[Closed] Turner....

Oh gawd don't show me that!

Very interesting. Maybe it's time to mothball the 6 pack.

Not sure I can spot all the detail that they can in that thread. I'm convinced it's Turner, not entirely sure it's carbon.

But I am looking on my phone.

Definitely carbon - from the head tube shape and down tube protector.

Looks like a Pike to me (as opposed to a Lyric), so it might not be a burly as some people on that thread are hoping.

The problem for me is that a lot of the appeal of a Turner is the US-made scaffolding frames.
Now it will be competing directly with Santa Cruz/Pivot/Ibis/etc.
Most of those are short though.

AlexSimon - Member

Now it will be competing directly with Santa Cruz/Pivot/Ibis/etc.
Most of those are short though.

Pivot Mach 6 is insanely short - the reach on the XL (425mm) is shorter than some mediums (Ion 16 in medium is 431mm. Nomad is 415, HD3 is 414)

Not everyone likes the long top tube trend.

Stevet1 - Member
Not everyone likes the long top tube trend.

True - but the Pivot is short by any standard - I honestly thought it was a misprint - most bikes a generation before it were longer

Actually yeah you're right - that is short for an XL even by my standards.

Stevet1 - Member

Not everyone likes the long top tube trend.

So, why are people thinking bearings? Other than the rumours the czar has already made the switch. Do bushings not work in carbon or something?

Oh, hello!

The carbon patrol is meant to be the same geometry as the alloy one.

He's no way far enough off the back for terrain that steep & demanding

[img] [/img]

8/10 for the gurn though

He's not off the back, that's just showing how long "on trend" top tubes really are!

How long has the burner 3.1 been on sale for? Looks similar to the pics to me.

Not sure the 3.1 has actually landed in the UK yet.

I was thinking that if it has a bit more travel than the burner (it's matched to a pike which might give some indication) but lighter than the burner, it will be a no brainer as that's the sort of fork I was considering anyway.

Loads of talk on that there MTBR post linked to at the top about Dave T. not wanting to make another RFX - Does anyone know why this would be the case?

I don't know but it's frustrating that DT commented on the thread and gave absolutely nothing away at all! Socks?! 🙂

iirc he made a fuss about the new upcoming RFX but it never materialised and was publicly regretful about making a fuss.

This new Burner, am i right in thinking it has a new headtube dia ?

A while back, I think dt was saying there wasn't a market for it. Maybe he was ahead of his time before and got stung. Once bitten, twice shy. However, there's a gap between the burner and the dhr. Can't see how this new bike doesn't fill that gap whatever they call it.

What I do know is that everyone who's had an rfx/6 pack has loved it.

Dave Turner is on record as saying that both the Burner and the last iteration of the 5spot are both way stronger than the old RFX and can easily handle bigger forks and be built burly. In his eyes, maybe there isn't a gap?

Dave Turner is on record as saying that both the Burner and the last iteration of the 5spot are both way stronger than the old RFX and can easily handle bigger forks and be built burly.

There is certainly space in the line up for a more aggressively angled, longer travel bike.
The Burner won't compete with the ENDURO! bikes from other manufacturers in terms of getting down a hill quickly.