Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 66
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    105

    Didn't Turner originate the walking beam? Shouldn't he be the one getting royalties?

    I am not a Turner owner but it really irks me to see Turner get messed around like this. When you look at examples of cooperation in the industry like Sata Cruz and Intense on the VPP design, I think this ICT patent thing really stinks. Especially if ICT is just a refinement of the walking beam suspension that Turner originated with the Tuner Burner.

    Having said that, let me make this comment about the Horst Link question. I don't claim to be as techno savvy as some of you here on the board but...

    Before I got my Titus Switchblade, I was riding a K2 Razorback which locks up solid under braking and a Diamondback XSL which stays at least partly active with the rear brake locked. Neither has horst links.

    So I am prepared to believe that Turner can come up with something that works well without the Horst Link. I hope this is true, and I hope Turner kicks Ellsworth's butt in the marketplace

  2. #2
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Endo Often
    I am not a Turner owner but it really irks me to see Turner get messed around like this. When you look at examples of cooperation in the industry like Sata Cruz and Intense on the VPP design, I think this ICT patent thing really stinks. Especially if ICT is just a refinement of the walking beam suspension that Turner originated with the Tuner Burner.

    Having said that, let me make this comment about the Horst Link question. I don't claim to be as techno savvy as some of you here on the board but...

    Before I got my Titus Switchblade, I was riding a K2 Razorback which locks up solid under braking and a Diamondback XSL which stays at least partly active with the rear brake locked. Neither has horst links.

    So I am prepared to believe that Turner can come up with something that works well without the Horst Link. I hope this is true, and I hope Turner kicks Ellsworth's butt in the marketplace
    Did you know the Intense pays for the VPP? And what I read Turner's problem has a lot to do with the FSR which is licensed from Specialized (which happens to be on your switchblade too).

    Why do you want Turner to kick Ellsworth's ass? Why is this so personal--especially when you don't own either bike? This is truly bizaare behavior.

  3. #3
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,971
    yep, turner did it first as you say, but someone else licensed it first. between the 2 it was copied over and over, some with verbal licensing agreements, some without. through it all DT has taken it like a man and carried on with his own program. seems to me nuthins changed in this respect. sure wish i had one of those t-shirts they used to sell that claimed they were "the original rocker". woulda been cool, huh?
    No, I'm NOT back!

  4. #4
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    yep, turner did it first as you say, but someone else licensed it first. between the 2 it was copied over and over, some with verbal licensing agreements, some without. through it all DT has taken it like a man and carried on with his own program. seems to me nuthins changed in this respect. sure wish i had one of those t-shirts they used to sell that claimed they were "the original rocker". woulda been cool, huh?
    Actually though, on the note about agreements and getting burned by Tony E. The Sherwood/Tony Saga with Aeon is a real goodie!

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    Did you know the Intense pays for the VPP? And what I read Turner's problem has a lot to do with the FSR which is licensed from Specialized (which happens to be on your switchblade too).

    Why do you want Turner to kick Ellsworth's ass? Why is this so personal--especially when you don't own either bike? This is truly bizaare behavior.
    The FSR link is part of the ICT patent, which means that DT can remove the HL and now he is not infringing on the ict patent, which is his design in the first place and now gets to use the advantages of the design. No HL=no ICT in the patent bureau's eyes.

    And I don't want either company to kick the other's ass, but calling it like it is, there are some messy business dealings on one side of this. The only people that will lose in that are the customers. THe bike industry is full of lots of goodwill in the intellectual property arena and this is not one of those stories.

    And I had a Diamondback FS rig, and the brake mount was on the chainstay and it didn't lockout. They moved the mounts to the seatstay in later years.

    Turner didn't patent the rocker link design, which was mistake number one, but back then, the industry wasn't like it is now. Next, he patented the Stinger design, but it didn't truly take off, mostly because of the proprietary shock. Next, he didn't patent making the rockers horizontal, but who knew he would have to? And look at all the many manufacturers out there bigger than EW that are freely using ICT with the HL and he can't go after them because their lawyers are bigger than his.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    what I read Turner's problem has a lot to do with the FSR which is licensed from Specialized
    Where do you get that? I think it's pretty clear from Casey's comments that the problem was with the ICT license. Here are a couple of quotes from his posts where he explained that the changes originated from an attempt to get away from the patent issues at hand:
    The price did not go up when ICT became a part of the bike, why would it go down now that it is not?
    I for one am thankful it worked out as the other option was to go back to building XCE style bikes.
    He specifically mentions ICT and also states that the other option was to go back to building XCE style bikes which were licensed from Specialized. It seems pretty clear that the problem was with the ICT license, and not with the FSR license.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    105
    Well my main interest is that like a lot of you, I bought in to the Horst Link mystique, so I am interested in this on a technical level. There is a lot of really interesting discussion in this forum, and I wanted to share my experience, which leads me to think it is possible to design a non-HL suspension that stays active under braking.

