Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    39

    Turner Burner w/ XR vs. Flux

    I have a Turner Burner and have mostly avoided the upgrade bug. I am currently debating upgrading my Burner w/ the XR Rocker to get 4" of travel or selling the frame and buying a new Flux frame. I appreciate opinions on differences between a 4" Burner versus 4" Flux. I am sure the Burner is about a pound heavier but am more concerned with ride and suspension travel quality. My Burner has the Swinger shock so a rear shock may also be in the future. Thanks.
    Last edited by truberski; 10-11-2005 at 08:25 PM.

  2. #2
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,129
    Quote Originally Posted by truberski
    I have a Turner Burner and have mostly avoided the upgrade bug. I am currently debating upgrading my Burner w/ the XR Rocker to get 4" of travel or selling the frame and buying a new Flux frame. I appreciate opinions on differences between a 4" Burner versus 4" Flux. I am sure the Burner is about a pound heavier but am more concerned with ride and suspension travel quality. My Burner has the Swinger shock so a rear shock may also be in the future. Thanks.
    The Burner is actully 0.5lb heaver. Head tube angles are identical, so it will steer the same. The chainstays a wee bit shorter on the Flux while the top tube is a wee bit longer, so it will feel a wee bit more stretched out, given the same stem legth, a wee bit easier to pop wheelies on, climb, etc. Compare the geometires below. All in all the differences are very small, and if you already have a Burner, save yourself $1600 and get the rockers and with money saved get a RP3

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

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    39
    Thanks for the response. I love my Burner so your thorough, more practical suggestion of keeping the bike and upgrading the rear makes sense. XR, RP3 and Juicy 7's with money to spare.

  4. #4
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,971
    although i can mostly agree with mk yet again, i gotta say the differences ive felt between my older burner and my new flux are pretty dern huge. i really cant think of anything the burner does better than the flux and everything the fux does is superior to the burner. the lower c of g makes the handeling on ground and in air close to flawless. the shorter stays really show themselves on climbs and power bursts. the longer top tube offers sweet climbing and cornering positions but a 10mm reduction in stem length is reccomended. this also cleans up the techy steering just a bit as it cuts down on what i refer to as the "tiller effect", the feeling of a large swinging arc you can get from a longer stem. gary got that part right with genesis. the extra 1/2" of travel is nice and bein able to match it up front is cool but this can be done on either bike as you know.

    nuthin wrong with big rockers and a rp3 upgrade. as ive told others here, its my feeling that youll love it and never think twice about it till you ride a flux.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    727

    Your '96 Burner is a Completely Different Bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    i gotta say the differences ive felt between my older burner and my new flux are pretty dern huge.
    I'm not sure your comparison is valid, because your Burner is a completely different bike. The original poster is talking about the latest generation Burner ('03 and newer), whose geometry is almost identical to the Flux. You have a 96 Burner XC. The old style Burner XC had 2.75" of travel and was designed around a 65mm fork. If I remember correctly, you now have 3.6" rockers and a 5" travel fork on it. I don't have the geometry specs for the frame, and I don't know how much the rockers and 5" fork will change the geometry, but I think it's pretty safe to say that it is quite different from the new generation Burner.

    I just wanted to clarify that for those who may not know that there have been several different Burner frames through the years.

    Some pictures of your '96 Burner for reference:

    the new turner "burn spot"?
    RX rockers on a '96 burner?
    Last edited by Backmarker; 10-12-2005 at 12:11 PM. Reason: Fixed duplicate link.

  6. #6
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,095
    Don't forget the 05 Flux is ICT, the Burner not. Supposedly less bobbing with ICT (but more breakage???!). I have been running an RP3 on my Burner since last year and I wonder if the propedal perhaps equals the effect of ICT because I seem to get very little bob. 06 Flux will be non-HL and non-ICT.

    It seems that most Burner people ugrade to a 5-Spot (Corn excepted!), hopefully others will chime in.

  7. #7
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,971

    yes and no

    mornin backmarker,

    i see where yer goin and i can follow it to a point. im sure theres been geo changes from '96 to '04 and thats why im quick to mention my "older burner". so ya may be totally right. could be its so damn different its indeed not valid. guess im thinkin its not that far off and still allows a reasonable comparison. what i need to do is return it to a more stock condition and get us some measurements for comparisons sake. sound like a plan?

    as far as my set up, its all over the place, so heres is one possible and big advantage the burner has over the flux, its ability to transform itself depending on mood or terrain as bikes had to back then. a 2 1/2" fork one day, 3" the next, then 4" and the following week we can go to 5". these days we all seem to buy a diff bike for diff needs cuz hey, theyre now available, and i guess we make more money 10 years later.

    i think yer right about the 65mm fork reccomendation on my frame. about 17 1/4" axel to crown. not too many years later, turner was suggesting to at least some of us that we use the 3.6" rocker. fine but what a big imbalance, so some of us try my standard set up, a 100mm fork to balance it out again and retain the original geo and it works, or damn close to it. again i need to get some measurements and get back to ya.

