a more fun challenge for the more advanced rider. I remember 'bombing' a loose rocky wide open section of singletrack on my Lyrik/5 Spot recently and being shocked by a guy catching me up on a hard tail. All other factors aside (in some cases the hardtail is better/faster) we were both maximizing our fun and for him he probably needed to reduce travel to make it so - opposite for me.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,565
    Quote Originally Posted by dieselcruiserhead View Post
    RFX probably climbs about 75% of the Burner, maybe even more.
    When you say this do you mean that it only climbs roughly 75% as well as the Burner?...

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    When you say this do you mean that it only climbs roughly 75% as well as the Burner?...
    It's a good question, on technical stuff I'd almost say that it climbs as good maybe even better than the Burner because it's just a hair softer and plusher. You can see the moves in the video - I had no problem at all getting up some crazy stuff. the real question comes down to all day climbing. The Burner climbs soo well than even if the RFX were at 75% ability, this is still 110% of pretty much 90% on the market. So how's that for an answer. That said I dunno, maybe I underestimated and the RFX is 90% of the Burner. In either case, it climbs f'g awesome...

    Again I'll know next year when I put some real all day time on it.

    hope it helps,
    Andre

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by rmac View Post
    Interesting reading your perspective Andre. I think for the more average rider (like myself), enthusiastic but less competent, there is still an attraction to the bigger bike over the Burner. Many of the average/enthusiastic riders still want to go faster downhill through the wide open and rocky sections of their local trails and I think the bigger bike allows a wider safety margin/comfort zone to test higher speeds. When I think of these sections on my local trails I know I would like a bigger bike to go a little bit faster but I can see how riding it on a lesser bike would be a more fun challenge for the more advanced rider. I remember 'bombing' a loose rocky wide open section of singletrack on my Lyrik/5 Spot recently and being shocked by a guy catching me up on a hard tail. All other factors aside (in some cases the hardtail is better/faster) we were both maximizing our fun and for him he probably needed to reduce travel to make it so - opposite for me.
    I can completely understand and even concur with that. Again it really just depends. A lot of why we are in business is to help people answer questions just like these and related to their individual preferences. I'm starting to think that bikes in general are getting so good that it's sort of like a good set of skis. Some are incredible but everyone has their own opinions and nuances of how they should do things and will want to do things. Things also change too as people and their abilities and preferences evolve.

    If anyone is ever up in Park City and wants to take us up on this, shoot me a PM and I'll make sure to get you guys a discount code. We will continue to have a full lineup for Burners in addition to the RFX.

    I hope it helps,
    Andre

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    311
    A Burner is my main ride right now, I have ridden the RFX 2x. The RFX climbs better than a Burner.

    My Burner has Enve's and Fox Evolution in the back.

    The RFX is stiffer and converts more energy into forward rather than into frame flex. Carbon and the new style DW and upper link are just way more efficient. I really, really like my Burner, but the RFX is a faster bike.

    As for the RFX being too capable, it makes trails less fun? If you go 1.26mph faster you regain fun equilibrium.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    627
    thanks dieselcruiserhead for the in depth review and comparisons!

    Looking forward to demoing an RFX!

    Going to be hard to justify replacing the Burner, Ive also demoed other bikes like the HD3 and Mach 6 etc and didn't feel like they were noticably superior to the Burner in any way.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by renoirbud View Post
    As for the RFX being too capable, it makes trails less fun? If you go 1.26mph faster you regain fun equilibrium.
    Yup basically exactly what I said. I think we're also in agreement. Cool to hear you think it climbs better, I've heard that too and can believe it.

    Here is our new page about the RFX (just put live a couple hours ago). We're psyched to starting getting them in soon so we can get our own photos taken and keep testing. Photo John did the content on this page and also now has two rides on it, including one that was pretty long (a bunch of hours / miles in Moab)

    Turner RFX | Park City Bike Demos

    this video sure is fun, goes to that 1.26mph faster part


  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    406
    Thanks for the insight Andre!

  53. #53
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    27,358
    Quote Originally Posted by renoirbud View Post
    I ride a Burner 3.0 as my everyday bike and have ridden the RFX 2x.

    The RFX rides nearly the same as a Burner. It turns a little easier in uphill switchbacks. It can take a little bigger hits. But the two geometries basically overlay. The tiny bit higher BB is cancelled out by the sag. Virtual top tube, reach etc.. all the nearly the same.

