Turner Web Page Updated- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 45 of 45
  1. #1
    ROBOTIC RESERVE
    Reputation: Captain Snakebite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    639

    Smile Turner Web Page Updated

    Lots of cool stuff.

    Proto RFX Pics!

    http://www.turnerbikes.com/010/010rfx.html#
    Captain's Rides
    2008 Turner 5.Spot Raw - Pushed RP23 / Pike 454 U-Turn
    2008 Turner Highline GDO - CCDB / Fox 40

  2. #2
    Nothing can stop me now
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,043

    Its alive!!!!

    Rear triangle looks huge. Looks like sizes for heights have changed too. Good stuff. Need more pictures to really nit pick .

    Now, when are the demos?

    bobo

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FlyingIrish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    130
    The new website is Legit!! It's great to see the news with Kelly McGarry and his 5 spot doing huge backflips and running the jumps at the ANTI Days of thunder. I didn't know you could run a 5 spot on slopestyle, now I'm looking to get a 5 spot! That Demo 5 spot for sale on their page has my name on it when I've got the cash, if its still around anyways. It's good to see what can be done on the bikes to know which one to pick! I really like the riding photos on the bottom of all the bikes info pages. It's cool too because we'll all be able to send in photos endlessly for the collection!

    The new DHR is so awesome I cant wait to get mine even though I just got the 08 hahaha.
    Ride it like you won't get another chance.

  4. #4
    Never enough time to ride
    Reputation: squish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,568
    Alright, yeah, I'm drooling on the new RFX it looks sweet, but the sizing makes my eye brows raise. Sorry Dave but there's no way my 6' 6" butt is gonna stretch out that much on a 2xl frame. I like the tt length on the Xl much better, but those are only recomendations and we all know how well people respond to recommendations...

    Hey Irish, still crappin myself over your run at Sol Vista, bloody awesome to meet ya and drink beers with ya over the 4cross races. Definately gonna have to do my damndest to get back out there next year, and maybe even race!

    happy trails...

    squish
    Get out and ride!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,612

    sizing

    I see that the sizing is off on the RFX, it is suggestions as usual at Turner Bikes, and the RFX is shifted. Sorry for the confusion.

    Hey Irish, can you get me hooked up with the GoPro people, like to get a camera for chasing my kids while I can still keep them in site.

    First demos should be in Vegas.. if all goes well.

    Kelly's first 5 Spot lasted 10 months, not bad for what he does to it. Not acceptable if you are paying. Keep in mind, he don't pay for stuff, just break it. It's a good life but few of us are worthy of that privelege!

    DT

  6. #6
    Singletrack Addict!!!
    Reputation: Relayden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    905
    Something in the design just doesn't cut it for me, the first proto looked better, even when a lot of old farts here killed it for having a bit of curves. The front triangle is soso, but that huge rear triangle and the lower link position just look awkward... In general looks like more of the same old RFK, not an evolution. Just my opinion. Although I bet it will ride as sweet as sweet get's. Geometry looks good, TT a bit long given the rider height recommended and the bikes intended purpose, any particular reason for this?

    Floating shock, like the Remedy, thou I think DW designed something like that before Trek came with it.

  7. #7
    Pixie Dust Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    First demos should be in Vegas.. if all goes well.
    DT
    Sweet! Guess who's bringing his FF, pads, and insurance card to Bootleg in September? .

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,612

    more

    thanks for the compliments Relayden, I tried very hard to carry on the traditional Turner look. Low standover without looking like my moms Western Auto ss, whew it's been a long walk.

    This is not a floating shock. DW was able to ace a wheel rate that made us both happy without it. From my fading memory a California company name McMahon was the first floating shock rocker bike I can remember seeing. Looked just like a Trek, but with clean lines and straight tubes. Anyone in the industry at that time would have seen it, they were around for a few years.

    Attention, the RFX suggested rider heights are wrong! I over looked it. Sorry for the confusion, I am sure most of you will note that I, me, ride a medium, therefore someone 5'8" would be suggested to ride a medium. This geometry is almost the same as the last RFX, that was the best fitting RFX with the least amount of help calls ever. I will have that touched up and anything else we missed on Monday.