    But Lidarman has a point. I probably should have left out the other stuff. I don't know for a fact that Ellsworth or the ICT patent had anything to do with Turner's design change. A lot of what I have read here leads me to think so, but I don't know it for a fact.

    And who am I to say that Ellsworth shouldn't be able to get a patent on a suspension type that was originated by Turner. I am not a patent lawyer nor an engineer.

    As far as why I would care, although I am not a Turner owner, I am a fan. I strongly considered getting a Turner, and in some ways I wish I had spent the extra bucks, but I got a great deal on the Switchblade and I must say it is a great ride in its own right.

    In the process of researching it out I came across a lot of gripes about Ellsworth, a few about Titus, and virtually none about Turner. So I have a high regard for Turner on that level.

    So how about I just say I wish Turner success with the new rear end, and retract the part about kicking anybody's ass.

    I've got to hit the road. It's a long drive to Fruita.

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480

    The reality of the Horst Link

    The reality of it is that it is a fool-proof way to get a suspension to not lockout partially, or to the same degree as a non-horst four bar. A HL design reduces the lockout by a large percent, although some forces do remain, but are less significant. A non-horst four bar can be designed to not lock to the same degree, but it takes much more engineering to do. MM by MM, it can certainly be done.

    Pedaling forces are much the same. Computer aided design technology has pushed the design possibilities so much further. Ten years ago, it would've have been as feasible to move pivots mm by mm and in combination with one another to yield the best ride as easily as it is now.

    I bought a HL bike jusdt because of the assurance that it would be active, but I know that it is possible to make a non HL bike that can be active as well. Mind you, the HL does not eliminate the jacking forces, but allows for reduction of them. This is the key because everyone is assuming that the HL completely eliminates the braking loads.

  9. #9
    Bike to the Bone...
    Reputation: rzozaya1969's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    8,288
    I like the Horst link bikes, but I don't think that a horst or no horst link makes a Turner (or Titus) bike special. I still don't think there is a 'perfect' rear design. Maybe DW-Link is better for some things, it may suck for others, same as VPP, or single-pivot, faux, etc..

    While it's an important part, I wouldn't place rear design in number 1 reason in choosing a bike. I would place quality, overal design over rear design.

    I didn't know that Turner got in a mess because of patents, I just had thought that Turner went with his own design to save money on licences. But I think is that, from their site, Turner is using poor marketing to its design. It basically says is that his design feels the same as a horst link. I would try to differenciate it, give a reason beside the licence cost to change.

    Maybe this move away from the HL or ICT will allow Turner to improve later on his design and bring something pretty good to the table.

    Anyway, a 6-Pack or RFX sound pretty fun!

  10. #10
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,971
    i like where ya went with this, rz. and yeah, perhaps this lateral move is just a stepping stone to the next new level. i havent heard thats the case but it makes some sense. i think all would agree that a more specific answer is needed and i believe you will have just that in the very near future. how about a pack/rfx/spot combo? now THATS fun! pics in the next 2 months as soon as olympic powder coat gets its groove on. weeeeeee!
    No, I'm NOT back!

  11. #11
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Backmarker
    Where do you get that? I think it's pretty clear from Casey's comments that the problem was with the ICT license. Here are a couple of quotes from his posts where he explained that the changes originated from an attempt to get away from the patent issues at hand:
    The price did not go up when ICT became a part of the bike, why would it go down now that it is not?
    I for one am thankful it worked out as the other option was to go back to building XCE style bikes.
    He specifically mentions ICT and also states that the other option was to go back to building XCE style bikes which were licensed from Specialized. It seems pretty clear that the problem was with the ICT license, and not with the FSR license.
    Here:

    http://www.nsmb.com/gear/dirtdemo05.php

    "Cam rounded up a Yeti to test ,and I lined up a Turner RF6- the bike that is replacing the Six Pack.
    [size=-2]
    The new Turner RF6, built lighter with skinny-ish tires and a DHX Air shock[/size]
    There are some significant changes to the bike, most notably the new rear pivot placement, which moves from the chainstay to the seatstay. I spoke with David Turner about the RF6, and the reasons why he abandoned the Horst Link chainstay pivot that had been a fixture on Turner bikes for some time.

