Another DW-RFX thread. 170mm travel?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 51 of 51
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jon Edwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    439

    Another DW-RFX thread. 170mm travel?

    Something that's been floating round for a while in the depths of my mind - thought I'd finally vocalise it.

    Do we actually *need* 170mm of travel?

    Speaking personally, I'm pretty happy with the 150mm my '02 offers. In UK trail terms, that's overbiked most of the time, and even in the Alps, it's not really necessary away from the pure DH runs. Hell, there wasn't much in Whistler that I couldn't cope with on 6". I'd actually be happy with less - 130 wouldn't be a deal breaker if it rode right. We all know that "its not what you've got, its what you do with it" We also all know that most of the time forks struggle to keep up with back ends, especially when it gets properly steep. (hell, 2 of my hardtails have 5" and 6" forks, and the fork is still the limiting factor in how fast I can go in most situations), so by upping the ante on the back end, you have to up the front yet further to keep up. How many DW-RFXs will start off with Lyric/36s and end up sprouting Totems or 66s? Then you end up with a DH bike that just has a granny ring on, and steamrollers the life out of most trails. ( I'm old skool enough to remember when 75mm of travel was for WC DH bikes only)

    So why am I interested in an RFX? Geometry and burliness are the answer. I do some DH stuff, jumps, drops - the kind of thing that long term, a 5-spot won't really like. I want a bike with a bolt through rear, chunky headtube, ISCG mounts, coil shock friendly etc, but I also want a bike I can pedal up hill well. Think doing a 40 mile *Mountain*bike ride with 2000m+ climbing one day, then messing about on a WC DH course the next with just a change of wheels.

    Comments from DT on one of the other threads implies the only reason he upped to 170mm was "because he could". I've absolute confidence that it won't affect the pedaling/climbing ability or the overall feel of the bike (hell it IS only 10mm), but it's just a case of "Is bigger always better?". (I know I'm talking to a bunch of yanks, so the answer will no doubt come back as a resounding "YES!" ) In comparison, the Nomad 2 has gone down in travel, and seems no worse for it (demoed one, didn't like the granny ring behaviour or the fit).

    Take a look at something like an Orange Blood in comparison - a bit too slope-styley in BB height and TT length, but not a million miles away from what I'm thinking of.

    Anyway. Just a thought...

    Let the flaming commence!


  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    Do we actually *need* 170mm of travel?
    Yes...we do


  3. #3
    It's carbon dontcha know.
    Reputation: 6thElement's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,208
    I know the travel on my Highline saves me from hurt when I do dumb stuff quite frequently

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    Something that's been floating round for a while in the depths of my mind - thought I'd finally vocalise it.

    Do we actually *need* 170mm of travel?

    Speaking personally, I'm pretty happy with the 150mm my '02 offers. In UK trail terms, that's overbiked most of the time, and even in the Alps, it's not really necessary away from the pure DH runs. Hell, there wasn't much in Whistler that I couldn't cope with on 6". I'd actually be happy with less - 130 wouldn't be a deal breaker if it rode right. We all know that "its not what you've got, its what you do with it" We also all know that most of the time forks struggle to keep up with back ends, especially when it gets properly steep. (hell, 2 of my hardtails have 5" and 6" forks, and the fork is still the limiting factor in how fast I can go in most situations), so by upping the ante on the back end, you have to up the front yet further to keep up. How many DW-RFXs will start off with Lyric/36s and end up sprouting Totems or 66s? Then you end up with a DH bike that just has a granny ring on, and steamrollers the life out of most trails. ( I'm old skool enough to remember when 75mm of travel was for WC DH bikes only)

    So why am I interested in an RFX? Geometry and burliness are the answer. I do some DH stuff, jumps, drops - the kind of thing that long term, a 5-spot won't really like. I want a bike with a bolt through rear, chunky headtube, ISCG mounts, coil shock friendly etc, but I also want a bike I can pedal up hill well. Think doing a 40 mile *Mountain*bike ride with 2000m+ climbing one day, then messing about on a WC DH course the next with just a change of wheels.

