Following on from my restoration thread, I'm looking for anyone who has owned/still owns one.
How do they ride and compare with modern Turners(I own a 2005 6-Pak and am hoping it will be similar)? I plan on kitting it out for more trail orientated duties as opposed to DH as was it's original intent.
With a decent shock fitted(I have a Pushed Van RC) will it ride similar to a RFX/pak?
we may have to rely on you to tell us. my guess is that with yer pushed shock and the right fork it might be close, if all this platform talk is right. id love to hear about it and see it as the build goes on.
The biggest difference is that you cannot run a ft derailleur on the flat chainstay of the Afterburner. We may have a RFX rear end with the dropped machine part around that will make it possible to clear the derailer cage, you will need either a clamp on or a rivet on cable stop for the cable. The rear ends are really very very similar in geometry. Or you could just put a SRS on with a 34 and with the 34 in the back climb most of the hills an walk the few you can't. That would be the lowest price option.
I have an old Afterburner with a rfx rear triangle (not sure what year the afterburner is though). This is my first Turner so I can't compare it to a 5spot or rfx/6pack, but it rides awesome.
most of my riding on it so far has been more trail oriented in the pacific northwest, meaning tight, technical single track with small stunts and short downhills and it's never disappointed me. In fact, it rides way better on the trails than I thought it would. it held up fine when I took it to whistler too. I love how versatile it is.
right now I have it set up with 5" rockers and a pushed vanilla rc and I'm really liking it in it's shorter travel burly configuration. I'll try to post some pics soon.
here's a pic of the old skewl turner and a detail of the clamp on cable stop. it's a little tight in there but it works great. right now it weighs approx. 33-34 lbs. it would be easy to knock a couple of pounds off of it if I wanted but I'm liking this setup now.
thanks BM. I see your cable guides run along the TT. Are they standard? Mine run down either side of the down tube. this works ok(ish!) for the rear mech but means the brake hose is in the wrong place altogether. It appears to be designed to allow the hose to enter the caliper from the rear.
dipper, there are standard cable guides on the top tubes. however, I've had to zip tie the front der. cable onto the top tube in between the other cables. it's not very pretty and I haven't researched too many alternatives to change it.
your down tube cables present some interesting challenges. are you going to try to route your cables on the top tube or try to work it out on the down tube? at least your cables won't get all bunched up upon compression.
dipper. my guess is yer frame looks much like this #1 proto i shot in early '97. as ya can see, the brakes of the day loved this routing. not so much today. i see a cpl ways out. get a 90 deg banjo and run it as intended or affix the line new school to the top tube with zippies. another sanno yer expencive way would be to have turner weld on some new stops on the t/t and s/t. good reason for a repaint if needed.
beef, yer clamp is way sanno. nice and easy mod. take note dipper. ive used the same thing when makin v brakes work on old canti frames. me and my custys dug the results. cheap as hell too. not sure what the od of that tube is but im sure beef can offer more detail on his most excellent fix.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could
be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!