qclabrat
Well-Known Member
I wished Turner would make a bigger bike, we're not in the same stratosphere, but do you feel the Czar limits you at some NJ parks?
I want a new bike
- Thread starter qclabrat
- Start date
I haven't ridden it anywhere I felt it was under gunned, but you can run it with a 120mm fork...it's made for 100 or 120. I had a Turner sultan a long time ago with 120 front and rear and felt like that bike could do anything.
Ian F
Well-Known Member
Ha! I thought I was bad! I am currently at... um... let me think... 8 - yes, I have 8 bikes. Primer (trail)
Carbine (trail/enduro)
M16C (DH)
Vassago (trail)
Tazer (DS/DJ)
BMX
Colnago (road)
GT Grade (road/gravel)
Plus, a few "retired" bikes I don't ride anymore.
The Carbine I plan to replace with a Nomad, which "might" replace the M16C as well after I do some back-to-back park riding.
The Grade I'm unsure about. I like the "idea" of a gravel bike, but I'm having trouble finding one I like. I bought the Grade but after a few rides on it, discovered I really don't like SRAM shifters and REALLY don't like flared bars. After 25 years of riding Campy Ergopower, I simply have no desire to switch. So I want a gravel bike with Campy and disc brakes. While I could rebuild the Grade with new parts, I'm not sure it makes sense, so I may end up building a new bike from scratch. Plus, I have no intention of really replacing my current Colnago, so if I build a new "road" bike, I really want it to skew more towards the touring side.
qclabrat
Well-Known Member
@Ian F , have you tried to lower the travel to 115 on the Primer? If so, how did it feel with the 140 fork?
Read somewhere that Intense recommends a smaller fork (120mm) if you drop, but haven't found it on their website.
I'm actually wondering if the 2016 Carbine which has the 125 to 140 option may be the better option, that should allow me to sell the AM bike and if need be get a really DH ride.
Read somewhere that Intense recommends a smaller fork (120mm) if you drop, but haven't found it on their website.
I'm actually wondering if the 2016 Carbine which has the 125 to 140 option may be the better option, that should allow me to sell the AM bike and if need be get a really DH ride.
Ian F
Well-Known Member
No, I've only run it at the long travel setting. Looking at the manual online for the 2018 model, I don't see any mention of running a shorter fork either. I understand the travel change doesn't change the geometry, so I'm not sure running a shorter fork would be of any benefit and may adversely affect the handling.
It still amuses me how 130mm/5" is now considered almost "short travel"... It certainly doesn't "feel" like a long travel bike in the way my old-school DH bikes with similar amounts of travel did.
It still amuses me how 130mm/5" is now considered almost "short travel"... It certainly doesn't "feel" like a long travel bike in the way my old-school DH bikes with similar amounts of travel did.
Monkey Soup
Angry Wanker
Turner does make a bigger bike, its called the RFX. Sure, its not 29", but those other bikes your looking at aren't even in the same league. It'll change your perceptions on what a 160mm bike can do around here. Best all around trail bike I've ridden.
qclabrat
Well-Known Member
XC bikes are dead, at least that's what they are selling now. I can't imagine another wheel size yet, every tire width has been offered up as the next game changer, how much longer can the top tube get, short rear n slack front (done). Now it's upping the travel and telling us we need more than before. When does this madness end? I personally don't need boost, 142 is ideal for all tires I ride.
Here's an excerpt I picked up from mtbr, though haven't come across the actual Intense post yet.
I have read some posts from Intense on here that explains that if you are using the shorter travel setting, you should also use a shorter travel fork to match the setting.
Juggernaut
Master of the Metaphor
The caveat to that is you like the way the bike rides in it’s designed geo. Playing with travel and offset is how I adjust the handling from the intended (based on a certain type of rider and terrain) to match how and where I ride.
My Tallboy2 is NOT the way it was spec’d or designed. I run a 130mm Fox 34 and the stock 100 rear, because that’s how I like it..... The fork is a 51 offset which quickens up the steering a bit to compensate for the additional travel. But that’s me.
My Tallboy2 is NOT the way it was spec’d or designed. I run a 130mm Fox 34 and the stock 100 rear, because that’s how I like it..... The fork is a 51 offset which quickens up the steering a bit to compensate for the additional travel. But that’s me.
qclabrat
Well-Known Member
Do the Czars run small? I remember Kirt saying Turners did not run small for him, but many have said they do. Looking at the geo, looks like the ETT is tad short than norm
Supermoto
Well-Known Member
The Czars are old school XC race geo made to run with a 90-100mm stem. The Flux is a new school geo, longer front center and shorter stem
Yes. Every Turner I've had with a DW ran small. My xl czar is smaller than my xl scalpel was.
Victor I
aka Ridgehog
I bet if you listed all the places you've ridden in the last 2 years, a good XC bike with the newer geometry would be the best all around bike.
Problem is that the definition of XC bikes changes, xc today is trail of year yesteryear. 120 today, 100 YY. I just bumped to 140 in the front and it feels lower than my 120 trance x of 10 years ago.
What baffles me is what people are doing with these 150+ bikes.
phillychris498
Well-Known Member
Some of the "trail" bikes that companies are coming out with now are insane. They would've been downhill bikes 6 years ago. Look at this year's Nomad with 170 front 160 rear, I think a 64 degree headtube angle. I can't imagine what pedalling one uphill feels like. Sure it's fun to huck on and rail berms, but that's half the battle of a trail..
Of course I'm an XC rider who thinks my 130/115 dual suspension can handle anything, so who am I to talk shit?
Juggernaut
Master of the Metaphor
The Nomad 4 is 170/170 65 in the high 64.6 in the low position and it pedals uphill way better than my old 2013 140 yeti asr-c if that puts things into perspective.
Ian F
Well-Known Member
That is a bit of an exaggeration. My Intense M-1 from 2000 (18 years ago) had 8" rear travel and between 180 and 190mm front travel (I swapped forks a few times). Head angles have slackened out a lot (and I had my M-1 set as low and slack as possible), but the big change has been in the center-front and overall wheelbase of new bikes compared to older DH bikes. Those old bikes look tiny by today's standards.
And the 2018 Nomad "4" has 170mm travel, front and rear, not 160 - that was the old 2017 "3" version. Reviews I've seen so far say the Nomad 4 climbs surprisingly well. It won't be mistaken for a XC bike, but it "hides" the amount of travel well when pointed up.
Monkey Soup
Angry Wanker
Bikes are so capable, and suspension is so efficient, that most newer bikes at 160 or 170mm pedal pretty well. I say get as much travel as you are comfortable pedaling around. The only thing to watch out for is the truck-like wheelbases of some of these bikes. They work well grinding up fire road or easy climb for 6-8 miles before getting into a high speed 20min descent, but around here can be a bit much if your riding entails tighter turns or low-speed tech. The Nomad in my size had me way too stretched out both sitting and standing for trail riding.