Frame Details
The all external cable routing is nice and easy to setup. Wrangling all the housing and hoses under the mount brackets is slightly tricky, but it is still significantly easier to work on than any form of internal routing I’ve ever used. The only complaint I have is that the port for the dropper post is a bit abrupt and doesn’t have a gasket, so it can be an intrusion point for water and is an edge that can wear the dropper housing.
There is lots of space in the front triangle for a full size water bottle. It is a small thing, but I love riding without a pack, and find myself gravitating toward bikes that can fit a bottle.
The bottom bracket uses the much-maligned pressfit standard, but I haven’t had any issues with it. Riding in Utah tests components with dust, but not with much mud, so I wouldn’t say my test of the bottom bracket was comprehensive. Still, my luck with it has been good.
The integrated downtube protector is nicely done, and the inclusion of a chainstay protector is also appreciated. Unfortunately, it isn’t as well bonded to the chainstay as I would have liked.
The seat tube is quite short. I’m usually struggling to fit more than a 5” dropper post, but on the RFX I could run a 7” dropper. If you have long legs, check to make sure you won’t exceed minimum insertion on your dropper.
The Ride
More than most bikes, the Turner RFX significantly varies in character depending on its build. I started out on it with a 160 mm Pike fork on the front and Reynolds AM Black Label wheels shod with a Minion DHF 2.5 and Ikon 2.35. This made for a light, 26.5 lb build. With that build, the bike climbed exceptionally well and felt like a nimble trail bike that still has enough travel for some pretty rough terrain.
It did not, however, feel particularly stable on rough descents or at speed. So I set out to solve that. First I swapped out the fork for a Fox 36, and then I traded out the wheels for burlier, 32mm-wide carbon-rimmed, handbuilt ones. I also put High Roller II 2.4 tires on the front and back. That brought the weight up to almost 30 lbs and helped the stability a lot, but I still didn’t find the rear end to track as well as I would have hoped.
I then targeted the shock — I maxed out the rubber bands and slowed the rebound. That was a little better. Finally, I swapped out the stock MM tune Monarch Plus for a ML tune Monarch Plus (again with the rubber bands maxed out). I found that the decreased compression damping let the rear end of the bike settle a little deeper into its travel, and finally made the rear of the bike feel more stable. It also improved small bump performance. The RFX is, perhaps, a little more sensitive to suspension setup than simpler designs like single pivots. However, I think the origin of all the trial and error is really rooted in a less-than-ideal stock tune on the shock. When dialed, I quite liked the performance out of the rear suspension on the bike.
With either rear shock, I found that the RFX pedaled well and was relatively bob-free. It was a great climber, even with the heavier build.
It was also long enough for me to find the bike comfortable on extended climbs or descents. The shorter reach number made it a very easy-to-maneuver bike, which really stood out on tight trails. Many modern trail bikes are long enough that they require a bit of steam to get going. The RFX doesn’t. But that’s not without its downsides. If you are riding fast trails — especially fast jump trails — the bike flounders a bit relative to its longer cousins. However, if you ride a lot of technical terrain (I’m thinking of New England here), The shorter bike really shines.
Over the time I’ve been riding the RFX, I’ve found myself thinking of it as a capable long-travel trail bike instead of an enduro rig. That means that I wouldn’t take it over a DH bike to ride lift laps on (as I might with a Santa Cruz Nomad or Evil Insurgent), but I was much happier on the RFX on an average trail ride where the Nomad and Insurgent can, for lack of a better word, be boring. Why?
Forced to pin it down, I’ll attribute it a bit to the sizing and a bit to the suspension design. The Medium is a little smaller and less stable than its competitors, but the Large is too big for me to size up to. An angleset might have helped by lengthening the front, but I didn’t have the chance to try one. The suspension pedals really well and does a great job of absorbing impacts, but it likes to ride high instead of sagging, creating that downhill-like, ground-hugging sensation that some enduro bikes have.
Comparisons
Evil Insurgent
The Evil Insurgent is much more comfortable on jumps than the RFX, in part due to its longer wheelbase, and in part due to the more progressive suspension. Conversely, I can pick up and place the RFX more easily in tight, technical terrain. For speed and bike parks, I’d take the Insurgent. For technical terrain, I’d grab the Turner.
Santa Cruz Nomad
There is no question that I’d take the Nomad over the RFX on lift rides or fast trails. There is also no question that I have more fun on tight, technical trails on the RFX. It is a shorter, steeper, more nimble bike. It won’t beat the Nomad down something steep and / or fast, but it won’t fall too far off the back, either. Climbing performance is similar.
Specialized Enduro 650b (2016 and earlier)
This is the closest comparison I’ve found to the Turner RFX. Both bikes are a bit on the shorter side and emphasize nimble handling. As do-it-all bikes, either are great options and if you don’t ride lifts much; they’ll be better choices than bikes like the Santa Cruz Nomad, Yeti SB6, Evil Insurgent or other super slack, long bikes. I’d say that the Turner climbs a bit better than the Enduro 650b, and the rear end feels a bit laterally stiffer.
Bottom Line
If you find yourself thinking that modern bikes are getting too long and you prioritize slower speed handling over going mach-looney, the Turner RFX delivers a lot of the modern build quality and geometry updates without growing too long, and delivers a more versatile ride than a lot of modern enduro bikes.