Would be interested what people thoughts are on this. Would have another Turner at the drop of a hat when it's time to retire the old ones. Something modern that rides and feels like a Turner, with the same great customer service.I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?
Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?
I ended up getting a Ripley to compliment my old 5-Spot and it is a great bike. Very fast but also very playful and stable. Honestly, my 5-spot has a firmer peddle feel but the IBIS is not bad in any way. I still actually ride my 5-Spot a lot as my son rides the Ripley when we ride.I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?
Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?
Thanks for the feedback. As I ponder updates to the MTB stable, my skinny-tired bikes still keep me in good standing as a homer. The ARTi frame is really well made, and I already have 2 sets of wheels for road riding, and gravel-lite riding. My biggest challenge has been to get the parts I need to build it, and finding a new home for my old Lynskey road bike so I have room for the new one. I'm hoping that later this year I can update my Cyclosys to titanium.I ended up getting a Ripley to compliment my old 5-Spot and it is a great bike. Very fast but also very playful and stable. Honestly, my 5-spot has a firmer peddle feel but the IBIS is not bad in any way. I still actually ride my 5-Spot a lot as my son rides the Ripley when we ride.
Honestly, the geometry changes are not as dramatic as you would imagine. Might require a little less body movement to climb and might descend a little better but honestly, feels just like a well sorted bike. I will also say that nice fat 29 X 2.6 tires really work for me - which feels like of more of an impact than a degree change in head or seat angle...
Turner can be where Turner wants to be. Kicking myself for buying a stupid carbon road bike instead of their new Titanium ART. Nice looking and versatile stead.
Thanks for the feedback. As I ponder updates to the MTB stable, my skinny-tired bikes still keep me in good standing as a homer. The ARTi frame is really well made, and I already have 2 sets of wheels for road riding, and gravel-lite riding. My biggest challenge has been to get the parts I need to build it, and finding a new home for my old Lynskey road bike so I have room for the new one. I'm hoping that later this year I can update my Cyclosys to titanium.
Personally I'd look at the Banshee Titan. I loved the DW suspension of my Turner Sultan.Would be interested what people thoughts are on this. Would have another Turner at the drop of a hat when it's time to retire the old ones. Something modern that rides and feels like a Turner, with the same great customer service.
I may be in the minority, but I think they’ve gone a little too far with “modern“ geometry. Bikes are unnecessarily long and slack. They’re great for monster trucking through steep rocks, but lose the agility in the tight stuff. A little more slackness and reach would have been ok, but I feel everyone has overshot the mark by 10-15mm and a degree of slackness. There is no reason a trail bike should be any slacker than 65. The reach on a size large doesn’t need to be 480mm. Size down you say? Not so simple, then your sitting too close to the bars because the stupid steep seat angles. A size large in 455-460 reach (27.5 or 29) with a 65 degree head would be the sweet spot for me, I’m sure there are bikes out there like this, but very few, mail order, not DW. I’m not an editor at Pinkbike or Vital paid to shill a brand, so what do I know.I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?
Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?
Looking at the geometry of modern bikes, I feel the same way. I like the idea of a bit more reach than I have on the Czar (and especially the Sultan), and maybe a slightly more slack head angle. But a 2 degree slacker head angle and short offset fork is great for stability, but I ride a lot of tight singletrack and am concerned that it would be less-than-ideal for that.I may be in the minority, but I think they’ve gone a little too far with “modern“ geometry. Bikes are unnecessarily long and slack. They’re great for monster trucking through steep rocks, but lose the agility in the tight stuff. A little more slackness and reach would have been ok, but I feel everyone has overshot the mark by 10-15mm and a degree of slackness. There is no reason a trail bike should be any slacker than 65. The reach on a size large doesn’t need to be 480mm. Size down you say? Not so simple, then your sitting too close to the bars because the stupid steep seat angles. A size large in 455-460 reach (27.5 or 29) with a 65 degree head would be the sweet spot for me, I’m sure there are bikes out there like this, but very few, mail order, not DW. I’m not an editor at Pinkbike or Vital paid to shill a brand, so what do I know.
