Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: Any theories?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    252

    Any theories?

    I have waded through the TNT unbiased riding reports to discover the TNT bikes ride as well as the original Horst pivot bikes, which were considered by most to be the best active suspension system available. So are there any theories as to why the new TNT is comparable to the Horst pivot bikes but by definition cannot be as "active". Is it just due to the carefull TNT pivot placement and newer shocks that mimic the active 4 bar Horst pivot bikes or am I missing something with regards to the nature of the new TNT bikes?
    Are they as active as the original?

  2. #2
    ...
    Reputation: CDtofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,319
    For gods sake man, do a search there are thread after thread of all manner of HL vs TnT discussion. There is another thread about half a dozen down from yours that is asking nearly the same thing, there are quite a few links in it.

    SEE HERE


    If you find people on this board a little short on this topic its because its been brought up time and time again, good luck huntin and readin!

  3. #3
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Having read the reviews, one can pretty much form their own opinion on this or that. The theory discussion raged on for months even before people had a chance to try it. (some continue to theorize w/o making any attempt to try either bike)

    If you use the search function you'll find several very long and detailed threads that provided convincing arguements in both directions.

    If you take the locust of the opinions of actual feedback, which is pretty much what the R in MTBR is about, you'll get a reasonable idea what to expect.

    Performance reports and theories at hyper extremes are as subjective as anything else so while it's certainly worth consideration, it needs to be averaged into the whole picture like everything else. (Subjective being not wrong, but limited to that particular perspective and/or experience)

    In the end you'll best serve your question by trying it yourself if you can. You can't really test ride a bike from a keyboard. Theory is a very good guidline but there are tons of factors that can (and have) been left out that can completly change a theoretical conclusion.

    This was a really great opportunity to put the long standing theories to the test b/c before now, people were comparing completely different bikes, even different brands, with different geometry shocks, frame tubes, wheels yatta. For the first time several people got to test A vs.B on their own rigs with only A and B changing.

    Even the most brilliant minds who worked on the development of the atomic bomb admitted they weren't entirely sure what to expect at test time.

    G'luck!
    Last edited by Bikezilla; 03-23-2006 at 08:45 AM.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    252
    Slight misinterpretation of my question. Basically it was assumed that the horst pivot 4 bar suspension was the only true fully active suspension under braking and pedalling, but it appears that the new TNT can achieve the above with out the horst pivot. I appreciate that few can tell any difference even if there is any, just facinated that no one in the past has managed to achieve the "holy grail" with out a Horst link.

  5. #5
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    there is no holy grail. thats folks 1st mistake. there are the haves and have nots. its all a compromise and in somes opinion, the tnt or hl on a turner chassis are the best of these compromises for a given task. some, not so much. just choose yer weopon and attack the trail with a smile. we will be here for most any question ya have but perhaps not this one. its old, used up and mostly pointless, not that its yer fault by any means.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  6. #6
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by dogvet
    I appreciate that few can tell any difference even if there is any, just facinated that no one in the past has managed to achieve the "holy grail" with out a Horst link.

    A few have, Ventana has. Certainly many reports, even from Horst fans, have found the Yeti 575 suspension felt a great deal like the 5 Spot, and this was more than a year before the TNT came out. Do a search on Tscheezy's 575 reviews for example.

    What you're asking for is an explanation of why it does what it does. Well, thus far every design explanation I've ever seen could be and has been debated to the minutia from every direction w/o a clear winner in the paper debate. It still comes down to how the end product performs.

    There's been plenty of design theories that rode like crap in implementation, and plenty of others that looked like crap on paper and rode fantastically.

    Not every HL is a great ride, not every SSP is inferior, but the theories often try to prove otherwise.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  7. #7
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Quote Originally Posted by dogvet
    I appreciate that few can tell any difference even if there is any, just facinated that no one in the past has managed to achieve the "holy grail" with out a Horst link.
    This is where I think you are making an incorrect assumption, which in turn leads to your questioning. I have ridden a pile of different bikes, and am pretty sensitive to setup. In the instance of other faux-bars like Ventana X5s, Cove Hustlers, Yeti 575s, etc etc, none of them exhibit readily apparent "negative" braking effects or obvious pedaling deficiencies when equipped with a good shock. It's not that TNT did something so right, it's that you are assuming everyone else (non-Horst) did something so wrong. The presence or absence of a Horst link is totally overshadowed by other factors in design, and lots of bikes lacking the HL come together as packages swimmingly.

