I got my new Banshee Spitfire and have no qualms about it, but would like to keep my stable all DW link bikes. I got an extremely good deal on my Spitty(complete), and now have an amazing trail bike parts build that I can swap over to another frame should I choose to do so. Found someone who is interested in buying my frame, so I am considering selling it in order to get one of the new carbon Turners. Either the RFX or Flux. I would prefer something with 140mm travel, but Turner doesn't offer that(yet). It's either go with the 160 RFX, or the 120 Flux. What's the verdict on the Flux? Is it beefy enough to handle aggressive riding? What do you guys think of the geo?
What's the verdict on the new Flux v4.0? Is it a good, aggressive rider's trail bike?
- Thread starter csermonet
- Start date
The Flux is way more XC oriented than your Spitfire. That's cool if that's what you're into, but they're quite different bikes in terms of intended purpose. If you're expecting the Flux to be as aggressive as the Spitfire, only carbon-ier and DW-ier, you're going to be disappointed.
Yeah looking at the geo more intently, i see that now. I think head angle is a good figure to look at to determine the intended purpose of a bike. The slacker the more aggressive the bike is meant to be ridden. 67.5 for Flux, 66 for the RFX. Spitty is 66 in the slack setting, 66.5 in mid, 67 in tall. I'm going to keep my eye out for a good deal on an RFX. Maybe a good condition used one.
Those fluxeseses are pretty solid. The bb height makes it stable and the headtube size makes pretty much any angle you want. If I had more expendable monies, I'd get one.
And then paint it immediately because only offering a white bike sucks.
The rfx really is kind of a tank. Not in weight, just in how it's put together geo/stiffness/suspension-wise. It's got long chainstays, a rather forgiving and not very spritely suspension curve.
There's a gap between the two bikes but it's more because of the rfx as a smasher than because of the flux being some pinner little thing. As to your original question,
And then paint it immediately because only offering a white bike sucks.
The rfx really is kind of a tank. Not in weight, just in how it's put together geo/stiffness/suspension-wise. It's got long chainstays, a rather forgiving and not very spritely suspension curve.
There's a gap between the two bikes but it's more because of the rfx as a smasher than because of the flux being some pinner little thing. As to your original question,
Last edited:
Yeah, they do actually look pretty cool. Just quite different than a Spitfire.
Did prices go up on these things? I thought i remembered the RFX being around $2500 with a shock, now they are $3045. I emailed DT to ask about pricing sans shock and they just take $100 off. Wayyy too much money for me to buy new. My Spit is fine. One day I'll own one of the new carbon Turner's, but i don't think any time soon
the rfx was 3300 last fall.
3k is pretty standard plastic frame cost these days. This is what we've become.
3k is pretty standard plastic frame cost these days. This is what we've become.
#onlyfordentists
White paint protects it from deadly you vee rays. Straight toobz are also good for 10% bigger huckz.
17.2" stays on a 120mm bike?
Yeah, Turner has a long history of making disappointingly long chainstays...
Learning how to wheelie sucks worstest
Last edited:
i'm learning this with the new trance. i use it as an excuse to break in the pike faster by just smashing everything instead of trying to finesse anything.
Last edited:
#MakeTurnerGreatAgain
if you can't see it, click to make big
Nice goat!
Totally unridabru, because the chainstays are 7.72-10mm too long.
If you reference back to when I defined "playful"":
Playful:
| adjective | play-ful |
1. A term to describe a full-suspension bike that either has a blown rear shock, or lacks rebound damping. Typically, the bike will have no stability and rebound up as fast as it's pushed down, helping people with weak upper-bodies deal with drop lips and jumps. <this fox CTD Evo shock has to be run with only 3 clicks of rebound, because otherwise it packs up, but it sure is super playful!>
2. A bike with chainstays no longer than 16.8", or when combined with the adverb "not", a way to describe bikes that are unridable, due to chainstays longer than 16.8". <I rode it down the mountain and it was super rowdy!, but then I read on mtbr that the chainstays were 17.3", so I had to sell it because it wasn't playful.>
If you reference back to when I defined "playful"":
Playful:
| adjective | play-ful |
1. A term to describe a full-suspension bike that either has a blown rear shock, or lacks rebound damping. Typically, the bike will have no stability and rebound up as fast as it's pushed down, helping people with weak upper-bodies deal with drop lips and jumps. <this fox CTD Evo shock has to be run with only 3 clicks of rebound, because otherwise it packs up, but it sure is super playful!>
2. A bike with chainstays no longer than 16.8", or when combined with the adverb "not", a way to describe bikes that are unridable, due to chainstays longer than 16.8". <I rode it down the mountain and it was super rowdy!, but then I read on mtbr that the chainstays were 17.3", so I had to sell it because it wasn't playful.>
