Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 104 Posts

·
Hisforever
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Interested to see what the opinions are on a more gravity oriented RFXesque 29er?

Was in the middle of a climb this past week and it popped up in my head that an alloy version would be really good.

Would you buy an 'aggressive geo' alloy RFX 29er?

seems like this would be a good bike in the line up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
I think people would love it and prob prefer it over a new Sultan. I just don’t see Turner doing super short chainstays. I also doubt he would do a 77 deg SA. Maybe he would. I think there would be a huge demand for whatever 29’er he would release.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Interested to see what the opinions are on a more gravity oriented RFXesque 29er?

Was in the middle of a climb this past week and it popped up in my head that an alloy version would be really good.

Would you buy an 'aggressive geo' alloy RFX 29er?

seems like this would be a good bike in the line up.
Don't hold your breath!i :madman:got an Orbea Rallon instead:D
 

·
Hisforever
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
funny you mentioned the rallon, same here, have a nice crispy one in the garage, ready for a thrashing.

for SA, i think DT would go steep. He builds bikes that do everything really well. The bikes need to climb and be able to go all day so this would be necessary imo.(which doesnt mean squat- just musings here)

I was thinking of a big big brother to the flux. that is a beautiful very clean looking bike.

aluminum, to save cost and add value, and modern aggressive geometry.

doesnt seem like it would be that hard, but a man can dream
 

·
%$#$*!
Joined
·
811 Posts
I wish DT would do modern aggressive geometry. I wouldn’t bet on it though. It’s been solidly conservative for a while. It’s not hard, it just won’t happen. Please prove me wrong! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
IMO the existing RFX is an amazing bike, as is. If DT can retain the ride quality with 29 inch wheels it might even be better(?). Not a fan of "modern" geo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,675 Posts
I'm keeping my RFX but just picked up an Evil Offering. Guess I will find out if I like 'modern geometry'.

Maybe I'm just getting old but I really don't find the RFX that 'playful'. An over-used term indeed but I find the RFX difficult to wheelie and manual. It's not a plough bike by any means but where it shines is stability in chunk at warp speed. A stellar enduro bike for sure. It pedals really well but does take some work to accelerate out of corners. That's where I lose time at race pace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,675 Posts
'Rockman' - keep us posted/cross link with your impressions of the Offering - thanks!
Will do but it will be awhile. Waiting on the frame and need to build some wheels.

The 'modern geometry' conundrum was readily apparent in simply deciding which size to get. I went with a medium at 5'11.5" which is radical after riding large frames since forever. There's 1" more reach over a L RFX and the ETT is 0.32" (8 mm) shorter. Figure I can account for the difference using the same stem length and a slightly wider bar (because of the reach). I really don't want a long wheelbase 29r. The M Offering is only 0.4" (10mm) longer. An interesting experiment.

Also interested in seeing if the steeper SA helps me get over square-edged hits and rocks on steep climbs while seated. The RFX hangs up a bit but I'm also running a 170mm fork.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I held out on buying my RFX for a little while in hopes that they would release an an aggressive, long-travel 29er. Finally just settled on the RFX, which I've been pretty stoked on. Love it. Fun bike. So I'm out of the new bike market for at least a few years, but I would love to see a 29er version of it.

As for "modern" geo... I find it kind of funny to hear people calling bikes that might have come out a year or two ago "dated" or "conservative," when they were just raving about them last year. What are two year-old bikes somehow suddenly incapable of making it down a trail? But I get it -- there has to be some progression, or we'd all be riding on whatever we had in 1995.

That said, the new obsession with seat tube angle baffles me. I can't say I've ever given two poops about seat tube angle. The supposedly dated conservative seat tube angle on the RFX hasn't affected me even a little bit. In fact, it climbs much better than the bike I replaced.

As for long and slack, that's great up to a point, but you can only go so long and so slack before you're stretched over the top tube superman style and unable to turn the bike at any speed short of Mach 2. It's just like razor blades -- companies can keep adding them, but there's a point of diminishing returns. I think a few bikes have started to reach that now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,649 Posts
I have found that the Schick Quattro with 4 blades lasts a long time and cuts with little collateral damage. Certainly outdated compared to the 5 blade system but does the job just fine. But whats really interesting is the resurgence of single blade shaving, to read about it one would think that it's all we ever needed and disposable 2-6 cartridges are just a bunch of over priced and over marketed hype. What's next, mountain bikes without suspension? What happens when the dog catches it's tail?! Will bell bottoms really come back, again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I do prefer the 3-blade system with the non-pivoting head, but go with 5 blades because that's what they stock on the store shelves. But there's always this tight spot under my nose the 5 blades are to fat to get.

As for mountain bikes without suspension, that's just crazy talk right there.
 

·
It's carbon dontcha know.
Joined
·
4,292 Posts
I do > 1000 miles a year on my rigid 29er and generally put similar distances on my Burner :p


Looks like my Burner just hit 6 years old today from when I started the Burner build thread.
 