    This is seriously a topic where taking someone else's advice (hey, including mine) probably won't bring you closer to truth. Go ride a bunch of bikes and see for yourself.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,576

    Theory

    First line comment. The TNT on dirt is not enough "un active" to be percieveable by most. All calculations aside, the difference in the dirt is nominal at best and in a un biased riders head impercievable. Does a difference exist? Yes, as Steve from Jackson Hole as proven as hard as he can through his physics program.

    Second and third line theroretical answer. The reason IMO is that it is not only comparable but to some a touch more stabil under braking. Why? fully active or damn close may be too active when riding rough terrain. I have searched my thoughts on every ride since last summer as to why. So like the DHR for 5 years that has recieved rave reviews for braking and handling in the rough, the shorter travel, single low pivot Turner bikes are getting a small dose of that stabilizing Braking Induced Rebound Suppression. I say supression not compression, as the down force from the rear brake is not enough to cause an actual compression, but the down force is just enough to create less rebound bounce when wacking hard trail objects. Now this force is only applicable when there is traction! Please keep in mind that just like there are good and bad Horst Link designs over the years and not all single pivots are the same, and the same can be said about "mini links", there will be designs in all families that lock out under pedaling or are bouncy or brake jack, or brake compress etc.

    4th answer, see above for braking. Under pedaling there is no difference on the trail. The 1 guy from NM who tested the 2 against each other and found the HL bike a better extreme climber made comments that were opposite of what other testers said about the TNT's climbing traits. Is he wrong? No, in his tests and opinion the HL was better. Are the other testers that had positive comments about the tnt rear wrong, NO again. They thought the tnt climbed with better snap, then they ordered tnt rears for their old bikes. Why are they opposite when comparing the 2 pivots? There is no definative answer when comparing something so close. It is still a fully active bike. The German dude with the online share-ware pointed that out, even Steve from JH may have conceded that for pedaling. The total axle path difference on any of the models from HL to tnt is tiny, but when you look at the axle path comparison between HL and tnt where pedaling loads are actually applicable the difference is even less. That is because you do not pedal in the first part or last part of travel. If someone can actually pedal through the full range of travel, they are only able to put out serious torque loads in the middle of the travel. A Horst Link that is very close to the axle horizontally will have no effect on the pedaling.You can take the Horst Link off a T$&%^ or a E@#$%^&* and it will still pedal the same as the axles path is largely determined by the main pivots location when the HL is right next to the rear axle. And almost every "single pivot" is in a different location from model to model and brand to brand.

    I am sorry if I dis appoint or piss anyone off. These are my views based on trail time and lots of anal isis. I will not attempt to patent my theory.

    DT

  9. #9
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    good mornin david! hows yer day? ok, now back to the circles and lines so we can have our 29er. and rail. and.....
    No, I'm NOT back!

  10. #10
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    I will not attempt to patent my theory.

    DT
    But someone else apparently might....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    332
    I thought I read something similar on the turner web site about why the axel path didn't change that much, and why the ride was similar.

    I road an HL bike one time for one day, and so far I haven't notice any difference between that bike and my TNT version, this isn't worth much though, other opinions on here are much more educated.


    I will not attempt to patent my theory.
    Not to be a smart A**, but don't you think you should before someone else does?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    252
    DT et al
    Many thanks for all responses I think that has actually crystallised, (particularly from DT) what I was trying to ask.

  13. #13
    Pivoteer
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,435
    It sounds like you are doing what I did 2 weeks ago. I purchased the TNT version and rode last night for the first time. Any apprehensions I had about TNT were out the door. I have ridden Specialized Horst before and the TNT blows it away.

    Take the advise I was given. Just buy one and don't think about it.

    BTW, thanks DT for the rant, one of the reasons I love Turner!!

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Quote Originally Posted by rmac
    But someone else apparently might....
    I hope not because then I'll have to change my signature.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drumstix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,291
    An expert I am, NOT-but I have found from riding HL bikes and single pivots that body english makes more of an impact than the suspension design. Basicly in my unedgucated theories, the rider has way more impact on the way the suspension works than the pivot placement or design. Then dont forget the actual usage of the brakes, an old motocross trick is to drag the rear brake over rough ground if the rear end is hopping from side to side, the rear will squat a bit forces the rearend to follow the front, compress the shock and slow down the rebound. (this is just an example)
    Yamaha & Paiste, weapons of mass percussion

  16. #16
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,343
    I like mint ice cream
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.”

    ― Albert Einstein

  17. #17
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    I like chocolate chip cookie dough.

  18. #18
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    I like crayons.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  19. #19
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    i like beer. beer is good. more beer please.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I like crayons.
    ...I like sniffing dry-erase markers


  21. #21
    oly
    oly is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: oly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    851
    Just drink the damn coolaid already.....