    Thanks for watching Edesigns with Dave.

    DT

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FlyingIrish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    130
    I think that the news feed on Kelly McGarry should specify that he rides a 5 spot. I had to dig through his blogspot to figure out that's what he rode. DT I sent an email, I'll let you know directly what I can get happening. The site looks awesome and I cant wait to see more color schemes for the bikes!!
    Ride it like you won't get another chance.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,932
    Lookin' good Dave. Can't wait to throw a leg over one. Seven weeks to get a stable welded up for I-bike. Go Dave Go!

    Does that top rocker push forward and up above the top tube on full compression? Looks like that's where it has to go. Will that snag my shorts or chop my nuts off?

    The photo obviously shows a tapered head tube but the specs say 1.5" (Just toying with TA?)

    Wicked Will? Am I that far behind all the new tire news? Haven't heard of that one. Details. It's not on their site.

    Lyric 170 solo air should be a perfect match.
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by KRob
    Wicked Will? Am I that far behind all the new tire news? Haven't heard of that one. Details. It's not on their site.
    http://www.downhilltires.com/

  12. #12
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    ........

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ThePunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    294
    142x12 rear end?
    ok now that's dumb...scratch that bike off my list.

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    I'm leaning more against an X12, but I'd really like to learn more about it to understand why the designers are possibly trying to push strongly for it. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but also getting a new wheel for one bike isn't cheap.

    Maxle rears, along with TA/TB 10mm 135's seem to be working fine, so I'm just hoping to get some more insight into why the new spacing with a 12mm would be needed before I totally pan it.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,022
    So is the RFX designed around a 160mm fork or 170mm? The website is still saying 545 A2C (160mm). That would mean you'd have to run a zero stack headset (and not be able to use a 1.5/tapered steerer) just to keep the HTA from going below 66 degrees if you ran a 170mm fork.

    I'm all about a slack front end for a bike like this, but considering most people will want to run a 170mm or even a 180mm fork, you're looking at almost a DH'ish steering angle.
    Last edited by miles e; 08-02-2009 at 06:24 AM.
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  16. #16
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    I checked the Syntace page:

    http://www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=1&pk=1314

    and read up briefly on the x12. Seems nice, and I don't have to get new wheels, as I use DT Swiss and Hope hubs. Just adapters (compatibility chart listed). Doesn't seem bad, and according to the site, allows camber and toe adjustment, even though that will be lost on most of us. I still wonder to some extent if it will be worth the trouble and licensing for DT and DW to design it in, when we have the options we do today. It's a concept that might not have advantages being made clear to us. Also, the Syntace site somewhat stresses that this system now makes it feasible to put a TA on an XC rig, especially since they need the stiffness.

  17. #17
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Thats what I like about it..

    old skool looks, with new skool performance. I love the look of the TNT.

    The coil option is great, too. I had never even heard of the X12 rear until it was supposedly spec'd for the RFX??? I'm running a DT Swiss 440 rear hub, so I think I would be ok.


  18. #18
    Big Wheel Homer !!
    Reputation: cruzthepug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,749
    I'm curious about the placement of the bottom DW link. Why move it to the down tube?


  19. #19
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,276
    DT, I really like the website.

    My only complaint is with respect to the "Rider Spotlight" portion. I think the viewers would have appreciated you at least photoshopping the pic of Aquaholic is his fugliness detracts from the new frame lineup. And WTF is up with Age Unkown? I personally think there is an untapped AARP market and at least noting > 65 for age, while not precise, would encourage that group of potential buyers to believe they too could own a Turner.

    And WTF is up with not having any Turner girls? The only reason i patronize Marzocchi is cuz of the hawt chicks...your marketing department seems to be in need a serious overhaul.

  20. #20
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,443
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePunisher
    142x12 rear end?
    ok now that's dumb...scratch that bike off my list.
    Do a little more research before you pan it off.
    Most existing 10x135 hubs will convert with adaptors (Hope Pro2, DT, and supposedly King is on the way). The extra 3.5mm on each side is just a collar that fits into a recess on the inside of the drop-out- so you can drop the frame on to the wheel, and everything aligns without the axle. Then you can thread the axle in without having to hold everything together. Another benefit I see is getting rid of the XC turner derailuer hanger, in favor of a DHR/highline style hanger that won't bend if you look at it wrong.