    Comments from DT on one of the other threads implies the only reason he upped to 170mm was "because he could". I've absolute confidence that it won't affect the pedaling/climbing ability or the overall feel of the bike (hell it IS only 10mm), but it's just a case of "Is bigger always better?". (I know I'm talking to a bunch of yanks, so the answer will no doubt come back as a resounding "YES!" ) In comparison, the Nomad 2 has gone down in travel, and seems no worse for it (demoed one, didn't like the granny ring behaviour or the fit).

    Take a look at something like an Orange Blood in comparison - a bit too slope-styley in BB height and TT length, but not a million miles away from what I'm thinking of.

    Anyway. Just a thought...

    Let the flaming commence!

    I agree with the 130-150mm travel is plenty.


    It also depends on what terrain you ride, i had a flux for a while even though it was an excellent bike i decided to trade it in and get a spot(08) which i found more comfortable to do all dayers and playing about on.I would imagine the rfx would be an excellent play bike and a one bike does most things style bike.

    At the moment i dont have a bike of my own(money) because i had to sell my spot.
    My work has just picked up and i am thinking that i should be able to buy a new frame soon as i have a complete parts build kit in my garage except forks which are on order(lbs owes me money)
    I love the look of the rfx,but if they are not in production in a few months i will probably buy a nicolai helius fr or am which i can spec with 12mm rear and 1.5" ht and an iscg mount and a coil shock(ccdb/bos).The reason i will buy this is the flexability of the riding i can do on it,xc/trail/dh and freeride its going to be a very heavy xc bike but it will still do it and i will be riding.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    71
    No we don't need 170mm. I have a old school 5 spot that lives a hard life, you've seen it at peaslake bus stop (hello jon i'm not a stalker honest got a black 03 5spot now with 36's on the front) I rarely feel under biked on the 5 spot, its been ridden all over, spain, alps, wales, jumping, bit of dh and general titting around all with the original 125mm of travel. I also have a bottle rocket which i got because its built like a tank and to stop me from breaking the 5 spot and that bike has a massive 140mm of travel and i never feel under biked especially as it has a 170 coil 66 up front.

    But i suppose it depends on WANT not need and if its what you want from a bike then fair enough. Plus i don't weigh much so maybe the amount of travel isn't as important as for someone of more generous proportion

    after all that waffle i would probably have a new rfx if i could afford one as it would match the travel of my 66 but i don't think i need the extra travel

    Had a test on an orange blood the other week in verbier very nice bike to ride on the steep stuff and i didn't mind the very low bb even when digging the cranks into the ground off jumps, possible replacement for the rocket should it ever break.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,018
    I have to agree with the 140 mm is enough for most thinks i rode.I hit some of the things at my local fr/dh area on my spot and it handled it.Did a few 3-4ft drops and a few 10ft gaps on it and it handled it well.
    I did notice quite a lot of flex on the rear end and this made me slightly nervous about getting things wrong.I weight 225lbs kitted so i am a clyde but the spot handled me fine for xc/trail and i did a lot of riding on that bike usually 3 times a week avg 15+ miles per ride of which 95% of it was offroad.
    I did go to afan forest on it and it performed excellently.I hated the climbs but it destroys the miles on the descents.I did 30 miles on it in one day up there and wanted to do more but the legs were gone.
    I would say the spot is very suited to uk trail riding and would buy another.But i did struggle when the ground got very rough and i didnt like the flex of the rear end.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flipnidaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    Do we actually *need* 170mm of travel?
    That question has been asked since we went from rigid to XXXmm of travel... My take it is, if you are able to use up 170mm of travel, then you need 170mm (or need more)...

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2w4s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,148
    i could easily use 170mm of travel on most of the trails i ride around here. imo, if you have to ask if it's too much travel then its not the right bike for you. Ventana makes a 5.5 inch tnt 5spot and you can get custom geo.
    nothing witty here...

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    31
    yes 170mm is definitely necessary.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,191
    I hope this is facetious.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jon Edwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    439
    if you have to ask if it's too much travel then its not the right bike for you.
    But are you going to be riding anything bigger because you have that extra travel? Or are you simply going to be doing exactly the same thing a little bit faster and a little bit easier? Personally I *like* the challenge of mtbing. I don't want it to be too easy. It's why I love hardtails so much (but I also like full sus for different reasons). I'm still riding some of the same trails I did 15 years ago on a rigid bike, I'm faster, but not necessarily fitter, and I ache less at the end of the ride. And I'm 15 years older.

    if you are able to use up 170mm of travel, then you need 170mm (or need more)...
    If it's set up right for your riding, then it'll get used, whether you *need* it is a different matter.

