Flux vs Moto Lite
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Joined
·
9,470 Posts
I haven't ridden either, but I've sure done my homework!farmertan said:
Consider that the motolite is 5.9-6lbs, about the same as the 5-spot w/Rp3.
Also, my understanding is that the geometry of the ML does not change in 4" mode, so I'm not sure how useful the 4" mode is. The ML takes up to a 145mm fork and the flux takes up to 120mm.
My take on it is that the ML is that it sits closer to the 5-spot when compared to the turner line, however it has steeper angles and less tire clearance (even in 2006) so it is less versatile on the FR end of the spectrum. You are also getting 2 PC paint options instead of ano finish, bearings instead of bushings, and a lower price with the ML. I think it depends on your use, both are great bikes.
If you are OK with the ML weight and the flux price then why not get a 5-spot, it's the best of both.
I owned a ML and now I own a Flux and a 5 spot. I have been really impressed with the Flux. It is very plush for 4" travel bike. It has quick handling, great in corners, a phenomenal climber, great on descents. Overall, I like the Flux over the ML. The Flux is a little snappier than the ML and the Flux climbs better than the ML. The ML might be a little better than the Flux on the Descents. If you do not do any big drop offs - greater than three feet, I think you will be very happy with the Flux.farmertan said:
Joined
·
1,974 Posts
a buddy of mine has a motolite and he can't run a fat 2.2 on the rear, since the chainstays are so narrow....titus has an optional wide chainstay that he can retrofit, but its a couple hundred extra - he wanted to run his new snowcat rims w/ a 2.4 wtb tire, but couldnt - although you southern guys dont get much snow!....the flux can run a fat 2.2 / 2.3 no problem......
Joined
·
9,470 Posts
These wider "free-ride" chainstays became stock on the motolite in late 2005.jokermtb said:
FWIW, I just put money down on a late 2005 motolite with these updated chainstays- the dealer measuered the chainstay yoke at 3" wide. The brake arch becomes the limiting factor at that point- Titus claims you can run up to a 2.4 now.
The ML is titus's replacemnt for the switchblade, and I owned a switchblade for a while. It easily took 5'+ drops and had excellant finish- however the suspenion design is now dated.
I think the ML will compliment my RFX perfectly. However If I could only own one bike, it would definatly be a 5-spot.
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
JTBAZ,JTBAZ said:
Did you just not like the Moto-lite and sold it in favor of the Flux? Was sizing an issue? I've noticed some people around six feet in height have a hard time as the medium is a bit small for them, while the large can be too big. Why did you go with the ML initially?
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
I guess it depends on what you like riding. I have a 4" Burner and live in Atlanta - it's totally fine for what I ride and I'm very happy with it. I think you'll find many people loyal to both brands. What are you riding now and what's prompting the new rig? If you're trail riding and don't want to do anything nuts a Flux is probably the way to go. If you need/want the additional travel maybe compare the ML with a Spot or a 5" Salty. I personally don't think you need more than 4" for doing things like Chicopee Woods, Blankets, Tanasi, etc.
Edit - oops, I saw your post about the Cohutta stones. Aren't you on a Flux now?
Edit - oops, I saw your post about the Cohutta stones. Aren't you on a Flux now?
Joined
·
667 Posts
Have the Flux and think Im gonna love it...but hate the fact its always described with the caveat of what it CANT do. Maybe its me, but It seems to be described in those terms more than other bikes. Maybe shes just so dern fast, its like a warning label!
I was able to get a very good deal on a complete build on a Flux and thought I would give it a try. The more I rode it, the more I liked it. I really like the way it handles stable, quick, great on the ups and down, and very plush. I found I was riding the Flux the most. I really like the geometry of Turner bikes and the large Flux fit me perfect. I am 6' - The large ML was a good fit but the Flux feels a little better. The reason I sold the ML was because I did not want to have three bikes in my stable and I had someone who wanted to buy my ML quickly. I orginally bought it because I liked the idea of having a bike that could be ridden in a 4" mode and a 5" mode. Overall, the ML and the Flux are great bikes.dulyebr said:
Joined
·
9,470 Posts
I really think the ML has more in common with the 5-spot, rather than the flux. The ML weighs about the same as a spot w/rp3, has 5" of travel, and most owners are building it up with 5" forks. Whereas the flux is built around a 105 or max 120mm fork.
The ML geometry is quite a bit different. compare the mediums- the medium ML has a 19.25" seat tube, but similar TT length to turner's 17" medium. The ML geometry is perfect for freaky long inseams.
The ML geometry is quite a bit different. compare the mediums- the medium ML has a 19.25" seat tube, but similar TT length to turner's 17" medium. The ML geometry is perfect for freaky long inseams.
Joined
·
1,218 Posts
While you might not need more than 4", it damn sure makes rooty/rocky Chicopee much more fun. I can go a hell of a lot faster on my 5" Salty through the waterbars than on my 4" Burner. I agree that 4" is plenty for most trails here in N. GA, but for a one bike set-up I'd like the extra travel.RedRocker said:
Check out the Ventana if you want something very versatile with 4,5 or even 6" travel.
Between the two you listed, well let's just say I also own a Turner that I'm happy with.
D.
Joined
·
667 Posts
Yeah...as a new Flux owner, not yet built, Im most interested in this as well. From whats Ive heard, the term is "deceptively plush" most used to describe the bike. 4" is a decent amount of travel to handle such stuff. More is more...and gives more, but 4" is still a lot. The somewhat new concept that you now "need" the big bikes for trail riding is bollocks, IMOfarmertan said:
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Join the discussion