    as of today i do have a 5" fork, long rockers and big everything on it but that was a one day set up for a wimpy d/h race it never saw and it simply hasnt been changed back cuz im lazy. hell, if ya want those numbers ill get em too. why not huh? might be fun to see the entire range. not sure when ill get to it but ill try and let ya know when i do.

    i think its a excellent idea that folks know about the different series of burners and mybe a thread should be started to compare things from year to year. but anyway, i was just tryin to help tuberski out.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  8. #8
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,971
    oh you just wait to see what ive got on the way! oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!! ya might be surprised.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  9. #9
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by truberski
    I am currently debating upgrading my Burner w/ the XR Rocker to get 4" of travel or selling the frame and buying a new Flux frame. I appreciate opinions on differences between a 4" Burner versus 4" Flux. I am sure the Burner is about a pound heavier but am more concerned with ride and suspension travel quality.
    I went around and around on this question and decided that the 4" Burner is probably 95% the same as a Flux performance-wise. I swapped the rockers to the XRs ditched the 3-Way for an RP3 have been very happy with the result - but - I haven't ridden a Flux.

    MK is correct, the weight difference is only .5lbs. You can gain or lose that much in swapping tires. The Burner is a slightly overbuilt gussetted frame compared to the Flux which translates into a slightly more durable ride if you are inclined to hammer the bike. I've seen some cracked seat tubes on the Flux but none on the Burner. Does ICT make any difference? I can't say, but I have no bobbing issues at all with the RP3 and find the ride to be plenty plush. My Burner in this configuration is 27.5lbs and does everything I ask of it with aplomb - it's a better bike than I am a rider. Excellent for longhaul XC epics and moderate trail/all mountain style descents. I say save the bucks, make the upgrades to XRs and an RP3 and think about adding an adjustable travel fork - that's where you'll discover the real versatility in this frame (or any frame actually).
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    108

    Burner not a butted tube set?

    HI,
    Can you clarify does my 04' Burner have non-butted tube set? Was a little confused because I saw reference to the Burner as having a butted tube set, where as Ive been told it does not. As to Burner vs. Flux, I kind of like the stouter frame of the Burner, even with a slight weigh penalty. Im running XR rockers and Fox TALAS at about 4.5 inches. I'm 5'9 I think a typical "medium" sized rider...running a Ritchey post with layback, 100mm stem and low rise bars, set just under seat height. While not as nice for pulling up the front wheel, the climbing is much better. Running Kenda Karmas, 2.0, 450 g, tubless. Nice and light, but I have a back up set of wheels with tougher tires for tougher trails. Under 26 lb.s with all Ti hardware.
    My twin bro hopped on my Burner for the first time and was blown away by the stiff chassis, lack of bob, responsive suspension and overall balance and speed of the bike. He said it made his old Sugar feel like someone dropped a boat anchor off the back.
    Thanks!

  11. #11
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,129
    Yep, the tubeset is straight guage, it is a major factor in it being so "cheap".

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

  12. #12
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    Yep, the tubeset is straight guage, it is a major factor in it being so "cheap".

    _MK
    MK - I think you are mistaken there about the butted tubing. In a thread from last November comparing the Burner to a 5 Spot, Dave Turner commented as follows:

    "The Burner does use almost the same tubing as the last 3 years of the XCE. Butted. Small changes along the way to butt length and ratio between center and ends.
    The Spots is slightly thicker throughout , slightly , and with a larger diameter top tube, an eighth of an inch bigger for rigidity."

    So the Burner frame tubes are butted, no doubt heavier than the Flux, but not as thick as the 5 Spot. My Burner frame came in at 6.25 lbs in large with the RP3. Probably slightly heavier now with the XR rockers. This past weekend I mounted up a set of Moto Raptor 2.4s just for kicks and headed out to Fruita for loops on Horsethief, Mary's and Mack Ridge. With the heavy duty rubber and the fork out to 115mm the bike felt like it had another 3/4" of travel and a way burlier feel than my normal tires (Mythos 2.1s) - if I kept my eyes closed I could almost imagine I was on a Spot
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    108

    reason for my butt(head) confusion...

    was...this pic from the MTBR review site for Burner frames...thanks for clarifying....
    Attached Images Attached Images

  14. #14
    Can Tree Member
    Reputation: Dad Man Walking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat
    MK - I think you are mistaken there about the butted tubing. In a thread from last November comparing the Burner to a 5 Spot, Dave Turner commented as follows:

    "The Burner does use almost the same tubing as the last 3 years of the XCE. Butted. Small changes along the way to butt length and ratio between center and ends.
    The Spots is slightly thicker throughout , slightly , and with a larger diameter top tube, an eighth of an inch bigger for rigidity."