    First, there was the issue of Specialized owning the rights to the Horst Link, and the fact that that was costing Turner (the company) money every year. Turner (the man) also felt there was a lack of creative control built into that arrangement.

    Turner went with the modified four-bar linkage he's calling Torque Neutralizing Technology because he liked the simplicity, and he found that the wheel path on the new rear end is almost identical to that of the older Turner bikes with the same amount of travel. According to David, there's only a 1.1mm difference between the new and old suspension designs.

    "

    Part of the problem here when you read this or read what Dave has on his website is the inplied notion that Horst is better from the wording of "there's only a 1.1mm difference between the new and old suspension designs. "If the new design is better, why make that comment?

    If this info is wrong, then Dave needs to step up and clarify...and get on NSMB for a misquote!

  12. #12
    PSI
    PSI is offline
    I want that one
    Reputation: PSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    Why do you want Turner to kick Ellsworth's ass? Why is this so personal--especially when you don't own either bike? This is truly bizaare behavior.
    You see? Even people that don't own Turners can't stand the guy. Why is that?

  13. #13
    Bike to the Bone...
    Reputation: rzozaya1969's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    8,288
    Lidarman

    I think that Turner is doing bad marketing for TNT, on their site it just says that TNT feels almost identical to a Horst, so there is no difference, and they're saying my design doesn't really bring anything new to the table, just no royalties.

    "Carefully watch the axle center and note the slight change in axle relationship between the old and new. The actual difference between the old and TNT style rear end is never more than 1.1 mm throughout the 5.3” of travel on the 5 Spot. Because the paths are nearly identical, pedaling characteristics remain the same.

    Over the years our Horst links have been moved closer to the axle in order to reduce the noise of the derailleur hitting the frame on rough ground. As the pivot gets closer to the rear axle, it's impact on altering the axle path is reduced, therefore, that is why you can barely see any difference between the 2 images above.

    The biggest visual difference between the old Horst Link and new TNT Technology, is the rear brake mount angle changes, as the suspension compresses. Through actual riding we have found this to be unperceivable in all conditions. Under ultimate traction situations there is a calculated compression of the rear suspension, although un-felt, this can have a stabilizing effect."

  14. #14
    Bike to the Bone...
    Reputation: rzozaya1969's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    8,288
    I just don't know what will happen if someone breaks a horst chainstay in the future, will they be able to get a new one?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    243
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if you can show usage of a design prior to the application for patent, you can invalidate the patent. So, if Turner was using the design before Horst/Specialized/Ellsworth/Whoever applied for a patent, all Turner would need to do is produce a catalog from that period showing the usage and the patent would be invalidated.

  16. #16
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    I wonder if anyone has any promotion materials or bikes that can prove this on the board.

    Regardless, legal fights are expensive, no matter how right one party is and I'm sure Tony isn't going to give up.

    I also have a feeling of impending ugliness in the bike industry soon...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    If this info is wrong, then Dave needs to step up and clarify...and get on NSMB for a misquote!
    Well, that article does contradict what Casey said. However, the text in the article isn't a direct quote, it's the authors interpretation of what DT said, so we don't know exactly what he said.

    However, we do know exactly what Casey said and what he said seemed pretty clear. He said that the other option was to go back to building XCE style bikes. Since going back to building XCE style bikes would solve the problem, and since XCE bikes fall under the FSR patent and would still have to be licensed from Specialized, I can't see where the Specialized license can be the problem.