  21. #21
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    Do a little more research before you pan it off.
    Most existing 10x135 hubs will convert with adaptors (Hope Pro2, DT, and supposedly King is on the way). The extra 3.5mm on each side is just a collar that fits into a recess on the inside of the drop-out- so you can drop the frame on to the wheel, and everything aligns without the axle. Then you can thread the axle in without having to hold everything together. Another benefit I see is getting rid of the XC turner derailuer hanger, in favor of a DHR/highline style hanger that won't bend if you look at it wrong.
    These are two great things. Putting the wheel back on my Highline even with a Maxle is a minor PITA. NBD it's not an XC-race biek but its more kludgy than I like.
    If King makes a big farging deal about adaptors...if it costs a mint, I'm selling my king hubs. I love em but their 150mm mis-alignment still has me PO'd

    The HL style der hanger is brilliant. It's worked for me a treat. Hell, last year I did half of Goats Gully on my azz and it held up fine!
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  22. #22
    suspension whore
    Reputation: matthew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    702
    wow... fantastic. Love the traditional turner look, the non asym chain stays dont bother me as much as they did on the spot... if it rides as well as the spot does it will be the complete bike for me.... well done
    Intense 6.6..... Demo 9.

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

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,190
    Anyone else think it is odd that the (admittedly shopped) pic is spec'd with Stan's ARCH rims? Those are the more narrow in the lineup IIRC.
    Especially given that the Wicked Wills come in only 2.5 flavah

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    107
    Geometry looks pretty damned sweet on that thing. Too bad its sinfully ugly.

  25. #25
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    ...I tried very hard to carry on the traditional Turner look. Low standover without looking like my moms Western Auto ss, whew it's been a long walk.
    Thanks for watching Edesigns with Dave.
    DT
    Looking good DT!!!

    I like the proto's geometry and the refinements (tapered HT, rear thru axle, etc.) over the previous models although the rocker placement looks a bit awkward, however, but if it works, then who cares...
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  26. #26
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by cruzthepug
    I'm curious about the placement of the bottom DW link. Why move it to the down tube?

    I like the look of the new frame, seriously thinking of an upgrade from the old sixpack next year to the DW design.

    One concern though is the width of the frame and rear triangle at the top pivot under the seat. That's critical thigh space and some of us with big legs (mostly muscle) don't have much room to spare there. What is the width of the frame plus stays at that point?
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bond007jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    93
    To me, that rear triangle looks very odd as it appears to be much larger than the front triangle. I like the look of 1st Prototype much better.

    A 1.5 head tube would be better. It gives the rider the greatest number of fork options: 1.5, 1 1/8, or tapered.

    I will reserve judgment on the 142 rear hub spacing for now.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity...lick it once and you will suck forever.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: big-ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    428
    Huh. 4 sizes of DHR. Curious to know the motivation here. I've yet to hear any all guys complain that the current large is too small. Obviously DT has his ears closer to the ground than I though.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dubjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    786
    Hmm..no short travel version of the Sultan. Or does that get announced @ Interbike? Or was that just a nasty rumor?

  30. #30
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,874
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Kelly's first 5 Spot lasted 10 months, not bad for what he does to it. Not acceptable if you are paying. Keep in mind, he don't pay for stuff, just break it. It's a good life but few of us are worthy of that privelege!

    DT
    go Kelly!


  31. #31
    striker!
    Reputation: superstock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    610
    The BB area looks greatly simplified (and likely stronger) over the original prototype. I'm really liking the HA and BB height.
    "flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

  32. #32
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,258
    HA + BB are great figures.
    TT, too short, or is that the seat tube is too long for given TT? That puts me off that frame.
    Rear triangle? That just kills the looks of the frame, and it seems like it adds excess weight. I really dig the compact rear ends on the Flux and Spot, the massive rear tri on the RFX, not so good.

    And why am I seeing a RP3 doing the damping duties? That shock just really gasps for air compared to quality coil.

