Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
FAT CHANCE!
Joined
·
619 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was just wondering if anyone out there has ridden and compared any or all of these bikes:

Yeti ASR-SL

Turner Burner

Titus Racer X

Can you give some of the pros and cons of each (ride up and down, handling, weight, durability)?

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,470 Posts
I haven't owned the models your looking for, but I have owned both a Titus (switchblade) and a Turner RFX, plus one of my riding buddies has a racer-X.

So, FWIW:
-The titus's have gorgeous ano jobs and construction. Might only be aesthetic, but superior to turner imho.
-I went through bearings pretty quickly on the titus, riding in muddy NW conditions. Like about every 5 months. They're expensive and get sloppy. I have had no problems with the turners bushings, they are very easy to lube, and noticeably stiffer. The bushings have made me a turner for life guy, especially since I ride in mud lots.
-Turners seem to be more flexible about what shocks you run. being stuck with the fox air as my only option was one of the reason's I moved on from the titus.

Basically I think Titus makes better looking bikes, but I'd pick a turner every time.

roy harley said:
I was just wondering if anyone out there has ridden and compared any or all of these bikes:

Yeti ASR-SL

Turner Burner

Titus Racer X

Can you give some of the pros and cons of each (ride up and down, handling, weight, durability)?

Thanks
 

·
Flyin Canine
Joined
·
2,274 Posts
I have a hammerhead 100x, Titus Quasi-Moto, and now a turner RFX. I have also spent about 30min on an XCE. All are great bikes.

I think that the Racer-x and Quasi are a lot stiffer in the front triangle that the Turners I have ridden. The RFX is probably close but the lighter Turners flex more. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your riding style. I an not an engineer but I think it is because the Titus bikes weld the suspension mounts to the top tube and not the seat tube. It breaks the front end into smaller, stiffer triangles. If you are a racer and want more power to the ground then less flex is good. When trail riding however I think that a frame that flexes just a little bit more tracks the roots and ruts a little smoother and flows down the trail nicely. Keep in mind this is all just my feeling on how the frames ride. The quality of both is great but I think I like the little design touches on the turner bikes better. The very small details like cable routing and bushings vs bearings are the icing on the cake.

I have had no problems with any durability except the bearings of the quasi lasting 1-2yrs and the du bushings on the shocks wearing out.

The racer-x frame climbs amazing but of course it's a bit twitchy. That's why I went with the TALAS fork on the HH. I run the fork at 80mm for climbs and then at 105mm for most other riding. I'll occasionally turn it to 115 or so for really steep downhills. I think the Turners climb great too. The steeper seat post angles help here and seem to more than make up for the weight penalty. I could go on but I'm sure everyone else will have lots of good stuff too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
shanedawg said:
I think that the Racer-x and Quasi are a lot stiffer in the front triangle that the Turners I have ridden. The RFX is probably close but the lighter Turners flex more. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your riding style. I an not an engineer but I think it is because the Titus bikes weld the suspension mounts to the top tube and not the seat tube. It breaks the front end into smaller, stiffer triangles. If you are a racer and want more power to the ground then less flex is good. When trail riding however I think that a frame that flexes just a little bit more tracks the roots and ruts a little smoother and flows down the trail nicely. Keep in mind this is all just my feeling on how the frames ride. The quality of both is great but I think I like the little design touches on the turner bikes better. .
I don't remember the Titus test ride I did but as for the Yeti I would say that it is like shanedawg said in that it is a stiffer ride then a Turner and that would probably be due to the smaller, stiffer triangle theory that I am going along with too. Great climber but probably not as smooth down the trail as a Turner would be.

I think the 2005 Turners (Nitrous) will be interesting to see as I think they will blow away the Yeti and Titus in the weight category (for racers) But I think you are going to still have some of the same ride characteristics with the Turners not being the stiffer ride but maybe the more comfortable, flex type ride. I don't understand the workings and differences of the 3 FS bike designs listed but maybe someone smart can jump in and clarify the 3? I have read on a lot of the threads that racers seem to like the single pivot design more than a horst link race design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
roy harley said:
I was just wondering if anyone out there has ridden and compared any or all of these bikes:

Yeti ASR-SL

Turner Burner

Titus Racer X

Can you give some of the pros and cons of each (ride up and down, handling, weight, durability)?