    Norcosam - exactly. If all I did was trail riding, I'd have a Spot in a shot, but I need something on which I can occasionally get big stuff wrong on too (getting it wrong is all part of the learning experience). Funnily enough my 37lb RFX destroys the climbs at Afan, but sucks on the DHs - trails aren't steep enough, so I have to pedal every single bloody inch of the way, (which is simply dull) or I just grind to a halt.

    Character Zero - Facetious? Slightly, but not entirely. Thought I'd post and get over and done with whilst everybody else is nit picking the new design, but the fact remains, that we are looking at something that even, what, 3 years ago would have been a pretty capable DH race machine. It just happens to be able to climb well too. I met a guy I vaguley know who was riding a Socom with F40's for XC in the Surrey Hills. He was having as much fun as I was, just slower on the climbs - is that the future? Maybe, but it sure must dumb down the experience a little bit.

    Hi Iaiaiaiaian <<waves>>

    Anyway, I'm off to Les Arcs tomorrow, to ride with a bunch of guys who mostly use singlespeed hardtails and can leave a well ridden DH bike for dead. If I can stick with Ash on the straights this year on my Turner, I'll be a happy bunny.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,018
    Jon edwards-I also agree with the age thing i am now closer to 40 than 30 and thats not a good thing.I also need comfort on the rides.I am what i would call pretty fast on the descents and dont mind the odd climb.Did the wall in 1hr 40 mins on my spot.
    My next bike will be a do it all 170mm travel coil sprung front and rear at about 35lbs and this will have to do afan forest,gawton(tavistock) and probably scotland(glentress,innerleithen) next year plus my local freeride area and local dh riding.

    Have fun at Les Arcs.....

  13. #13
    trail fairy
    Reputation: trailadvent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    9,546
    Can't get over and believe the ONE eyed selfishness becoming more and more evident, in what is an economic flatline money really shows peoples true colors!

    For f u x s sake

    by a 5SPOT and stick a 36 or Lyrik on there if not a Turner

    Then the EVIL sect with its geo will be right up your alley

    Just riding a muddy trail. . ..

    MAXXIS 4C!
    Helmet for your neck

    Leatt FAQs


  14. #14
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Iain
    it depends on WANT not need
    Werd(s).

  15. #15
    IPAs make me wanna puke.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,598
    The problem mate is that you are bringing your European sensibilities to the table. This is America -- we don't need 95% of what we have.

    Do we need 170 mm? Of course not. Most of the riders I see on bikes with this kind of travel are nowhere close to being able to push the envelope of their bike's capabilities.

    But, in the bike industry, it's reinvent every couple of years in order to prey upon rampant consumerism or become an afterthought.
    My presence would be the equivalent of painting lamb's blood on your frame, causing the "angel of crash" to nail me instead.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G-AIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,610

    Spitfire

    Check out the Banshee Spitfire. Less travel with AM/FR geometry. I personally think this style of bike will be the future of trail bikes. Less travel, slacker HA, steeper ST. More fun on the way down and can still climb almost anything.

    TG

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by 2w4s
    i could easily use 170mm of travel on most of the trails i ride around here. imo, if you have to ask if it's too much travel then its not the right bike for you. Ventana makes a 5.5 inch tnt 5spot and you can get custom geo.
    Thank you!


  18. #18
    Appalachian Singletrack'n
    Reputation: Endomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,437
    170 is the new standard for this type of bike, any less travel would result in less sales.

    SX Trail 170mm
    Reign X 170mm
    Pivot Firebird 167mm
    Kona Coilair 170mm’ish
    Etc…

  19. #19
    suspension whore
    Reputation: matthew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    702
    Quote Originally Posted by Endomaniac
    170 is the new standard for this type of bike, any less travel would result in less sales.