    _MK

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

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: G-AIR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    HA + BB are great figures.
    TT, too short, or is that the seat tube is too long for given TT? That puts me off that frame.
    Take a look at post #8 in this thread. DT mentioned it was on oversight on his part and all sizes should be shifted over one. That puts the large with a 23.8 TT. These lengths are all the same as the last generation of RFX.

    I am sure he will update the site very soon.

    TG

  34. #34
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,258
    Quote Originally Posted by G-AIR
    Take a look at post #8 in this thread. DT mentioned it was on oversight on his part and all sizes should be shifted over one. That puts the large with a 23.8 TT. These lengths are all the same as the last generation of RFX.
    That's the numbers I'm seeing, 23.8 for Large. DT got it right in the 05/06 and ended up backpedaling to shorter TTs. Wish he didn't, but he probably must abide by the paying customer that's used to longer stems.

    _MK

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

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,364
    also at 23.8 for a Large RFX it would be a longer top tube than that of a Large Spot - I know TSCheezy likes a long TT on a highline for XC but having a longer TT on a RFX than on a Spot makes no sense - nor does a 23.6 TT on a large Spot to be honest - that should be a Medium!

  36. #36
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    I like the look of the new frame, seriously thinking of an upgrade from the old sixpack next year to the DW design.

    One concern though is the width of the frame and rear triangle at the top pivot under the seat. That's critical thigh space and some of us with big legs (mostly muscle) don't have much room to spare there. What is the width of the frame plus stays at that point?
    Sorry to rehash my own question, but I took out the ol' sixpack for a quick hack tonight and paid careful attention to how close my knees run against the pivot arm. They pretty much brush against the pivot arm every pedal stroke. So how much wider is the bike at that top pivot, does anyone have any info?
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  37. #37
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,258
    Quote Originally Posted by wilks
    also at 23.8 for a Large RFX it would be a longer top tube than that of a Large Spot - I know TSCheezy likes a long TT on a highline for XC but having a longer TT on a RFX than on a Spot makes no sense - nor does a 23.6 TT on a large Spot to be honest - that should be a Medium!
    Why does having a longer TT on the RFX make no sense?

    I think you're looking at it from a perspective of Flux having a longer TT than Spot, Spot having a longer TT than RFX, etc. Flux giving a better stretch than a Spot for XC race/leg shaver efforts, Spot being more upright. Spot has more of a job of balancing the uphill/downhill, Flux is 60/40 focused on pedaling/ascending. The RFX is 60/40 focus on descending, or even more; especially since there is no Highline. Descending is done best with shorter stems. Longer TT for one make up the difference in reach, secondly and more importantly, longer TTs put the descender more "inside" the bike, further behind the front axle. Long TTs are paramount, in my opinion, on a bike of this nature.

    _MK

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

  38. #38
    striker!
    Reputation: superstock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    Why does having a longer TT on the RFX make no sense?

    I think you're looking at it from a perspective of Flux having a longer TT than Spot, Spot having a longer TT than RFX, etc. Flux giving a better stretch than a Spot for XC race/leg shaver efforts, Spot being more upright. Spot has more of a job of balancing the uphill/downhill, Flux is 60/40 focused on pedaling/ascending. The RFX is 60/40 focus on descending, or even more; especially since there is no Highline. Descending is done best with shorter stems. Longer TT for one make up the difference in reach, secondly and more importantly, longer TTs put the descender more "inside" the bike, further behind the front axle. Long TTs are paramount, in my opinion, on a bike of this nature.

    _MK
    I have to disagree. I like the shorter TT's for decending, it lets the bike turn quickly and crisply. The longer TT's make it feel like you're trying to persuade the bike to turn rather than telling it. I should be on a large spot based on my height but I ride the medium because I like the shorter TT. I do however, feel a bit cramped while climbing but thats a tradeoff I'm willing to make. The 07-09 DHRs got shortened up from the previous generation due to racer feedback. Heck, John Kirkaldie was running a medium square tube DHR and he was 6'2"!

    I do appreciate the longer TT on my flux for the climbs.

    S
    "flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes."

  39. #39
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    I think Turner needs to make an adjustable Top Tube for us all.