Thanks
If you are looking for a lite bike, to race or what ever, no queation, do yourself a favor and wait a few months for the new Nitrous. I feel that the better tolerances w/the bushings, the shock being lower in the center of the bike and not having to support side loads as much, make it a better tracking and stiffer frame, personally! The balance and handling of the Turner is unmatched. Oh and how it climbs!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,216 Posts
My impressions from a test ride of the Titus Racer-X and owning the Burner:

1) The Titus feels a bit more responsive in the rear out of the saddle. Burner feels far plusher.

2) Not that it matters, but the Titus has horrible derailer slap, the Burner none.

3) Racer-x is designed for a 80mm fork, Burner 100mm fork.

4) Racer-x is a very fast steering bike, the Burner is more stable and more confident inspiring.

I wouldn't trade my Burner for a Racer-x, but if there was no Turner, the Racer-X would be my bike of choice. I would go with the Racer-x 100 and get he benifit of the 100mm fork. Finally, I am not biased between either manufacture, as I have a Titus hardtail to complement my Burner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
shanedawg said:
I think that the Racer-x and Quasi are a lot stiffer in the front triangle that the Turners I have ridden. The RFX is probably close but the lighter Turners flex more. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your riding style. I an not an engineer but I think it is because the Titus bikes weld the suspension mounts to the top tube and not the seat tube. .
Can I assume that when you mention "stiffer in the front triangle", that you are referring to sideways flex? How did you determine that the frame flexes?

Usually, when referring to a bike as "stiff", most people are talking about flex (or the lack thereof) in the rear triangle. It's very difficult to determine flex in the main triangle because you have tires that flex, wheels that flex, shocks that flex...heck...even carbon bars that flex.

Stiffness or rigidity is difficult to measure and typically involves static testing for deflection with known forces.

I know that you mentioned that this is your opinion, but I'm curious how you determined that the Turner frame is less stiff than the Racer X. I know that the Racer X suspension feels stiffer, but you specifically referred to the frame being less stiff, not the suspension.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
steve3 said:
Perhaps you should ask if he wants to race or simply be a trail rider. Additionally, there is going to be a weight limit on the Nitrous, so that must be taken into consideration before you start recommending it. You're also riding a prototype.

"light"
Apparently it's been a few weeks since someone reminded you that you're a sad little tool.

Consider this that missing reminder.
 

·
Flyin Canine
Joined
·
2,274 Posts
Blue Shorts said:
Can I assume that when you mention "stiffer in the front triangle", that you are referring to sideways flex? How did you determine that the frame flexes?

Usually, when referring to a bike as "stiff", most people are talking about flex (or the lack thereof) in the rear triangle. It's very difficult to determine flex in the main triangle because you have tires that flex, wheels that flex, shocks that flex...heck...even carbon bars that flex.

Stiffness or rigidity is difficult to measure and typically involves static testing for deflection with known forces.

I know that you mentioned that this is your opinion, but I'm curious how you determined that the Turner frame is less stiff than the Racer X. I know that the Racer X suspension feels stiffer, but you specifically referred to the frame being less stiff, not the suspension.
When riding around the parking lot you can feel front triangle rigidity by trying to force the handlebars left and your hips right while sitting on the saddle. On my bontrager steel hardtail for example you can see the handlebars move 3-4in side to side and look down and see the top tube deflecting. It's really very pronouced. On a Spec Demo 9 I recently rode I tried the same thing and could not see any movement and could not feel more than about what I would estimate to be about 3mm worth of movement. Of course the seatpost and stem can come into play here but I am not trying to be to exact just relative. The XCE I rode deflected almost as much as my bontrager whereas the titus frame moved much less. When I do this test I try to put as little force into the pedals as possible and concentrate forces on the front triangle by using my arms and torso. Hence this test may not be that accurate at determining how much the frame flexes at the BB but I think it gives a good indication overall of the sideways flex the frame is going to have.I can only tell BB flex if it's soo bad that the chain rubs the ft der cage when standing and hammering the big chain ring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
shanedawg said:
When riding around the parking lot you can feel front triangle rigidity by trying to force the handlebars left and your hips right while sitting on the saddle. On my bontrager steel hardtail for example you can see the handlebars move 3-4in side to side and look down and see the top tube deflecting. It's really very pronouced. On a Spec Demo 9 I recently rode I tried the same thing and could not see any movement and could not feel more than about what I would estimate to be about 3mm worth of movement. Of course the seatpost and stem can come into play here but I am not trying to be to exact just relative. The XCE I rode deflected almost as much as my bontrager whereas the titus frame moved much less. When I do this test I try to put as little force into the pedals as possible and concentrate forces on the front triangle by using my arms and torso. Hence this test may not be that accurate at determining how much the frame flexes at the BB but I think it gives a good indication overall of the sideways flex the frame is going to have.I can only tell BB flex if it's soo bad that the chain rubs the ft der cage when standing and hammering the big chain ring.
I've noticed the phenomenon that you refer to, but I always attribute the movement to tires, wheels , shocks and forks. In my experience, I've noticed the movement more on bikes with slack head angles and bigger forks, especially if they have light wheels.