    SX Trail 170mm
    Reign X 170mm
    Pivot Firebird 167mm
    Kona Coilair 170mm’ish
    Etc…
    True
    yet intense just replaced the 6.6 ( 170mm travel ) with the tracer which has 150 mm and that thing is moving massively in the AM market.
    I cant imagine mating my 170mm Marz 66RC to the tracer and the uzzi looks like too much bike for my AM needs so here I am trolling the turner forum all hot for the new RFX.

    And to answer the OP, we dont need any of these super expensive bikes , but we want them so here we are. With reguards to travel I like my bikes to be able to help me over come any mistakes I may make on the way down- a little extra travel and weight seems like good insurance to me. I want the most travel I can happily pedal up 2000 feet so I can hopefully make it down in one piece. I'm lucky enough to have a dedicated DH bike so I'm trying to not duplicate that in my AM machine. More travel seems to give my body less of a pounding which is definately worth it in my wallet
    Intense 6.6..... Demo 9.

    Mammoth MTN downhilling - check it out
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb_m_pb0Ns0

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    Something that's been floating round for a while in the depths of my mind - thought I'd finally vocalise it.

    Do we actually *need* 170mm of travel?
    I'll tell you that I have 180mm in front and 160mm in back and I regularly use all the travel.
    I enjoy the thrill of high speed trail riding and as speeds increase, so does impact force.
    I also ride some very steep trails and prefer the position of a slacker bike.

    I could easily ride a Marin Wolfridge (5.5" travel/67 deg HA), but with less travel, I would have to up the damping to prevent bottoming out at the speeds I reach. That would in turn cause the overall ride to be harsher and my body would be required to absorb more of the impact energy. I don't want my body to absorb any more energy than it has to now that I am older.
    My 180mm 66 RC2X allows me to run the fork plush but has a Bottom out circuit that I can be set to suck up the largest hits.

    I need to eat, I need to drink water, I need to take a crap,
    I want what I want!

  21. #21
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,804
    Quote Originally Posted by matthew
    True
    yet intense just replaced the 6.6 ( 170mm travel ) with the tracer which has 150 mm and that thing is moving massively in the AM market.
    Really? Cause I'd think the new tracer would be a better replacement for the 5.5, while having some of the 6.6 capability, while the slopestyle fills the void of the more agressive 6.6 use.
    "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.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    778
    I bet DT loves these debates at the moment,why not just let him get the RFX out, what ever travel,rear hub space,bb height,headtube etc!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jon Edwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    439
    I bet DT loves these debates at the moment,
    I bet he bloody well does! Hey, at least I'm not arguing about dropouts or headtubes!

    why not just let him get the RFX out
    (mostly) My feelings precisely. However if he's damn fool enough to stick his head in here and occasionally take notice of all our wittering and whining, then he can jolly well get what he deserves!

    I don't want my body to absorb any more energy than it has to now that I am older.
    Whereas I'm more of a HTFU and get on with it kinda guy. It shouldn't be too easy. If you can walk straight at the end of a ride you ain't been trying hard enough.

    I need to drink water
    STONE THE HERETIC! What's wrong with beer or coffee?

    Hey, at the end of the day, I've been waiting for this bike for over a year now, so pending a test ride, it's almost certainly what I'll end up with - its the nearest to *The Right Thing* that I've come across yet. Just trying to make the point that bigger and faster isn't always better.

    I need to take a crap
    Me too. Back in a bit....

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    203
    I think need is the wrong word. I can ride most trails round where I live on a cross bike, but it's slow and scary when it gets rough, but fast when it is smooth. So they I'll go for more travel which is faster on the technical stuff, but slower on the smooth. So bikes are about compromises and you chose your bike depending on how and where you ride and also what you enjoy.

    But I think your post does hit a slightly different but valid point. Everyone talks about matching front and rear travel, but keep wondering if more travel up front is not the way to go. It's always fork travel that seems the limiting factor, and keeping less travel on the rear would keep the bike snappy feeling and compact.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    I bet he bloody well does! Hey, at least I'm not arguing about dropouts or headtubes!



    (mostly) My feelings precisely. However if he's damn fool enough to stick his head in here and occasionally take notice of all our wittering and whining, then he can jolly well get what he deserves!


    Whereas I'm more of a HTFU and get on with it kinda guy. It shouldn't be too easy. If you can walk straight at the end of a ride you ain't been trying hard enough.