  22. #22
    Team Sanchez
    Reputation: El Chingon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,366
    When did DT drop the Horst Link!? What is all this talk about TNT?

  23. #23
    mtbr platinum member
    Reputation: bikerx40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chingon
    What is all this talk about TNT?
    In an attempt to fulfill Bikezilla's requests for a Electronic Ball Massager (EBM), DT added the Tantalizing Nut Tickler. Same difference.
    I stopped driving my bike into my garage - I'm now protected with Roof Rack Ranger app for my iPhone.

  24. #24
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    -Tony Neutralizing Technology-

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Orangerider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    364
    I love lamp

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chingon
    When did DT drop the Horst Link!? What is all this talk about TNT?
    I know what TNT is and why it is good. I have no clue to what a Horst LInk is. Is this somthing from the sixtys?

  27. #27
    Hoops - Big and Small
    Reputation: Crash_Burn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,087
    After reading Dave's great response I racked my brain trying to come up with something to replace TNT.

    TrailTuned Not Theories, does'nt quite make the cut but it sounded good.

    The marketing phrase TNT might need to be retired, the ride speaks for itself.

  28. #28
    Pivoteer
    Reputation: tiSS'er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Orangerider
    I love lamp

    I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  29. #29
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    First line comment. The TNT on dirt is not enough "un active" to be percieveable by most. All calculations aside, the difference in the dirt is nominal at best and in a un biased riders head impercievable. Does a difference exist? Yes, as Steve from Jackson Hole as proven as hard as he can through his physics program.

    Second and third line theroretical answer. The reason IMO is that it is not only comparable but to some a touch more stabil under braking. Why? fully active or damn close may be too active when riding rough terrain. I have searched my thoughts on every ride since last summer as to why. So like the DHR for 5 years that has recieved rave reviews for braking and handling in the rough, the shorter travel, single low pivot Turner bikes are getting a small dose of that stabilizing Braking Induced Rebound Suppression. I say supression not compression, as the down force from the rear brake is not enough to cause an actual compression, but the down force is just enough to create less rebound bounce when wacking hard trail objects. Now this force is only applicable when there is traction! Please keep in mind that just like there are good and bad Horst Link designs over the years and not all single pivots are the same, and the same can be said about "mini links", there will be designs in all families that lock out under pedaling or are bouncy or brake jack, or brake compress etc.

    4th answer, see above for braking. Under pedaling there is no difference on the trail. The 1 guy from NM who tested the 2 against each other and found the HL bike a better extreme climber made comments that were opposite of what other testers said about the TNT's climbing traits. Is he wrong? No, in his tests and opinion the HL was better. Are the other testers that had positive comments about the tnt rear wrong, NO again. They thought the tnt climbed with better snap, then they ordered tnt rears for their old bikes. Why are they opposite when comparing the 2 pivots? There is no definative answer when comparing something so close. It is still a fully active bike. The German dude with the online share-ware pointed that out, even Steve from JH may have conceded that for pedaling. The total axle path difference on any of the models from HL to tnt is tiny, but when you look at the axle path comparison between HL and tnt where pedaling loads are actually applicable the difference is even less. That is because you do not pedal in the first part or last part of travel. If someone can actually pedal through the full range of travel, they are only able to put out serious torque loads in the middle of the travel. A Horst Link that is very close to the axle horizontally will have no effect on the pedaling.You can take the Horst Link off a T$&%^ or a E@#$%^&* and it will still pedal the same as the axles path is largely determined by the main pivots location when the HL is right next to the rear axle. And almost every "single pivot" is in a different location from model to model and brand to brand.

    I am sorry if I dis appoint or piss anyone off. These are my views based on trail time and lots of anal isis. I will not attempt to patent my theory.

    DT
    Since DT has referred to my opinions here, I have a right to respond and make clear what they actually are at present.

    It's true that if the axle paths and chain lines of two different bikes are the same and stay almost the same throughout suspension travel, and if all the geometry parameters are the same, the two will pedal the same. Up to the point where traction is lost.

    Because the TNT and HL Turners have different sets of balanced forces cancelling each other out under traction, when the wheel slips and one of the forces--the thrusting force at the ground--is lost, there will be quite different forces momentarily acting on the rear suspension. And the two suspensions will respond differently.