Are you sure that your test is revealing frame flex? The way you describe it, the frame has no real anchor......Your butt is on the seat, hands on the bars, feet on the pedals. You have no reference to a stationary object. I'd expect you to see more "flex" if the front tire has very low pressure.

Maybe someone can provide actual number, but I would be surprised (wouldn't be the first time) if a 5 Spot would flex more than a few mm. To be able to guage flex using your butt as an anchor (against a padded seat) seems unlikely to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
steve3 said:
Perhaps you should ask if he wants to race or simply be a trail rider. Additionally, there is going to be a weight limit on the Nitrous, so that must be taken into consideration before you start recommending it. You're also riding a prototype.

"light"
You most not have noticed that I said "if"! He was pretty vague in the post with what his plans for the bike are going to be. You may also have noticed that the Nitrous was not even on his list, so I was really just adding it as another possibility, based on the other bikes I aaasssumed he is looking for a "lite" cross country(most races I do are on trails) type bike! Since I don't know what he weighs, based on the info, and the weight limit from Turner has not been set, I didn't bother. I thought the idea of the post was for him to take into consideration all the post in reply. I was not aware there was a criteria for recommendations. I'll try to clear it with you first next time, my mistake, you are right and I"m wrong, you are the one, the man, the only, etc....And I'm fully aware I'm riding a prototype, but thanks for reminding me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Blue Shorts said:
Can I assume that when you mention "stiffer in the front triangle", that you are referring to sideways flex? How did you determine that the frame flexes?

Usually, when referring to a bike as "stiff", most people are talking about flex (or the lack thereof) in the rear triangle. It's very difficult to determine flex in the main triangle because you have tires that flex, wheels that flex, shocks that flex...heck...even carbon bars that flex.

Stiffness or rigidity is difficult to measure and typically involves static testing for deflection with known forces.

I know that you mentioned that this is your opinion, but I'm curious how you determined that the Turner frame is less stiff than the Racer X. I know that the Racer X suspension feels stiffer, but you specifically referred to the frame being less stiff, not the suspension.
From what you just educated me on I think what I was feeling was the stiffness of the rear triangle. To me IMO I thought the yeti was stiffer than the Turner "rear" triangle. The yeti seemed to climb like and arrow more so than the turner. Both bikes felt great but for fast climbing speed I thought the yeti was quicker.
 

·
FAT CHANCE!
Joined
·
619 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
velo bum said:
You most not have noticed that I said "if"! He was pretty vague in the post with what his plans for the bike are going to be. You may also have noticed that the Nitrous was not even on his list, so I was really just adding it as another possibility, based on the other bikes I aaasssumed he is looking for a "lite" cross country(most races I do are on trails) type bike! Since I don't know what he weighs, based on the info, and the weight limit from Turner has not been set, I didn't bother. I thought the idea of the post was for him to take into consideration all the post in reply. I was not aware there was a criteria for recommendations. I'll try to clear it with you first next time, my mistake, you are right and I"m wrong, you are the one, the man, the only, etc....And I'm fully aware I'm riding a prototype, but thanks for reminding me!
I really do appreciate the recomendation! I would love to get on a Nitrous. I do want something light yet durable for long trail riding and yet light for racing IF I can get myself motivated to train again for racing. I weigh about 175-177 lbs (with all riding gear on and it depends on what snack foods are on sale that week at the store)((and beer in frig)). I don't go looking for stuff to jump off of but I do do a lot of Colorado front range XC riding. So a lot of rocky, sandy, single track trails stright up and then back down. I think the "Flux" bike if it is going to come out this Fall might be the ideal bike for me. It sound like it will be lighter than a "Burner" yet just as durable for my weight.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
steve3 said:
Ahhh, Mr Fagerlin finally comes through with one of his famously curt answers.