    STONE THE HERETIC! What's wrong with beer or coffee?

    Hey, at the end of the day, I've been waiting for this bike for over a year now, so pending a test ride, it's almost certainly what I'll end up with - its the nearest to *The Right Thing* that I've come across yet. Just trying to make the point that bigger and faster isn't always better.


    Me too. Back in a bit....

    Hey your the one who asked about needs and wants. Beer is no more a "NEED" than 170mm but some would argue that.
    No offense but It sounds like to me that you are a true Homer, one who sits with eyes alight waiting for the chosen one to tell them what they need. DT can do no wrong in your eyes.
    Frankly there is nothing unique about the new RFX other than that it is a Turner. Which is fine but There is already a few bikes that are very similar and actually more versatile than the current RFX proto. (eg: the Nicolai Helius or Intense Uzzi)

    Tapered headtube= old news
    dw link = very old news
    66-67 deg HA = old news
    X12 = a solution in search of a problem

    It's really obvious you didn't create the thread for true debate. NOT everyone here thinks DT is untouchable. Some here actually have an opinion as to what they want in a bike.
    So HTFU!
    Last edited by wormvine; 08-07-2009 at 01:37 PM.

  26. #26
    a tight kick sound
    Reputation: boone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,812
    Quote Originally Posted by G-AIR
    Check out the Banshee Spitfire. Less travel with AM/FR geometry. I personally think this style of bike will be the future of trail bikes. Less travel, slacker HA, steeper ST. More fun on the way down and can still climb almost anything.

    TG

    Ding, ding ding!!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: juan_speeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by wormvine

    Tapered headtube= old news
    dw link = very old news
    66-67 deg HA = old news
    X12 = a solution in search of a problem
    These parameters being built and supported (that being a key feature) by Turner = big news (even to you, as evidenced by how much you post about the 2010 RFX that you hold so much disdain for).

    Ultimately, it's a bicycle, you don't want to buy it. Move on...

  28. #28
    Hisforever
    Reputation: SHAHEEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,729
    There is a reason for a Line of bikes rather than one bike from a manuf. This way riders can pick and choose the right fit for their ability and terrain. The 02 RFX is a great bike. So what if its over-biking on your trails? More bike usually means more fun because its easier, less pain, and faster.

    On the other hand, Have you set your bike up at 5" yet???????????

    That is a killer combo, wish i still had my 02 rfx for this is what i would be riding on our jump/berm trails! 130mm of beef
    Jesus Saves

    Pipedream Moxie
    Spot Mayhem
    Orbea Rallon
    Transition Sentinel
    Evil Undead
    Yz 250



  29. #29
    mr. wonderful
    Reputation: dirtbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    879
    S hit, I would rather it be 180 mm, a little slacker, beefier frame, 1.5" HT, and 150mm thru axle. Nevermind. . .
    I already have a HL

    If you want a bike with less travel, great, get a bike with less travel

    Where do I nominate this thread for stupidest ever?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by juan_speeder
    These parameters being built and supported (that being a key feature) by Turner = big news (even to you, as evidenced by how much you post about the 2010 RFX that you hold so much disdain for).

    Ultimately, it's a bicycle, you don't want to buy it. Move on...
    Maybe it's news for you but it's not anything new in the bike industry. The only reason I am even considering Turner is because of the dw-link and the journal bearings with grease ports. If I wanted Faux bar I would buy a Kona! I don't care how pretty the welds are or how good I will feel amongst other riders. I care about specs, suspension design, and ease of maintenance.

    This thread was about 1 thing and had nothing to do with the RFX. Maybe you can figure it out!
    Last edited by wormvine; 08-07-2009 at 02:35 PM.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by G-AIR
    Check out the Banshee Spitfire. Less travel with AM/FR geometry. I personally think this style of bike will be the future of trail bikes. Less travel, slacker HA, steeper ST. More fun on the way down and can still climb almost anything.

    TG
    The Marin Wolfridge with 67deg HA and 5.5" of travel has been out for 2 years but I am glad to see another adjustable GEO bike!
    Last edited by wormvine; 08-07-2009 at 01:47 PM.