·
Elitest thrill junkie
Joined
·
35,025 Posts
Interested to see what the opinions are on a more gravity oriented RFXesque 29er?

Was in the middle of a climb this past week and it popped up in my head that an alloy version would be really good.

Would you buy an 'aggressive geo' alloy RFX 29er?

seems like this would be a good bike in the line up.
From my last 29er enduro experience, I would say "hell no".

IME, 29ers work good in the short to mid-travel range, when you go beyond that, it starts to magnify the disadvantages significantly, to the extent where a smaller wheel does better for me overall.

Some of the issues I had were:

-Wheel flex when pushing the bike hard (solved with carbon rims).

-Harder to pedal bike up to speed for an obstacle (double, tabletop, gap, etc.), this really starts to show when you are a bit more tired.

-Slower in mid-radius turns at high speed. Had to slow down or the gyroscopic force would simply cause me to skid towards the outside of the turn, in either case it would slow me and I'd have to pedal harder to get back up to speed.

-Harder to pop off of objects/obstacles. Wheel and tire weight contribute a lot here and are going to always be heavier.

-Bike tends to jump flatter and longer, which can cause overshoots.

Some of the advantages were:

-Wheel-catchers were non-existent/ability to roll down steep chutes.

-Ability to maintain speed during large-radius turns.

Things that were not issues:

-Making tight turns: Modern 29er geometry makes this a thing of the past, goofy 18.5"+ chainstay bikes are gone for the most part. Maneuverability doesn't seem to be an issue at all, except for what I posted above.

Some other notes: 180-170mm SC 29er forks have a massive axle to crown and not a lot of overlap relative to the overall length of the fork. Even if they did, it won't lessen the higher bending forces on the crowns, this is not a good recipe. 1.5 steeres came about due to longer travel SC forks and going this far on a 29er probably needs a 2" steerer or a dual crown design to be correct for the intended usage. I've always gone between 2.3 and 2.5" for DH tires, for real abusive resort and rock riding, I like a meaty 2.5, but man those 29er tires are just boat anchors. Lots of traction, but once I made the mistake of taking them on an XC ride that had a few miles of pavement thrown in for good measure. 29er wheels will always be more flexy than smaller ones, not an issue IME with carbon as I said above, but still, some may experience this. It also gets harder to have useful gearing to go uphill, the extra rotating mass is also harder to pedal due to the worse mechanical advantage. More rotating mass OR a longer distance requires more brake to slow down, this has caused some brake manufacturers to go to and consider 220mm rotors. Just one thing that you need more of with bigger/heavier wheels.

Bottom line is that riding Enduro and park DH is very abusive on bikes and needs components and rubber beefy enough to handle it. When you go to 29er tires and real rubber/components, it doesn't make for the quickest bike out there IME. I got 2nd on the 27.5 RFX on the first enduro race on it, the bike killed it and on those medium-radius turns I noticed a big difference in the speed. It's not that you can't ride a 29er DH/Enduro bike, you can and they are a lot of fun. You can jump them. In my experience though, they are more work for less gain. Certain conditions may favor them, but I find that to be a pretty narrow range of conditions and I'd go for a 27.5 for this kind of riding every day and Sunday.

If I could only have one bike, I'd probably have a mid-travel 29er, 120-140mm, that would rip and I would have tons of fun on it. I think at that travel-amount you can keep the overall weight reasonable enough to avoid many/most of the issues. Since I can have more than one, I choose the RFX for most stuff and a lower-travel 29er when I need to go much more "XC" style.

I am glad there are "real" enduro/AM 29er options these days, like the Wreckoning, Ripmo, etc. I wouldn't revisit that catagory any time soon, if ever though. They end up just being massive overkill much of the time IMO. What they possibly gain for roll-over is more than offset by the weight/gyroscopic stability/rolling resistance, etc., IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,956 Posts
What’s the best 29er rfx replacement (other than the future sultan)?
Not sure it's the absolute 1:1 to your theoretical ride, but I was hoping for something like you describe from Turner and ended up with a GG Smash. A tad less enduro and more trail than RFX. I'll be interested to see a TSB 29er; every bike they produce is so good.
 

·
Team Blindspot
Joined
·
2,987 Posts
I have found that the Schick Quattro with 4 blades lasts a long time and cuts with little collateral damage. Certainly outdated compared to the 5 blade system but does the job just fine. But whats really interesting is the resurgence of single blade shaving, to read about it one would think that it's all we ever needed and disposable 2-6 cartridges are just a bunch of over priced and over marketed hype. What's next, mountain bikes without suspension? What happens when the dog catches it's tail?! Will bell bottoms really come back, again?
Very true folks... the man knows what he is talking about, he has alot of experience. He shaves his head. How many of you shave your head??
 
1 - 20 of 104 Posts
Top