    I am a big guy and ride reasonably aggressive, I do not shy away from a good climb. I can generate some twist in the Burner, I was not able to feel that twist in the RFX, just like its not there in my Czar.

    At no point did I feel that the RFX was too slack. It actually felt as responsive or more responsive than my Burner.

    I did ride the RFX with the Pike and the Fox36RC2. At the time I found that the Pike is much more suited. Since then I have put a Fox36 on my Burner and it felt like $hit. But now I have it working right, 15 PSI less than recommended and low speed compression dialed as low as it will go.

    Short answer is that the RFX climbs better than a Burner. I love my Burner, but am very much looking forward to getting a big box from Turner soon.
    Re-reading this reminds me of my days in AZ. My main riding buddy had a 5spot and I had a 6pack. At the time, he was more fit than me, lifted, worked out much more. I mainly just rode. Most of the time we rode together, my 6pack was overkill and his 5spot was a pretty good tool for the job considering the terrain, bumps, downhills and uphills. At first, I had the 6pack stupid light with parts that were too-light to really function well over the long term, eventually I settled on a reasonable build with a 66, while he was pushing a 36 on his 5spot. Even though I was a little less fit and pushing a bigger bike, there was never so much disparity that I felt like I absolutely needed a lighter bike to have fun and keep up a reasonable pace. In other words less than an inch of travel difference and a couple pounds didn't make a big difference between the two bikes.

    The thing was though that I could take that same 6pack and ride with buddies doing shuttle runs up in AZ. It definitely wasn't the best bike for South Mountain Holbert/Geronimo/24th St shuttles, where it was overwhelmed, but for the epic 4500' Pinal and Mingus descents, Flagstaff shuttles and others, it easily held it's own. This was terrain and on trails that I wouldn't want the 5spot on, as it would be way overwhelmed.

    That compromise was usually worth it.

    It starts getting more muddy when you start comparing 6pack (or RFX) to a 4" XC machine and then comparing it to a modern light 4" XC machine with something like DW/VPP/Maestro. Then you start to get a big disparity where two similar riders will start riding at dissimilar speeds due to the difference in wheel mass, pedaling acceleration and geometry.

    I'm in much better shape now, more core, much more even and did pretty good during last winter's racing season, but when you're riding a heavier bike suited for aggressive terrain, an XC rider on a short travel or hardtail rig may come up the trail and pass you like you are standing still. If that's the rider you want to be on the flats and uphills, the RFX will never be the right choice IMO. Differences between bikes from similar categories are getting smaller these days, like modern carbon DH bike weight to hardcore "enduro" bike weighs, or trail bike climbing ability to a more strict XC bike, but there are still pretty big differences when looking at the opposite ends of the spectrum IMO.

    If you know you aren't going to push the bike every once and a while to where you'd need the RFX, the burner is the logical choice IMO. I don't hit the local ski resort all the time, but maybe 4-6 trips a year or the summer racing series (4x year), but there's also big descents on rides I do in CO and AZ and other places. The 5spot was the right bike for my buddy because he wouldn't come with me on the more aggressive trips where there's a mix of DH and enduro style bikes. Nothing we pedaled up was so nasty coming down that he needed more bike and I would have been fine on his bike during all of our rides too. For the other stuff I did by myself or with other riders in other locations, the 6pack/RFX was worth it to have. I definitely don't wish back then that I had bought the 5spot instead, the 6pack which morphed into a RFX was definitely the right call.

    If I was in an XC race with my 6pack, I'd swearing, coughing up blood most likely and wishing I had a 29er hardtail or Czar, definitely not a Burner.
    "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.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    170
    Insight???? I have a Burner and have spent some time testing an RFX 4.0. The RFX wins in all pedal bike categories! Up and down! I now reside in Park City after leaving Laguna Beach and am looking forward to acquiring an RFX to replace the Burner because it is a better climbing bike. Park City does have some nice terrain, not quite Laguna, but is expanding every summer. There is NCS in Deer Valley which was a pro downhill course of years past so...... I will find stuff for the RFX!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-24-2015, 03:50 PM
  2. Burner 3.1 Fit
    By antipop in forum Turner
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-04-2015, 10:50 PM
  3. Trade a 2015 L Burner for a 2015 XL Burner?
    By madamfunk in forum Turner
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-15-2015, 09:09 AM
  4. O2 RCX on Burner?
    By chugachjed in forum Turner
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-23-2015, 08:07 PM
  5. Burner and XX1
    By don_o in forum Turner
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2013, 04:37 PM

Members who have read this thread: 5

Posting Permissions

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