  32. #32
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,874
    Quote Originally Posted by SHAHEEB
    That is a killer combo, wish i still had my 02 rfx for this is what i would be riding on our jump/berm trails! 130mm of beef
    mine will be revived again this weekend, should be interesting to get back on it, probably the best way to keep from over jumping everything.

  33. #33
    AW_
    AW_ is offline
    locked - time out
    Reputation: AW_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    But are you going to be riding anything bigger because you have that extra travel? Or are you simply going to be doing exactly the same thing a little bit faster and a little bit easier? Personally I *like* the challenge of mtbing. I don't want it to be too easy.
    The way I see it... FS over hardtail opens up a lot of new lines. Big bike over short travel opens up even more. Soon you are looking at transitions and angles differently, not the little stuff in the way of those new lines. Even the mindset in which you approach a corner. So many ways to ride a bike, that is what I love about it. It's only easy if you want it to be easy. There are *always* harder lines and bigger moves. It's only too much travel if you aren't looking for and using the new lines that bigger travel allows you to take. I agree with you but I think we are both stating the obvious. The new RFX doesn't appear to be a park bike. Is 170mm overkill for a 30# trail bike w/ air shock? I sort of think so. But I want one anyways.

  34. #34
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,804
    Quote Originally Posted by AW_
    The way I see it... FS over hardtail opens up a lot of new lines. Big bike over short travel opens up even more. Soon you are looking at transitions and angles differently, not the little stuff in the way of those new lines. Even the mindset in which you approach a corner. So many ways to ride a bike, that is what I love about it. It's only easy if you want it to be easy. There are *always* harder lines and bigger moves. It's only too much travel if you aren't looking for and using the new lines that bigger travel allows you to take. I agree with you but I think we are both stating the obvious. The new RFX doesn't appear to be a park bike. Is 170mm overkill for a 30# trail bike w/ air shock? I sort of think so. But I want one anyways.
    Hopefully this time around we can skip the- "Look at my new 27.9432lb RFX!". Hopefully these things get built correctly. Putting a 160mm talas would be pretty under-forked IMO. The 160mm 55s are a little beefier, but not much. I'd probably at least want some way to slacken it. I fell into the "build a light weight 6-pack" trap too, but luckily I grew out of that phase pretty quick. That was the dumbest way I ever had it built up, mostly because a Spot would have been a better choice if I was riding it like the components were designed for.

    In any case, there are some people that climb DH bikes up normal XC trails and climbs. When I'm doing stuff like that on my Highline, I think to myself: Why ride up this on my 29er hardtail? Any idiot or weenie can ride up this on an XC bike, but can they do it on a 45lb bike? It's a challenge. Maybe not the one that people expect, but I love being able to grab that bike and go ride it on the same trails as my other bikes. It's a good workout.
    "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.

  35. #35
    AW_
    AW_ is offline
    locked - time out
    Reputation: AW_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Hopefully this time around we can skip the- "Look at my new 27.9432lb RFX!". Hopefully these things get built correctly. Putting a 160mm talas would be pretty under-forked IMO. The 160mm 55s are a little beefier, but not much. I'd probably at least want some way to slacken it. I fell into the "build a light weight 6-pack" trap too, but luckily I grew out of that phase pretty quick. That was the dumbest way I ever had it built up, mostly because a Spot would have been a better choice if I was riding it like the components were designed for.

    In any case, there are some people that climb DH bikes up normal XC trails and climbs. When I'm doing stuff like that on my Highline, I think to myself: Why ride up this on my 29er hardtail? Any idiot or weenie can ride up this on an XC bike, but can they do it on a 45lb bike? It's a challenge. Maybe not the one that people expect, but I love being able to grab that bike and go ride it on the same trails as my other bikes. It's a good workout.
    I just wish the turner website said it was a big hit park bike that could still rip the trails, instead it's a "trail bike that can be built to 30 pounds" and the little chart shows it just nudging into that "light freeride" category which means it's not really freeride. If the bike isn't designed to hit jumps and drops over and over and over, then sorry, it's not a freeride bike, so let's not pretend light freeride means anything.