  40. #40
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe maņana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,258
    Quote Originally Posted by superstock
    I have to disagree. I like the shorter TT's for decending, it lets the bike turn quickly and crisply. The longer TT's make it feel like you're trying to persuade the bike to turn rather than telling it. I should be on a large spot based on my height but I ride the medium because I like the shorter TT. I do however, feel a bit cramped while climbing but thats a tradeoff I'm willing to make. The 07-09 DHRs got shortened up from the previous generation due to racer feedback. Heck, John Kirkaldie was running a medium square tube DHR and he was 6'2"!

    I do appreciate the longer TT on my flux for the climbs.

    S
    I don't disagree that a purpose built descending bike is better with a shorter TT. I run a medium Sunday and I'm moving to a medium DHR. The RFX is meant to climb, though, in addition to descending. The overall reach is important to me, so that I don't feel cramped when I'm climbing for hours (here in Colorado) and I like to be far behind the axle of the front wheel when descending.

    There's not much drawback when you downsize, you show a little extra post and that's it. When you're forced to upsize, then you run into a risk of there not being enough available seat drop distance to make the descending optimal.

    _MK

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

  41. #41
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by superstock
    I have to disagree. I like the shorter TT's for decending, it lets the bike turn quickly and crisply. The longer TT's make it feel like you're trying to persuade the bike to turn rather than telling it. I should be on a large spot based on my height but I ride the medium because I like the shorter TT. I do however, feel a bit cramped while climbing but thats a tradeoff I'm willing to make. The 07-09 DHRs got shortened up from the previous generation due to racer feedback. Heck, John Kirkaldie was running a medium square tube DHR and he was 6'2"!

    I do appreciate the longer TT on my flux for the climbs.

    S
    ^^^Agree. Plus, you can't have a super long top tube on a bike with a 66* HA without having a massive wheel base. If you want the bike to have some sort of agility descending you can't have a 24"+ TT, 17" CS and a 66* HA, it would end up with a crazy long wheel base and be a handfull IMHO. I'm 6'1 riding a bike with a 23" TT and 16" ST, 66* HA and 16.75" CS and it has a long wheelbase (LG Intense SS) as my trailbike, it is not the most comfortable climber, but it rails on the way down. I think the posted '10 RFX #'s may be a good compromise.

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  42. #42
    Build More = Ride More
    Reputation: YoPawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by cruzthepug
    I'm curious about the placement of the bottom DW link. Why move it to the down tube?

    It appears they moved the pivot forward in order to make room on the rear triangle for a direct mount front derailleur. No possible on the other designs.

    I'm curious as to why there is no machined piece connecting the bottom and top pivot points, like on the other frames. Seems like a crucial design for something as tolerant sensitive as the DW linkage.

    I hope the seat tube uses more seat post too. Major fail on the current bikes.

  43. #43
    Stray Bullet
    Reputation: Nagaredama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,273
    RFX prototype looks good!

    How about a shorter seat tube for us 2XL folks. 23 is a bit long.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    262
    What the hell is 'trail' or 'all mountain'? There is XC, Freeride, and DH. Part of the problem with the new RFX is that there are too many categories of riding.

    Trail = your too fat to be XC

    All Mountain = your too big a ***** for Freeride

  45. #45
    trail fairy
    Reputation: trailadvent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    9,546
    Quote Originally Posted by KRob
    Lookin' good Dave. Can't wait to throw a leg over one. Seven weeks to get a stable welded up for I-bike. Go Dave Go!

    Does that top rocker push forward and up above the top tube on full compression? Looks like that's where it has to go. Will that snag my shorts or chop my nuts off?

    The photo obviously shows a tapered head tube but the specs say 1.5" (Just toying with TA?)

    Wicked Will? Am I that far behind all the new tire news? Haven't heard of that one. Details. It's not on their site.

    Lyric 170 solo air should be a perfect match.
    Haha DT likes to do that I think given him plenty of amo lol and only fair!

    Though I think it means its 1.5 at the bottom, no one wants to admit to having 2stds main quoting that in ya speccs, 1/18th and 1.5 gees it would create more confusion here than the what fork threads for my Spot or should I get a Spot or and RFX

    The 1" quote though was a beauty
    Just riding a muddy trail. . ..

    MAXXIS 4C!
    Helmet for your neck

    Leatt FAQs


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.