    I wonder if DT wasn't misquoted by NSMB. He may have used something like the term "license holders" and NSMB interpreted that to mean Specialized. I use the term "license holders", because that is the term used in the Single Track World interview with DT at Interbike. From the Single Track World website:
    It seems that the new swingarm design of the Turner 5 Spot has been getting the most attention at the Outdoor Demo thus far. In case you’ve not heard, David Turner has abandoned the famed four bar, or Horst link, in favor of a pivot on the seatstay, aka the “faux bar”. We spoke with Turner in order to clear up some of the scuttlebutt associated with the whys behind the design change. When asked why the change was made, Turner only half-tongue-in-cheeked his reply by stating 'As an artist I was feeling a little bound up and needed more freedom of expression.' He expanded with a more serious answer and explained that the change did not stem from an overly expensive licensing fee, but rather an increasingly difficult relationship with the license holders.
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    Part of the problem here when you read this or read what Dave has on his website is the implied notion that Horst is better from the wording of "there's only a 1.1mm difference between the new and old suspension designs. "If the new design is better, why make that comment?
    I don’t know. My interpretation of that statement is that he seems to be implying that both designs are very similar. I can't see where it implies that either design is "better". Casey stated in no uncertain terms that the design change was instigated due to licensing issues and that those issues prompted them to start exploring different designs. In a previous thread, one poster equated DT's changing to a seatstay pivot to avoid the ICT license with him biting off his nose to spite his face. DT responded by saying "Sometimes situations are so bad that losing flesh is more desirable to getting gutted.". Those are pretty strong words and would seem to indicate that the situation must have been pretty ugly.

    I'm not sure what your question is here exactly. I have tried to stay out of the Horst vs. TNT discussion, and I'm reluctant to wade into it now. Ideally, you wouldn't have to come up with a silly 3 letter acronym to describe your new suspension. However, I doubt DT wants people to assume that he has been forced to use an "inferior" design due to licensing issues, so in this case an explanation is necessary. That seems to be the purpose of the TNT moniker and the info on the website. He is trying to explain that the new design retains the suspension qualities that he values most. At least that's my take on it.

    As an alternative, he could have eliminated any ICT license issues by going back to an XCE type of design, but that approach is not without problems either. For one thing, he would have to redesign the front triangles and rockers on most of his bikes which is probably not a trivial undertaking. There are other valid (performance related) reasons for choosing to go with a seatstay pivot instead. The oft-used stiffness example is one. The suspension leverage rate curve is another. The longer rocker arms used on the ICT bikes provide a flatter, more linear suspension leverage rate curve than do the shorter rockers on the older XCE style bikes. Long travel bikes using short rocker links end up with a rate curve that is rapidly rising, rapidly falling, or a combination of both. For example, if you were to try to extend the XCE to 5" (or worse yet 6") of travel, you would end up with a suspension leverage rate that changes from a fairly linear to a fairly steep falling rate at the end of travel. Unfortunately, the long rocker arms necessary to achieve a nice linear suspension rate put the bike under the ICT umbrella.

    So then, what's more important? Do you choose to keep the Horst link and lose the nice linear suspension rate or lose the Horst link and gain a small (perhaps even imperceptible) improvement in braking performance? That's a decision for the designer and you could make an argument for either, but differences in suspension rate is something that can be felt while riding (even by a hack such as myself), so it's a valid consideration. The point I'm trying to make, is that you can't focus soley on one small (possibly insignificant) aspect of the design, you have to look at the package as a whole, and it seems like that is what he has done.

    I've seen quite a few posts here recently where people have claimed that DT has spent the past 10 years preaching the superiority of the Horst link. I would like to see an example of this, because I can't recall seeing this myself. I have a dozen magazine reviews of Turner bikes dating back to 1993. I went through them the other night, and I didn't find a single example of DT making any claims about the Horst link what-so-ever. I saw a video from Interbike 2001 where he discussed his bikes, but there was no mention of the Horst link. I browsed through the archives of his website dating back to 1999 and I couldn't find any claims about the Horst link there either. I found one paragraph that stated that he licenses it from Specialized, but no claims about the performance benefits. What I have seen, is magazine review after magazine review making all kinds of claims about the benefits of the Horst link. I've seen a massive number of internet posts making claims about the benefits of the Horst link. I've seen Specialized making claims about it (and Titus as well). However, I don't see where DT should be held responsible for (or have to explain) claims made by other companies, magazine editors, or internet posters.
    Last edited by Backmarker; 10-14-2005 at 09:08 AM. Reason: spelling error

  18. #18
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Backmarker, I don't remembere which British magazine it was that a few months ago had an interview with DT. But I read it and I distinctly remember that he said he has stuck with the Horst design because it simply rode better.

    Doing a quick search for DT's contributions on here I came up with this:

    Horst of course! Mongoose AMPlifier. Horst had worked on chain torque nuetralizing motorcycle drive systems with the first ATKs and then the aftermarket add on called AMP link that could be bolted to many dirt bikes and quads. His focus was allowing power to be put out without locking or extending the suspension system. I have ridden the AMP link on a 250 Yamaha and it was a big advantage in the rocks and rough. I knew that having the ability to put full power on a bicycle and not have the rear end lifting/ stiffening or squatting would make carrying the extra weight of suspension worth it. The Horst link may be old by the date, but certainly not outdated.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    132

    time limit

    Quote Originally Posted by TechniKal
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if you can show usage of a design prior to the application for patent, you can invalidate the patent. So, if Turner was using the design before Horst/Specialized/Ellsworth/Whoever applied for a patent, all Turner would need to do is produce a catalog from that period showing the usage and the patent would be invalidated.
    if it is anything like copyright, then there is only a limited time for action. if someone steals your image or design & uses it you must file copyright within 3 months of publication if you are to recover legal fees and punitive damages (if you have not previously registered). if someone uses your design over time and you do not challenge in a timely manner, you may lose your copyright.

    patent law may be similiar. also, taking legal action for a small company can be fatal because it is so damn time consuming and expensive.

    another question: was turner the first bike co. to use the parallel beam suspension? maybe not, there were other companies out there that are now gone. i don't really know the whole history.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Backmarker, I don't remembere which British magazine it was that a few months ago had an interview with DT. But I read it and I distinctly remember that he said he has stuck with the Horst design because it simply rode better.
    Did he say "Horst" or did he say "4-bar". You know as well as I do that most people in the bike industry use the term "4-bar" to refer to both chainstay and seatstay pivot bikes. I mention that, because I did see an article in MBR where he said "I still think the 4-bar as we execute it is the best." A scan of that article is posted here:

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...06795#poststop

    Is that the article you are referring to? The problem is, that when he says "4-bar as we execute it", he is talking about his design as a whole, not any one aspect of the design. I've heard him talk about his bikes. He mentioned his journal bearing pivots, his machined bottom bracket, that his design is fully active, that it has good mud clearance, that he tweaks the geometry from year to year because forks keep getting taller, things like that. He modified the rockers on the 5 Spot this year to change suspension leverage rate curve a bit to help use a bit more travel of the air shock (the original rockers were designed for the Romic coil). These are the things I've heard him talk about, so these are the things I think of when I see the phrase "as we execute it". Many people just see "Horst Link" I guess.


    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Doing a quick search for DT's contributions on here I came up with this:

    Horst of course! Mongoose AMPlifier. Horst had worked on chain torque nuetralizing motorcycle drive systems with the first ATKs and then the aftermarket add on called AMP link that could be bolted to many dirt bikes and quads. His focus was allowing power to be put out without locking or extending the suspension system. I have ridden the AMP link on a 250 Yamaha and it was a big advantage in the rocks and rough. I knew that having the ability to put full power on a bicycle and not have the rear end lifting/ stiffening or squatting would make carrying the extra weight of suspension worth it. The Horst link may be old by the date, but certainly not outdated.
    The Amp Link is something different. I have ridden a Quad with an Amp Link and it does work amazingly well. However, it's not related to the Horst Link at all (well, except that is was invented by the same guy).

    However, I would think that DT probably does (or at least did) believe that the Horst link provides some benefit. He helped develop it, he used it for over a decade, and I have no doubt he would still be using it now if it weren't for the licensing issues. However, believing that is has some benefit, is not the same thing as claiming that it is the primary reason you suspension performs the way it does. That's what others seem to be claiming that he has done.