    The TNT will tend to compress more than the HL at the moment of traction loss. This will make it more difficult to regain traction immediately. In the rare case, like Andy N.'s hill in NM, this might explain the difference between making it up and not. In the usual case where the traction is regained quickly enough to allow the rider to make it up the hill, the difference will be one of a loss speed and a waste of energy in the case of the TNT. This could only be demonstrated by careful timing combined with some way of measuring the rider's output of energy.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  30. #30
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    83 feet and 100% efficiency.

  31. #31
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    The TNT will tend to compress more than the HL at the moment of traction loss. This will make it more difficult to regain traction immediately. In the rare case, like Andy N.'s hill in NM, this might explain the difference between making it up and not. In the usual case where the traction is regained quickly enough to allow the rider to make it up the hill, the difference will be one of a loss speed and a waste of energy in the case of the TNT. This could only be demonstrated by careful timing combined with some way of measuring the rider's output of energy.
    I haven't tried a TNT (I wish I could, Turners are awesome bikes)... but I just recently switched from a Mid-SP like the Warp, against a Hl like the Switchblade.

    Personally, now I understand why some people prefers the newer TNT's. Because of the very same reasons Steve mentions at traction loss point; my Warp used to "settle" and "level" pitch when pointing down a steep section, when it got to lose traction. This avoided an Over-The-Bars feel. It takes feathering on the brake to reain traction and off you go.

    On the Blade, traction seems (just personal impression) to lose traction a little later. But once it's lost, there's an OTB feel... yeah, it regains traction sooner, which in turn (due to mass transfer) sends your weight more forwards and requires you to use some body english to shift your weight back... which not always (again, for me) it's as easy as feathering a brake lever.

    This feel of HL's can be especially spooky when you have a braking steep followed by a little nose drop.

    IMHO, on steep and rough grades HL's are better for climbing, SP's for descending. In the rest of situations, the difference can be even less.

    But then again, it's just my personal preference.

    So there it goes, no design is perfect and engineering is full of compromises.

    I think that HL or TNT, Dave Turner makes awesome bikes. The guy knows his sh!t and all the years on the business running one of the most succesful bike lines is more than enough proof.
    Check my Site

  32. #32
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    ... This could only be demonstrated by careful timing combined with some way of measuring the rider's output of energy.
    So after much consideration we have a theory that can not easily be felt nor measured. That would make it easy to debate w/o resolution and easy to discount test ride impressions. Steve, will you be testing this theory on said products like you did with your vertical bob vs. efficiency theory? Being the suspension theory enthusiast that you are, it seems a shame if you haven't tried either product.

    Theory no matter how complex, can be as subjective as testing...I think that makes a good reason to consider both.

    Also theory without quantification, can have much of the meaning skewed. If I recall your first theries indicated differences of 2x(or more) in some kinds of forces but lacked a translation to what that meant in the real world. Later (if I recall correctly) it seemed you indicated the results were not as dramatic as your calculations seemed to indicate. and you moved on to focus on other facors. The point is without a clear indication of HOW MUCH of a difference you're talking about here we don't know if the difference you're speculating on is more significant than a host of other real world factors. It seems to me that your calculations thus far don't track well with real experiences. I'm not saying you're wrong but the numbers don't show themselves at the pedals.

    There is a fair bit of rider feedback though and the average points to a small difference at most in terms of traction.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Clyde S Dale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,140
    'Zilla said: "we don't know if the difference you're speculating on is more significant than a host of other real world factors."

    I have to agree. When I read Steve from JH's post about the TNTs theoretical loss of traction in certain circumstances the first thing I thought was OK, How does tire choice, air pressure, shock setup, rider seated or standing, etc., fit in to all this? Does the loss of traction result in a loss of control or is it all over in a billioneth of a second and the rider never noticed?


  34. #34
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Also theory without quantification, can have much of the meaning skewed. If I recall your first theries indicated differences of 2x(or more) in some kinds of forces but lacked a translation to what that meant in the real world. Later (if I recall correctly) it seemed you indicated the results were not as dramatic as your calculations seemed to indicate. and you moved on to focus on other facors. The point is without a clear indication of HOW MUCH of a difference you're talking about here we don't know if the difference you're speculating on is more significant than a host of other real world factors. It seems to me that your calculations thus far don't track well with real experiences. I'm not saying you're wrong but the numbers don't show themselves at the pedals.
    The force differences between the HL and the TNT for both braking and pedaling are about 2x. That is, the braking TNT will tend to extend when losing traction with about twice as much force. The pedaling TNT will tend to compress when losing traction with about twice as much force.

    When I put those figures for braking on here, what I did wrong was not the calculations but I failed to include a reasonable level for a "coefficient of traction". You can only get away with about .7 or .8 times the load on the wheel as a braking force. I had way more than that so all the numbers were too high. But the proportions (2x for the TNT over the HL) were right.