    In other words, when is the DW highline coming out?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally Posted by AW_
    I just wish the turner website said it was a big hit park bike that could still rip the trails, instead it's a "trail bike that can be built to 30 pounds" and the little chart shows it just nudging into that "light freeride" category which means it's not really freeride. If the bike isn't designed to hit jumps and drops over and over and over, then sorry, it's not a freeride bike, so let's not pretend light freeride means anything.

    In other words, when is the DW highline coming out?
    So the question remains. Is the new RFX really just a slacker/long legged spot? And should the gap between the 2 bikes be further?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    262
    If there really isn't any plan for a new HL it would be wise to distance the RFX from the Spot. More like an Uzzi VP than a Nomad in terms of purpose (I would rather do an XC ride on an Uzzi than take a Nomad to Whistler).

    People ain't buying 170mm bikes to kill it on the climbs - they wants a bike that can get 'em to the top when there's no chairlift in sight, yet still do an XC ride in a pinch. Heck, some of my best XC rides have been on my 37pound 6pack with a Totem.

    If I'm building a 170mm trail bike I would rather have a beefy 9-pound frame than some girly 7 pound frame - the lighter frame limits your options.

    To answer the original question - hell yeah I want 170mm. You want less, that's cool - get a Bottlerocket.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    85

    just get a different bike with less travel...

    Just get a Knolly Endorphin. 66d HA with a Lyric/36. 5.5" in the back. Super duper stout frame. etc. Rips it up and down.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,191
    Quote Originally Posted by jodd
    Just get a Knolly Endorphin. 66d HA with a Lyric/36. 5.5" in the back. Super duper stout frame. etc. Rips it up and down.
    How do you figure that geometry?

    Knolly states:
    Head Tube Angle 68.5°
    Fork Length (includes headset) 525mm

    So you figure that each 10mm travel equates to .5* HA change...

    Lyrik has a 545mm A2C, so that is 20mm difference, or 1* at HA, yeilding a 67.5* HA, not 66d (to get 66* you would need at least a 575mm A2C with the fork/hs combo).

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    85

    well...

    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterZero
    How do you figure that geometry?

    Knolly states:
    Head Tube Angle 68.5°
    Fork Length (includes headset) 525mm

    So you figure that each 10mm travel equates to .5* HA change...

    Lyrik has a 545mm A2C, so that is 20mm difference, or 1* at HA, yeilding a 67.5* HA, not 66d (to get 66* you would need at least a 575mm A2C with the fork/hs combo).
    It's pretty well established that with a 545mm axle to HEAD TUBE height that you'll come out at 66.9* on the Endorphin.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by jodd
    It's pretty well established that with a 545mm axle to HEAD TUBE height that you'll come out at 66.9* on the Endorphin.
    You must mean "545 mm axle to CROWN", which would give you a ~560mm axle to head tube length, which very well may result in a 66.9 degree head tube angle. Kind of a stretch to call 66.9 degrees a "66d HA" though, if you ask me. Especially when it comes to splitting hairs in a comparison with say a 5 Spot, which has a 67.5d HA with a 545mm fork. The Endo is certainly "stout" though, so I guess the gist of your original point stands.
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  42. #42
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Edwards
    Something that's been floating round for a while in the depths of my mind - thought I'd finally vocalise it.

    Do we actually *need* 170mm of travel?

    Speaking personally, I'm pretty happy with the 150mm my '02 offers. In UK trail terms, that's overbiked most of the time, and even in the Alps, it's not really necessary away from the pure DH runs. Hell, there wasn't much in Whistler that I couldn't cope with on 6". I'd actually be happy with less - 130 wouldn't be a deal breaker if it rode right. We all know that "its not what you've got, its what you do with it" We also all know that most of the time forks struggle to keep up with back ends, especially when it gets properly steep. (hell, 2 of my hardtails have 5" and 6" forks, and the fork is still the limiting factor in how fast I can go in most situations), so by upping the ante on the back end, you have to up the front yet further to keep up. How many DW-RFXs will start off with Lyric/36s and end up sprouting Totems or 66s? Then you end up with a DH bike that just has a granny ring on, and steamrollers the life out of most trails. ( I'm old skool enough to remember when 75mm of travel was for WC DH bikes only)

    So why am I interested in an RFX? Geometry and burliness are the answer. I do some DH stuff, jumps, drops - the kind of thing that long term, a 5-spot won't really like. I want a bike with a bolt through rear, chunky headtube, ISCG mounts, coil shock friendly etc, but I also want a bike I can pedal up hill well. Think doing a 40 mile *Mountain*bike ride with 2000m+ climbing one day, then messing about on a WC DH course the next with just a change of wheels.

    Comments from DT on one of the other threads implies the only reason he upped to 170mm was "because he could". I've absolute confidence that it won't affect the pedaling/climbing ability or the overall feel of the bike (hell it IS only 10mm), but it's just a case of "Is bigger always better?". (I know I'm talking to a bunch of yanks, so the answer will no doubt come back as a resounding "YES!" ) In comparison, the Nomad 2 has gone down in travel, and seems no worse for it (demoed one, didn't like the granny ring behaviour or the fit).

    Take a look at something like an Orange Blood in comparison - a bit too slope-styley in BB height and TT length, but not a million miles away from what I'm thinking of.

    Anyway. Just a thought...

    Let the flaming commence!

    you need a Nicolai Helius AM.... 130 - 167mm of bombproof tight tracking weapon.

    ceramic bearings.
    1.5 / tapered / 1.125" HT option.
    Custom geom option.
    Std routing includes for Joplin Remote cabling/
    QR / 12mm BT / Maxle rear axle / TRUAX option.
    ISCG / HSchmidt option.
    Crud mount option.
    Mahoosive colour and anodized colour options. Linkage 'Extra Love' options.
    Keep your money in Europe / ERM.
    Coil or Air shock compatability.
    28lbs or 35lbs build spec span.

    why bother with a Turner ?

    for the DW Link ????
    Last edited by The_Lecht_Rocks; 08-09-2009 at 11:42 AM.

  43. #43
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,270
    Quote Originally Posted by norcosam
    Jon edwards-I also agree with the age thing i am now closer to 40 than 30 and thats not a good thing.I also need comfort on the rides.I am what i would call pretty fast on the descents and dont mind the odd climb.Did the wall in 1hr 40 mins on my spot.
    My next bike will be a do it all 170mm travel coil sprung front and rear at about 35lbs and this will have to do afan forest,gawton(tavistock) and probably scotland(glentress,innerleithen) next year plus my local freeride area and local dh riding.

    Have fun at Les Arcs.....
    for glentress , all you need is a LT HT !!!!!!!!

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lecht_Rocks
    for glentress , all you need is a LT HT !!!!!!!!
    Any hardtail would be ok for Glentress!

  45. #45
    steep fast and loose :)
    Reputation: The_Lecht_Rocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pink
    Any hardtail would be ok for Glentress!

    chapeau Mr Pink

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    778
    Should of been at Glentress today but i have had a groin strain so had to give it a miss,no hardtail for me just the flux or spot.

  47. #47
    Pixie Dust Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,352
    OK. We get it. You prefer a Nicolai. Go be a fanboi in the Nicolai forum.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,191
    Quote Originally Posted by jodd
    It's pretty well established that with a 545mm axle to HEAD TUBE height that you'll come out at 66.9* on the Endorphin.
    That is like a girl stating that she weighs 100lbs when she really weighs 190.

    66.9* ≠ 66.0* or even 66.5*

  49. #49
    Moosehead
    Reputation: moosehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lecht_Rocks
    you need a Nicolai Helius AM....
    why bother with a Turner ?
    for the DW Link ????
    Why bother to lurk continually in the Turner board when you are a happy Nicolai Guy?

    And yes, amongst other things that keep you coming back, the DWLink is one of them.

  50. #50
    Hisforever
    Reputation: SHAHEEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,729
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    mine will be revived again this weekend, should be interesting to get back on it, probably the best way to keep from over jumping everything.

    Did the black rfx get resurrected? That is a killer bike man. They are more down vs. up oriented than the current imo.

    I agree with lil'stink, we wants 170mm.
    Jesus Saves

    Pipedream Moxie
    Spot Mayhem
    Orbea Rallon
    Transition Sentinel
    Evil Undead
    Yz 250



  51. #51
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,389
    I think a 170 TOTEM would be a better choice for the New RFX.

    Option to go 180 for resort days.

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
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.