    I spent a fair a couple of years researching my bike before I bought it. During that time I gathered a lot of information about Horst link bikes and I don't recall Turner using the Horst link to market or promote his bikes in any way. Specialized and Titus both have a big write-ups on their websites basically claiming that the Horst design is the best, but Turner doesn't and to my knowledge, he never has. I’ve read dozens of magazine reviews claiming that the Horst link was the reason the bike performed as well as it did (mostly reviews of Specialized bikes). In fact, it's hard to find a mag review of a faux-bar that doesn't imply that a Horst link bike would brake and/or pedal better. I've seen the Horst link being touted and marketed by lots people. I guess my impression is that it's primarily been the magazines that have been touting the benefits of the Horst link. Maybe DT has promoted it a bit as well and I just haven't seen it, but he certainly hasn't been one of the worst offenders.
    Last edited by Backmarker; 10-15-2005 at 02:18 AM.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by TechniKal
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if you can show usage of a design prior to the application for patent, you can invalidate the patent. So, if Turner was using the design before Horst/Specialized/Ellsworth/Whoever applied for a patent, all Turner would need to do is produce a catalog from that period showing the usage and the patent would be invalidated.
    It's not that simple. The patent itself points out that Turner had already built and was using the design (The Turner After Burner). Here is an excerpt from the patent.
    Although FIGS. 22A and 22B indicate that the Turner A. B. bicycle yields a similar maximum value of 1.46 (for the difference between the instant center and the chain torque), as of this date, it is unclear whether that Turner A. B. bicycle actually constitutes prior art with respect to Applicants' invention. In any case, the Turner A. B. bicycle does not teach or disclose how to achieve a maximum value lower than 1.46.
    Below are the figures referenced in the paragraph above. The plot below shows how closely the chainline tracks the IC thoughout the entire range of travel. You can see that the plot of the Turner A.B. falls right between the plots from the Truth and Dare. I don't know why the patent was awarded when an existing design was already in use, but it was.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    You can see that the plot of the Turner A.B. falls right between the plots from the Truth and Dare. I don't know why the patent was awarded when an existing design was already in use, but it was.
    Because Turner did not and has not opposed it. Again, this is bad business because his good nature, but poor business decisions came back to bite him, especially since the competitor is a known ruthless individual. Like I previously said, I don't think this is necessarily an issue that will go away and despite the fact that the fight could be expensive, DT needs to sue for damages based on prior art, or at the least, sue for free usage of his own design. It's there in black and white that Turner used the Afterburner design first. We all know that and the other guy has acknowledged that. So we know where the cards are.

  23. #23
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    However, I would think that DT probably does (or at least did) believe that the Horst link provides some benefit. He helped develop it, he used it for over a decade, and I have no doubt he would still be using it now if it weren't for the licensing issues.
    Apparently we have no disagreement on this point.

    My recollection is that DT has many times said something to the effect that he has stuck with the Horst pivot location because in his experience it simply works better.. I don't feel like doing a deep enough search to prove it.

    Two weeks ago he said:

    I will gladly answer any and all questions ya'll want. But please list them out so I can easily find them.

    Torque neutralizing is just that. NOT feeding much chain tension into the rear suspenion to either over extend or compress suspension.

    Turner bikes have always been fully active. torque neutral. Full time Function. whatever.
    That is why they work well in the rough, the chain torque is not greatly extending or trying to counter the rear end against the 2 stroke motor that is bouncing around on it. the more your legs fight the "bob" the less power to forward motion.

    Please look at the animation. I would NOT make a change to the bike if it did not still ride exactly like I wanted to. Some of the other models have less change in axle path than the Spot. The reason we did the Spot first is because of the popularity.

    Bikes that are or act like HIGH pivot bikes have brake issues. Turner is not a high pivot bike. I cannot tell the difference, and I was looking for a difference. At full speed on pavement with a sticky tire and almost locked rear brake I cannot see or feel it compress the rear.

    David Turner
    This seems to be inconsistent with what he said in the magazine interview. One of those times he was saying something that he doesn't really believe. There's a word for doing that. If a certain rival bike designer was being discussed, the word "scumbag" might be added.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,817

    Horst Leitner (Just for history sake)

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    This seems to be inconsistent with what he said in the magazine interview. One of those times he was saying something that he doesn't really believe. There's a word for doing that. If a certain rival bike designer was being discussed, the word "scumbag" might be added.
    to reply to the original post: Turner did not originate much really.

    He worked for Horst Leitner at Amp after the original horst link was developed http://www.amp-research.com/build/bikes.asp and then branched out.

    If memory serves the first "Turner" were built by Sherwood (yes, the guy that has been making the finest faux-bars available for a decade plus, Ventana).

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17

    Dave's Approach a Positive

    I think people are missing the most important point, which is that Dave's passion about bicycles is what has driven him to focus on making the best bikes he can.

    All of the business stuff may be creating an obstacle now, but I am personally glad that he is keeping his eye on building the best bikes he can without spending years in litigation. I hope he's riding and still having fun despite all the chatter in the magazines and on these boards.

    Remember how important the customer service is to all of us? I wonder how easy it would be for Dave to focus on that when he's involved in depositions?

    In any event, let's just ride the great bikes we own and look forward to Dave's next creations. History tells us they'll be great bikes.

    Peace.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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