    Theories aren't subjective. They're just right or wrong.

    I keep coming back to the hill that Andy N. couldn't climb with the TNT rear. It's true that there were a whole bunch more people who didn't have such an experience, but let me make a little mythical historical analogy.

    Suppose the developers of the first A bomb had failed with their first test. And on many subsequent tests. Say they tried 30 times before they got an enormous explosion. Would physicists have concluded that E=MC^2 was probably not true since most of the time it was not confirmed? No, because there would be no alternative explanation for the enormous release of energy in the one successful test. I don't see any way of explaining Andy N.'s experience except for something like what I theorized.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9
    Having just finished an '06 Flux (TNT) build, I feel that my exstensive first ride report could finally end all this HL vs TNT debate.

    I like my bike. It is bouncy.

    Thank you.

  36. #36
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    I can't say I have much interest in the theory. I can't ride my keyboard. Even the Abomb developers admitted they weren't entrely sure what the results would be should the explosion occur. I presume that's why they conducted tests.

    Will you be conducting tests?

    I believe untested theories can indeed be subjective. There are plenty of differing theories with conflicting conclusions. Sometimes the ones that are the most rigorously explained do not prove out correct in real life. Many predictive theories are created and later adjusted to match test results. Other theories are created to explain known results. The ones created after the fact can be less subjective.

    WIll you be conducting tests?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  37. #37
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla

    WIll you be conducting tests?
    Send me the bike and the alternative rear linkage and I will.

    The best tester would be neither a fan of Turner nor someone like me who has a position to defend. It would be someone genuinely neutral, who was willing to patiently repeat the test many times, using instrumentation--at least a watch.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  38. #38
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Send me the bike and the alternative rear linkage and I will.
    I'll pack up my bicycle and send it out today, wait for it mkay?

    I'm just thinking you've put a more than casual effort in "defending" your theory over the past 9 months, it's a shame you haven't found the opportunity to throw a leg over a TNT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    The best tester would be neither a fan of Turner nor someone like me who has a position to defend. It would be someone genuinely neutral, who was willing to patiently repeat the test many times, using instrumentation--at least a watch.
    It seems to me then that you are debating in favor of a theory that even you think is too subjective to test without the perfect person. Shall we send a request to, DW? Without testing that you find accecptable and without quantification of your theory that explains how much a difference it'll make in meaninful units, this is pretty much academic to me.

    Oh well, we've debated all this many times before so I'll stand down. Cheers Steve!
    Last edited by Bikezilla; 03-28-2006 at 01:34 PM.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  39. #39
    over researcher
    Reputation: royta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Keefy
    Having just finished an '06 Flux (TNT) build, I feel that my exstensive first ride report could finally end all this HL vs TNT debate.

    I like my bike. It is bouncy.

    Thank you.
    I must say Keefy, that both of your first two posts have been of high quality. I also like my '06 Flux. It is orange, but more smooth than bouncy.

    *looking forward to more Keefy posts*

  40. #40
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I'm just thinking you've put a more than casual effort in "defending" your theory over the past 9 months, it's a shame you haven't found the opportunity to throw a leg over a TNT.
    We just got a Turner dealer in town. I threw a leg over a TNT 5-Spot and rode it around the block the other day. Problem is he's a new dealer and has no HL models. I didn't like the paint.



    So you will continue to champion a theory that even you think is too subjective to test without the perfect person?
    It's not the theory that's subjective! It's the collection and interpretation of data that can be.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  41. #41
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,219

    Exactly: Most riders never notice...

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde S Dale
    I have to agree. When I read Steve from JH's post about the TNTs theoretical loss of traction in certain circumstances the first thing I thought was OK, How does tire choice, air pressure, shock setup, rider seated or standing, etc., fit in to all this? Does the loss of traction result in a loss of control or is it all over in a billioneth of a second and the rider never noticed?
    No disrespect to anyone but there are FAR too many variables for this conversation to have much value. Its been beaten to death at this point. The truth (possible pun not intended!) of the matter is that 90% of riders won't notice any of this because there are simply too many variables and the brain is too good at unconciously compensating for so many factors while on the bike.

    Seriously, this whole debate is so done. Just get out and ride let DT get back to making cool shite. These designs are so similar and the reality is that so much of what we are talking about is 100% subjective (no rider is the same, no trail is the same, no bike is set up the same etc etc) that all this borders on meaningless. It comes down to what you feel when you are out on a ride. Do you feel a difference? Yes? Good. No? Thats good too.
    - -benja- -

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •