Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    207

    What's the difference between Burner and 5spot?

    Sorry if it's a stupid question but I'm new to Turner bikes. Would like to know more about both the frames. Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    If you're referring to the 03 and 04 Burner, the differences would be as follows:

    Burner:
    3.6" rear travel, or 4" with the Paul's Components rockers (no longer available)
    XC geometry
    no integrated BB shell/main pivot/lower shock mount machined block. Tabs used for lower shock mount.
    Weights are similar.
    Burner uses XCE style suspension in the rear with a less vertical rocker. Chain and seat stays are identical. 6.5x1.5" shock.

    Spot:
    5" of travel (actually 5.1-5.3 depending on year) and slightly less XC biased geometry
    The afforementioned one-piece machined block, with a gusset on the back.
    Horizontal rocker, lends to better pedaling, as well as other suspension qualities.
    7.5x2.0" shock.
    Different tubing set.

    Both are great bikes, with the Spot having a more advanced rear suspension (tweaked, if you will, since most bits are the same). The Burner will get you a heavy duty XC oriented bike while the Spot will get you a nice trail bike. I was told a few years ago by David Turner that the Burner is just as strong as the Spot, but just for XC riding.

    The Burner is also not made anymore. The Flux is the replacement for the Burner, but it's a lightweight XC bike with 4", not the true replacement, in anything other than travel category. Realistically, the Spot is the replacement for the Burner/XCE.

    The XCE was the predecessor to the Burner and the Spot. It more closely resembles the Spot, but with 4" of travel. It's got that one-piece block. Production of this ended and diverged into the Spot on one end and the Burner on the other.
    Last edited by Jerk_Chicken; 05-19-2006 at 08:52 AM.

  3. #3
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,415
    The Burner has 3.6" of travel and uses a slightly different rocker placement/design. The 5 Spot gets 5.1" of travel I believe(slacker geometry also) and has a flatter rocker angle. I own a Burner and have ridden a buddies 5 Spot a lot, besides the extra travel the flatter rocker angle makes for a bit smoother and plusher ride IMO, the Burner does feel a little snappier on the climbs though.

    My 2 cents

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DLine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Juicy
    Sorry if it's a stupid question but I'm new to Turner bikes. Would like to know more about both the frames. Thanks in advance.
    3.6" and 5.3" to start. Different BB/lower shock mount, rocker angles and arms, seat tube pivot location, BB height, head tube angle (70 Burner/69 Spot), and shock length (6.5x1.5 Burner/7.5x2 Spot). There are geometry charts for both on turnerbikes.com. The tubing is the same as I understand it, and the weights are comparable with comparable shocks. The Burner was discontinued after 2004 and replaced by the Flux. Burners are always horst-links, while Spots may be horst-links or TNTs.

    Clear as mud?

    ---edit:
    This was a race and I came in third. JC says the tubing is different, but I'm not certain that's right - the stays are the same, and I was under the impression that the front triangle was the same tubing too...

  5. #5
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    The search tool will get you plenty of additional information - but in a nutshell:

    Burner - no longer made, 3.6" rear travel, designed for 100mm fork, fairly burly tubeset, 70 degree HT angle, designed for agressive cross country/enduro style riding, but capable of taking bigger hits and drops with a skillful rider, less expensive than the Spot - can be upgraded to 4" of travel in the back with a set of XR rockers - uses a rocker pivot located behind the seattube, so it has less of an ICT style linkage, uses a 6.5 x 1.5 inch shock.

    Spot - probably Turner's popular do it all trail bike, 5" rear travel, designed for a 130mm fork, stout but light tube set, 69 degree HT angle, can be built up as a sturdy trail bike around 29 - 31 lbs or as a lighter XC ride in the 27-28lb range, bigger diameter top tube, better performance frame over all for all mountain riding and bigger drops, uses a 7.5 x 2 inch shock, rocker pivot is located in front of the seat tube for a more parallel style linkage, now uses the TNT rear link instead of Horst linkage.

    Both are execellent bikes, but the general opinion here is that the Spot is a more capable bike overall, but a bit heavier and less XC oriented, and not quite as quick a climber as the Burner. I have one of each.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  6. #6
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    Wow - 4 responses in less than 4 minutes - I guess we slammed Juicy pretty hard
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Oh, can we not call the more horizontal rocker "ICT Style"? We should be called TE's rocker "DT" style, in actuality, shouldn't we?