    So the Burner frame tubes are butted, no doubt heavier than the Flux, but not as thick as the 5 Spot. My Burner frame came in at 6.25 lbs in large with the RP3. Probably slightly heavier now with the XR rockers. This past weekend I mounted up a set of Moto Raptor 2.4s just for kicks and headed out to Fruita for loops on Horsethief, Mary's and Mack Ridge. With the heavy duty rubber and the fork out to 115mm the bike felt like it had another 3/4" of travel and a way burlier feel than my normal tires (Mythos 2.1s) - if I kept my eyes closed I could almost imagine I was on a Spot
    I am running the XR rockers and the 3-way at the present. The rockers improved the quality of the travel on the 3-way, but I really could not tell you whether that was due to increased leverage on the shock, or the extra travel. Either way, the effect is subtle--one of those things that we really want to feel because we just dropped some serious coin on a new part and spent a few hours putting it on. I am guessing here, but I suspect that an RP3, while more expensive, would provide a more noticeable and dramatic improvement that the rockers. Doing both, and PUSHing the RP3 would be the ultimate setup for the Burner. But then you have over $500 of goodies on the frame.
    Dad is sad.
    Very, very sad.
    He had a bad day.
    What a day Dad had!

  15. #15
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Dad Man Walking
    Doing both, and PUSHing the RP3 would be the ultimate setup for the Burner. But then you have over $500 of goodies on the frame.
    And your point is?

    I would agree that the RP3 added a more noticeable performance change than the rockers. The 3-Way was much less compliant, but the added leverage from the XRs seemed to really smooth out the travel on both shocks. I'm not sold on the need for PUSH what with all the variability already inherent in the RP3, but I could be convinced.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  16. #16
    Shot Down in Flames...
    Reputation: D-Rock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Dad Man Walking
    I am running the XR rockers and the 3-way at the present. The rockers improved the quality of the travel on the 3-way, but I really could not tell you whether that was due to increased leverage on the shock, or the extra travel. Either way, the effect is subtle--one of those things that we really want to feel because we just dropped some serious coin on a new part and spent a few hours putting it on. I am guessing here, but I suspect that an RP3, while more expensive, would provide a more noticeable and dramatic improvement that the rockers. Doing both, and PUSHing the RP3 would be the ultimate setup for the Burner. But then you have over $500 of goodies on the frame.
    I beg to differ. I hated the ride on the stock rockers. It was harsh. I'm running a Float RL PP. The XRs transformed the bike to a very good XC/trail bike.

    Plus, if it took you a few hours to swap them, I'm sorry. It's a 20 min. job, tops.

    Given, I was used to my mega-plush 5" Salty with an RP3 so maybe the drop to 3.6" on the same trails was too much. But let's just say the Burner was close to going up for sale until I got the XRs.

    D.

  17. #17
    HeadFishHeadMonger
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    106

    New question here.

    Are the XR rockers the same as the Paul's Components Rockers?

    Are you guys keeping a 100mm fork in front or upping the travel?

    I have a reba and am thinking of going to 115 mode when I put on the rockers, anybody done this?

    thnx

    Berardino

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8Trak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by baratta930
    Are the XR rockers the same as the Paul's Components Rockers?
    Yep. I just bought a set about a month or two back

    Are you guys keeping a 100mm fork in front or upping the travel?
    I run a Talas, so I tend to play games with the travel. I think the sweet spot for me is at about 105mm, but I've been known to lower it to 90mm for climbing and up to 120mm for some descents.

    I have a reba and am thinking of going to 115 mode when I put on the rockers, anybody done this?
    Give it a try. I'm not sure how well I can tell the difference up front, but I do find that at around 100mm, the steering on buff single track feels perfect. Going a bit slacker with more travel does change the feel a bit and the front will "push" a bit in the turns. But then again, I found that going from a 110mm stem to a 90mm stem unweighted my front wheel too much and I didn't like the steering even with the fork at 100mm. So lots of things can affect handling.

    BTW, I'm glad the Burner is a bit more burly than the flux (and half the price didn't hurt either). I'm a bit over 200 lbs, so durability is good. I'm still using the 3-way (and I think the XR rockers improve the feel of it over stock), but in terms of upgrade-itis, I may give Darren at Push a call inquring about an RP3...

    -Dave

  19. #19
    Can Tree Member
    Reputation: Dad Man Walking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by D-Rock
    I beg to differ. I hated the ride on the stock rockers. It was harsh. I'm running a Float RL PP. The XRs transformed the bike to a very good XC/trail bike.

    Plus, if it took you a few hours to swap them, I'm sorry. It's a 20 min. job, tops.

    Given, I was used to my mega-plush 5" Salty with an RP3 so maybe the drop to 3.6" on the same trails was too much. But let's just say the Burner was close to going up for sale until I got the XRs.

    D.
    You are right; I got the rockers on in about 30 minutes...I am probably a little more ham-fisted that you are. I did not have enough slack in the rear hyrdo line, so that had to be replaced (and brakes filled and bled); and the rear derailleur cable needed to be readjusted and I ended up putting a new one of those on. As a matter of fact, I'll admit that I didn't even do the latter steps myself, since I am such a weenie that I decided to not mess around with the hydros...I let my shop do that. So technically, it took me about 30 minutes to do the work I did, then about 90 minutes total for the two trips to the shop to drop off and pick up the bike.

    I feel better now that we've cleared that up.
    Dad is sad.
    Very, very sad.
    He had a bad day.
    What a day Dad had!

Posting Permissions

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