So easy to offend him by speaking about a Turner.
Child, it has nothing to do with being offended by comments about a Turner. That's apparently your own goofy blind-brand loyalist bit of projection.

It has everything to do with laughing at your idiocy. Again.

Your posts typically bring a classic question to mind:

"Why does a man with nothing to say, he always seems to talk?" - Marc
Riley


p.s. As someone who apparently gets his rocks off by "correcting" spelling mistakes, your spelling and word usage in the poorly crafted blather below is astoundingly ironic. Thanks.

" "Blah blah blah...specious answer (but still eluding to the punchline)...blah blah blah.""
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
steve3 said:
And for such an elderly and wise gentleman, you take the internet quite seriously.
Another hilarious assumption on your part child.

steve3 said:
Your wisdom apparently allows you license to obscure essential tidbits of information, such as the fact that you have a floating brake caliper on your Foes. Why?
Obscure? Please. Language is a tool (like you are) and if you or others can't see past the sweeping generalizations then you need to pay closer attention. The fact that it apparently upsets you is at least in line with your behavior in the Ellsworth threads. At least you are consistently bizarre.

steve3 said:
Perhaps because you're a small person in your personal life and the advent of forums such this one allows you to project the image of otherwise.
ROTFLMAO! Classic internet goffiness there Steve. You have no idea of my stature, physical or otherwise, let alone what my personal life is like.

Yet you build that fantasy to make yourself feel better about folks who speak the truth about you being a tool. Maybe once you grow up and enter the real world you can look back on your foolishness and see how funny your posts are.

steve3 said:
The extent to which you take MTBR seriously is great for a laugh, Mr Fagerlin.
Wow. Another assumption. What a surprise!

I take MTBR seriously? LOL!

p.s. It's ironic(again! whoopee!!) that you're commenting, albeit mistakenly, about folks taking MTBR seriously given your inane reply to the bum.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
steve3 said:
An assumption on your part. I don't live my life on MTBR. You have to check in here no matter where you are.
Uh, this is my last response to you child. Your toolishness,cluelessness, and hypocrisy has been displayed quite nicely. As expected.

The fact that you think I "live my life on MTBR" is hilarious on its face.

"check in no matter where you are"?

This assumes that you know where I am at all times. How can you possibly know child?

steve3 said:
You post your pictures here all the time.
And this is importantbecause......?

This is a site for sharing the joys of mountain biking despite the fact that you seem it's a place to spew your inane pap and act like a wannabe virtual knowitall.

steve3 said:
Additionally, you have reading comprehension trouble. If you payed closer attention to my statement, you'd see I wasn't making references about your physical stature. I was speaking about your personal life and your personality defect.
WHOOSH!!!!!!

Quick !

Duck !

Something just flew over your head!

p.s. Again, how could you possibly know anything about my personal life? Are you know claiming to be psychic or something child?

steve3 said:
It's funny you say this, Mr Fagerlin. You merged your real life with MTBR. How bizarre you say that I must enter the real world.
That's just about the most bizarre thing that I've ever read on MTBR, and I've read a TON of weird sh|t here.

Yes. When you enter the real world child, assuming that you earn, or someone buys you, a few clues, you might, just might, get it.

Until then, you're doomed to continue to be a boil on the bottom of MTBR.

A boil that periodically needs to be popped.

Until the next popping...

p.s. " I don't live my life on MTBR." 2,000+ posts vs. 960? Think before you post next time. You might, just might, look like slightly less of an idiot.
 

·
Flyin Canine
Joined
·
2,274 Posts
Blue Shorts said:
I've noticed the phenomenon that you refer to, but I always attribute the movement to tires, wheels , shocks and forks. In my experience, I've noticed the movement more on bikes with slack head angles and bigger forks, especially if they have light wheels.

Are you sure that your test is revealing frame flex? The way you describe it, the frame has no real anchor......Your butt is on the seat, hands on the bars, feet on the pedals. You have no reference to a stationary object. I'd expect you to see more "flex" if the front tire has very low pressure.

Maybe someone can provide actual number, but I would be surprised (wouldn't be the first time) if a 5 Spot would flex more than a few mm. To be able to guage flex using your butt as an anchor (against a padded seat) seems unlikely to me.
I can't really see how it would be attributed to wheels and tires and such as I swapped then from one frame to the next frame that I compared to in acouple of cases. And no the front tire was not low. Same seat on diff frames too. Frame flex is clear to me in the test, don't know what else to say.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top