  8. #8
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Oh, can we not call the more horizontal rocker "ICT Style"? We should be called TE's rocker "DT" style, in actuality, shouldn't we?
    Well, you do have to give TE some credit there, there's someting to the ICT design as far as ride quality, guess DT proved the chainstay pivot is not as crucial as the rocker placement also.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    207
    Hahaha... 'clear as mud'... absolutely. So it'll probably be better off getting a Flux than a Burner? They stopped production on the Burners in 04 and the Flux came out in 05?
    Yeah, I was pretty impressed by the quick and detailed replies!

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Isn't the "AB" listed as prior art in the ICT patent???????

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DLine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    Well, you do have to give TE some credit there, there's someting to the ICT design as far as ride quality, guess DT proved the chainstay pivot is not as crucial as the rocker placement also.
    Hello can of worms.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DLine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Juicy
    Hahaha... 'clear as mud'... absolutely. So it'll probably be better off getting a Flux than a Burner? They stopped production on the Burners in 04 and the Flux came out in 05?
    Yeah, I was pretty impressed by the quick and detailed replies!
    I think there's more of a gap in use between a Flux and the Spot than the Burner and the Spot, mainly because of weight. The Flux is lighter than the Burner by a half pound, which distances it more from the Spot than the Burner. The Flux is more specifically XC, while the Burner was more XC/Trail, if we want to get into labels that really don't mean much.

    What is the terrain you'll be riding? Rough and technical, or smooth and swoopy?

  13. #13
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    "ICT", "TNT", AMP, TE, DT - please - just shoot me now!
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    207
    Sh*t... I already have a Stumpy FSR and I shouldn't even think about getting another bike but I'm itching to try a Turner. No point getting another 5 inch travel when I already have one? Turner bikes are just gorgeous man.... Maybe I'll just sell my stumpy. Hehe...

  15. #15
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    What you might notice is great about Turners is how well they use the travel. It's easy to set up and the quality of the travel makes it feel like there's more than there really is.

  16. #16
    falling off since 1975
    Reputation: nick3216's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    161
    /polite cough before adding mud to the waters

    some Burners had an integrated machined BB-shell/shock mount, or are we not going back that far?

  17. #17
    falling off since 1975
    Reputation: nick3216's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Isn't the "AB" listed as prior art in the ICT patent???????
    yep, along with a load of high-grade bull about why it's not as 110% efficient as the ICT

  18. #18
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Weren't those the first Burners with that? Then DT changed the design to the "tri-block" after the mains were ripping off.

  19. #19
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,135
    I believe the Spot was DT's first production bike that used butted tubing. The XCE and Burner used straight guage. I'm pretty sure all three frames were of very similar strength overall.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  20. #20
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I believe the Spot was DT's first production bike that used butted tubing. The XCE and Burner used straight guage. I'm pretty sure all three frames were of very similar strength overall.
    I might be wrong in my assumption here, but I am looking at a 2000 Turner catalog, and the Stinger and O2 used Elite tubing, which was butted. All models have "custom drawn seat tubes". So I think they were butted, at least until back then. Additionally, I heard a DT interview where he introduced the V.2 Burner in 03 and said "fewer butted tubes" to get the prices down, so I'm working with the assumption there was butting prior to this.

  21. #21
    falling off since 1975
    Reputation: nick3216's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    161
    First burners had a BB shell arrangement similar to the Flux.

    Mine's a '96 (?) and has a machined block:


    clicky makes biggy.

  22. #22
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I believe the Spot was DT's first production bike that used butted tubing. The XCE and Burner used straight guage. I'm pretty sure all three frames were of very similar strength overall.
    This myth keeps rearing it's ugly head BZ - the Burner and the XCE both used butted tubesets, I just think they weren't as manipulated as the O2 Easton versions.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  23. #23
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Juicy
    Sh*t... I already have a Stumpy FSR and I shouldn't even think about getting another bike but I'm itching to try a Turner. No point getting another 5 inch travel when I already have one? Turner bikes are just gorgeous man.... Maybe I'll just sell my stumpy. Hehe...
    The Stumpy FSR rides very nice, a buddy has the 4" version and it feels similiar to my Burner, more of a progressive feel than the 5 Spot and other newer Turner designs.

  24. #24
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,135
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat
    This myth keeps rearing it's ugly head BZ - the Burner and the XCE both used butted tubesets, I just think they weren't as manipulated as the O2 Easton versions.
    Hmmm, I don't know where I got that crazy idea then.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    366

    go for the spot

    i had the stumpy fsr 2003 before my 5-spot. there is no comparison, get the spot. the stumpy climbs alot quicker, but it doesnt inspire confidence like the spot. the spot makes you a better rider period.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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