It's interesting to see how different people interpret things. One persons "playful and nimble" is anothers "twitchy and nervous", or "stable and confident" could just as well be interpreted as "sluggish and boring". I think people read too much into it sometimes, and also don't take enough time to adapt to a new bike with different geometry.But a 2 degree slacker head angle and short offset fork is great for stability, but I ride a lot of tight singletrack and am concerned that it would be less-than-ideal for that.
A long bike is a long bike, any way you slice it. It’s not as easy to throw around as a shorter bike, it’s physics. Throw in these slack angles, and it’s even less nimble. Bikes like this are great for fast, technical downhills, not so much for trail riding. If you live somewhere like these reviewers in the magazines, where you climb 8 miles of logging road with the suspension locked out, to bomb down a 30min technical descent, that’s fantastic, but that also represents a small percentage of what everyone else is doing. And these short travel bikes with the aggressive geo are stupid. Why have the geometry to go fast, but not the travel to back it up? They’re great on flow trails, but the ones I tired were a little outgunned in the tech. The suspension couldn’t cash the checks the geometry was writing. Also, most riders that I see have a hard time loading that front wheel. Only the most skilled riders can get the most out newer bikes. If you want to get agility back, reducing travel is not the answer, but reducing length is. You can still have a stable bike without making it a mile long. Make the reach more reasonable, lengthen the stays, then you have a bike that you are centered on vs. riding the back wheel.It's interesting to see how different people interpret things. One persons "playful and nimble" is anothers "twitchy and nervous", or "stable and confident" could just as well be interpreted as "sluggish and boring". I think people read too much into it sometimes, and also don't take enough time to adapt to a new bike with different geometry.
People also focus on individual numbers too, getting freaked out that the [stated] reach is 10mm longer than they think they'd like without considering the bigger picture of the effective reach when stack height is taken into consideration. Same with the difference between "effective" and "actual" STA.
I generally like the way geometry has progressed over the past few years, and love the idea of the latest wave of short-travel-aggressive-geo bikes like the SC Tallboy or Norco Optic. But at the same time I think we're probably at the point of diminishing returns, and even the two bikes I mentioned won't suit everyone. I certainly don't think things will continue to progress at the same rate they have, we won't see "Grim Donut" style trailbikes in 5 years time.
As an aside, the two fastest guys I ride with both ride bog-standard Treks (2019 Fuel EX and Remedy) and neither one could tell you what the STA or HA of the bike is. One of them didn't even know what setting his flip-chip was in because he'd never bothered to look int he 18+ months he'd owned the bike.
Yes, but "long" and "slack angles" aren't fixed numbers across the board. What one person considers "long and slack" is just normal to another. And what one person considers perfectly normal now they probably thought of as long and slack 4-5 years ago.A long bike is a long bike, any way you slice it. It’s not as easy to throw around as a shorter bike, it’s physics. Throw in these slack angles, and it’s even less nimble.
To me flow trails are the one place where the long and slack geometry is of little advantage. Trails that are like a big BMX track are best suited to bikes that are like big BMX bikes.And these short travel bikes with the aggressive geo are stupid. Why have the geometry to go fast, but not the travel to back it up? They’re great on flow trails, but the ones I tired were a little outgunned in the tech. The suspension couldn’t cash the checks the geometry was writing.
I can weigh in on “New Geometry”. After selling my 5Spot and Highline I waited for the RFX Enduro That was never to be. I moved on to a Firebird then to a Banshee Spitfire. Both great bikes for their time. (DW and almost DW style KS link bikes). They both left me wanting a longer reach. I just moved to a Pole 158 Evolink. It’s super LONG, slack HA and steep SA.I've been thinking of updating my mountain bike quiver, and would like to stay with a DW Link design. Between the Pivot Trail 429 and the Ibis Ripley, do either of them come close to the Turner "not too squishy, not too firm" kinematics?
Also, what are people's impressions of bikes with the new generation of geometry with the long front end and steep seat angles, compared to the Turner geo?