|   Here's an update on the Turner RFX/Lucky 7 | Bulldog
Nov 25, 2002 4:12 PM | | Just got off the phone with the man himself. Soon, likely next week, a Turner rep (probably Casey) will have a link for anyone interested in buying a RFX/Lucky 7 bike to visit.
The link will require a deposit and will allow you to vote for many of the crucial numbers/angles/specs of your ideal Turner FR bike. Pick your head angle, chainstay length, BB height, 1.5 or 1-1/8 headtube, seat angle, etc. If 60 downpayments are received in a month or so, Turner will build the bikes with the numbers/angles that satisfy the most people.
So everyone who was bashing Turner for killing the FR line grab your wallets, and PUT UP OR SHUT UP! |
| This, THIS, is why I love to deal with Turner | esquire
Nov 25, 2002 6:03 PM | | Its that simple folks. Bikes made by mountain bikers for mountainn bikers. Can you imagine a mass produced bike company doing something like this? Very nice, IMHO. |
| Well, realistically ... | Ivabign
Nov 25, 2002 9:18 PM | | No offense and the guys at Turner are top notch. Some of the best guys in the industry. But, seeing as they sold (from what I hear) less than 60 RFX frames ALL LAST YEAR, chances of them actually getting 60 deposits in a month seem very slim ... |
| I agree | Bulldog
Nov 25, 2002 9:48 PM | | I'm hoping it works, cuz I'd like one, but either way this is a great positive way for Turner to answer all the internet *expert* critics with a simple "shut the F up" in the best of ways. He's put the blame for the death of the RFX on the consumer's shoulders, and I think that is a brilliant business move, and more than fair. |
| Huh ? | Ivabign
Nov 26, 2002 6:53 AM | | I'm not sure this is a brilliant business move or just a way for the customers to make building the bike economically feasable for Turner. If I understand it correctly the customers are going to vote for their desired frame geometry's. Is Turner going to build each one custom, or just a compromise of all the votes? I can't see that many people voting for the same exact bike given the choice. Seems it would just be easier to keep building the RFX in limited numbers. From what the responses have been from the announcement of their new bikes it wouldn't appear that Turner has been listening to their customers. Forget about the RFX, NO ONE seems happy with the passing of the beloved XCE. |
| Agreed on the XCE (is it new coke?) | loop
Nov 26, 2002 7:37 AM | | I would be interested to see Turner post on their reasons for the demise of the XCE. It certainly seems like no one is really happy about the prospect of the 5-spot replacing the XCE.
Maybe Turner is out of touch with what people want in a trail bike. Doesn't seem likely since they seem to make bikes that folks love.
Maybe Turner is just changing for change's sake. Doesn't seem likely from what we hear about the company.
Maybe it is a brilliant marketing move - ala New Coke - take it away for a while and then everyone will go crazy for it! At least that's what Turner can claim later if they bring the XCE back! :-) |
| 5 spot as a trail bike | gurp
Nov 26, 2002 12:35 PM | | Personally Id rather have a 5 Spot for trail riding than an XCE. If your putting up with the weight of coil, why not get a bit more travel. I know alot of other people who also like the idea of whats basically a 5" xce. |
| 4" XCE already equivalent to bikes w/ 5" travel... | erolthegreat
Nov 26, 2002 1:35 PM | | Also... the head angle is more slack at 69 deg. Good for west coast. Not so good for east coast stuff. I'll stick with XCE's 70 deg. as the ideal for all-around trail riding. |
| I agree 99% | Tscheezy
Nov 26, 2002 2:31 PM | | The remaining 1% says that I would not pass up a 5-Spot if it rode like the XCE in every other way, but offered 5 inches front and back. I, like you, and every XCE owner out there, could not imagine improving on the handling of the XCE and are pretty much soiling ourselves at the prospect of a 69 degree head angle. The XCE is already sooooo buttery smooth and stable at speed.... I suppose you could run a silly-tall fork like the Sherman and end up back at 70 on the 5-Spot. Who knows, maybe it WILL ride like the XCE. Time will tell. |
| Umm.. you'd need to reverse that | gurp
Nov 26, 2002 3:20 PM | | To steepen head angle you put on a shorter travel fork, not a long one. As for the east coast thing, where are Turner made? The west coast, but this shouldnt mean much.
I have one piece of advice for everyone that gripes over 69 degree head angles, work on your technique. Guys on the N. Shore ride trails that are alot more tight and technical than most anything you'll ever encounter, and they do it with very slack angles. |
| Oops, you right | Tscheezy
Nov 26, 2002 4:34 PM | | on the higher fork thing. That's the last time I let my right frontal lobe do the math.
As far as the shore stuff, I think they just tolerate the slack angles in the tight stuff to have the stability to survive in the steeps. If you have the slack angles but don't ride down chutes, you are sacrificing handling with no benefit elsewhere. The shore riders could also ride with Norba racer 71 degree head angles for performance in the trees and just "improve their technique" when rocketing off the cliffs. They wouldn't, of course, because they would rather sacrifice the tight handling for reasons of self-preservation on the drops. You just gotta decide where the handling benefit makes the most sense.
If it were purely a matter of technique I would ride Moab on a Bigwheel (OK... a Greenmachine!).
tscheezy |
| I agree 99% | TimmyB
Dec 21, 2002 9:24 AM | | I assume the 69 degree angle is with a 5" shock. Seems like you use a Talas shock at 5", then adjust down to 4 (or 3) to steepen the angle in appropriate conditions. Is this right? |
| brilliant is the wrong word | Bulldog
Nov 26, 2002 8:13 PM | | But I respect them a lot for it. It is a way to produce a bike that does not sell in large numbers. It sure beats not offering it at all. A Turner is not mass-produced. How many small or micro-builders could survive if they were forced to have bikes in stock for sale, not requiring a pre-build deposit, and only hoping they will sell? None. That's just the way it works when you want the good sh1t. ;)
Now to: "NO ONE seems happy with the passing of the beloved XCE." Huh? I don't know where you get your info on the popularity of the 5spot, but I've read a lot of excitement about it on these very boards. Some die hard XCE fans sure, but some very enthusiastic 5spot hopefuls as well. Too bad a 2 position rocker arm couldn't be developed to satisfy both wishes.
PS - the RFX-ish bike will be a compromise, average, or majority rule type of decision. The entire batch will have the same numbers. Dave told me that he of course will exercise his veto power if the numbers get too out of whack, to make it perform up to his standards. |
| Good points, but ... | Ivabign
Nov 26, 2002 10:20 PM | | Maybe the statement should have been, 'a lot of people seemed concerned that by adding additional travel and changing the frame geometry the 5 spot may not have the totally balanced ride of the XCE.' Depends what type of riding you're doing. For general trail riding I think 4" should be enough. At least IMO. Time will tell though. I still think 'beloved XCE' is a pretty apt description.
I also think that the chances of building the custom lucky 7's are slim and none. Not that it wouldn't be great, but I would hate to be one of the guys dropping down a large deposit only to find out several months later it's not going to happen. |
| I swing both ways, and both are qualified... | Tscheezy
Nov 27, 2002 12:05 PM | | I am stoked about the 5-Spot. It might be a brilliant successor to the XCE and build upon all its strengths. Then again, it might not. IF not, the XCE will be sorely missed by all XCE riders. IF so, I say out with the old and in with the new!
Plus, kudos to Dave for giving the Lucky 7 a chance and doing it both democratically and based on a free-market economy. Everything which is great about America rolled into one CNC machined, beautifully welded lump!
tscheezy |
| |
