Results 1 to 80 of 80
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: geardoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    102

    Do you feel shorted by the move to faux bar?

    I don't know about you, but I read many of the posts on this Turner forum
    about the advantages of the Horst link and was convinced that it was
    necessary. I didn't follow the all the math, but the arguments seemed solid, and
    considering the many Specialized bikes I've had that pedal great ( with the HL)
    I took the plunge on the Turner (rather than a Santa Cruz or some other bike )

    Well that all seems like a lot of hot air now. I'm feeling a bit slighted, like some guy
    who listened to the used car salesman.

    My next bike is more likely to be a Specialized. Or maybe an Ellsworth...

  2. #2
    Time flies...
    Reputation: xjbebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,211
    Go ahead on and git yourself an E-bike. I'm sure the extra money paid for the true, original ICT will make it ride better...
    ...every day sends future to past...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: geardoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by xjbebop
    Go ahead on and git yourself an E-bike. I'm sure the extra money paid for the true, original ICT will make it ride better...
    I'm guessing this is "tongue in cheek" but am not sure. If you are serious, then why would the original ICT ride better?

  4. #4
    Time flies...
    Reputation: xjbebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,211
    "tongue in cheek" ...correct...

    I can understand the mixed feelings prevailing, but other than a very few brief impressions, what does anyone truly know about TNT's performance??
    Maybe it sucks, but maybe it works great. We don't know yet.

    I know for a fact that specs, data and spreadsheets only tell part of any story.
    Riding a bike is about how it feels in the real world.

    If all hype was fact, then E-bikes would kick butt on Turners...always...
    How many people will back that up?
    ...every day sends future to past...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: geardoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by xjbebop
    ..
    I know for a fact that specs, data and spreadsheets only tell part of any story.
    Riding a bike is about how it feels in the real world....
    I hear you. It takes me many weeks to figure out the quirks of a new bike, riding
    it every day with varying conditions. Lacking some place that will let me
    test ride for several weeks, the specs and theoretical analysis become a tie
    breaker.

    An example might be, say Ventana vs Turner, both great, but I'd get the
    Turner just because of the HL. Heck the HL is more than the tie breaker, since
    I can't test ride any high end bike. ( There's no place within 250 miles of here that
    has these bikes, but the local shop has Specialized, and I know how those
    ride).

  6. #6
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    hey doc. i hope i dont sound all agro here so if i do, please dont take it personally. this is such a old and silly topic and its not done anyone any good yet. heres the facts so far as we know them:

    * turner changed the rear pivot.
    * cad drawings show it to be within a gnats gnards (technical term) of the old horst link in terms of axle path.
    * turner has always designed around axle path, always, and if folks didnt know that (i didnt till last month) now ya do.
    * we have a small handfull of ride impressions on the new design, all have been positive in terms of ride quality and performance.
    * reports of seasoned riders not being able to tell or even know of the change continue to be heard.
    * we need more test impressions to be sure its the same, different, worse, junk or better.
    * those tests need to be on varied terrain, familliar to the rider over a reasonable period of time on a properly set up bike.
    * marketing geeks can get most of us to believe anything if enough cash is spent.
    * designs start as mechanical things and morph into marketing beasts. the more cash spent, the uglyer the beast and the harder it is to triumph over.
    * bike companys would fail without marketing.
    * the previous 3 statements were less like fact and more like real world knowlage.

    till the time we have the nessesary information to make a reasonable and informed decision for ourselves as individuals, theres no reason left for askin your question. please, go look through the old threads, find the ride impressions submitted thus far and let it go. youll just have to wait with the rest of us to see how it shakes out. for the record, i look forward to the chance to see for myself and that should be very soon. count on me to tell it like it is when that oppertunity presents itself.

    and please do not respond to this. theres no argument left as theres no answer available presently.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: geardoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    ..
    and please do not respond to this. theres no argument left as theres no answer available presently.
    I've nothing more to say.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    hey doc. i hope i dont sound all agro here so if i do, please dont take it personally. this is such a old and silly topic and its not done anyone any good yet. heres the facts so far as we know them:

    * turner changed the rear pivot.
    * cad drawings show it to be within a gnats gnards (technical term) of the old horst link in terms of axle path.
    * turner has always designed around axle path, always, and if folks didnt know that (i didnt till last month) now ya do.
    * we have a small handfull of ride impressions on the new design, all have been positive in terms of ride quality and performance.
    * reports of seasoned riders not being able to tell or even know of the change continue to be heard.
    * we need more test impressions to be sure its the same, different, worse, junk or better.
    * those tests need to be on varied terrain, familliar to the rider over a reasonable period of time on a properly set up bike.
    * marketing geeks can get most of us to believe anything if enough cash is spent.
    * designs start as mechanical things and morph into marketing beasts. the more cash spent, the uglyer the beast and the harder it is to triumph over.
    * bike companys would fail without marketing.
    * the previous 3 statements were less like fact and more like real world knowlage.

    till the time we have the nessesary information to make a reasonable and informed decision for ourselves as individuals, theres no reason left for askin your question. please, go look through the old threads, find the ride impressions submitted thus far and let it go. youll just have to wait with the rest of us to see how it shakes out. for the record, i look forward to the chance to see for myself and that should be very soon. count on me to tell it like it is when that oppertunity presents itself.

    and please do not respond to this. theres no argument left as theres no answer available presently.
    i take it if dt says night is day you would beleive him.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,828
    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    * cad drawings show it to be within a gnats gnards (technical term) of the old horst link in terms of axle path.
    LOL.........signature updated! <img> Silly boy <img>


  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,742

    No, not really ... Ventana/Kona

    Quote Originally Posted by geardoc
    I don't know about you, but I read many of the posts on this Turner forum
    about the advantages of the Horst link and was convinced that it was
    necessary. I didn't follow the all the math, but the arguments seemed solid, and
    considering the many Specialized bikes I've had that pedal great ( with the HL)
    I took the plunge on the Turner (rather than a Santa Cruz or some other bike )

    Well that all seems like a lot of hot air now. I'm feeling a bit slighted, like some guy
    who listened to the used car salesman.

    My next bike is more likely to be a Specialized. Or maybe an Ellsworth...
    No, not really ... I already have my Turner, and so do you! But I don't see any reason at all to suggest to anybody a Turner in the future.

    The move to faux-bar is regressive. While a faux-bar might work very well (especially with modern shocks) this move is certanly not looking forward from a design perspective (Santa Cruz, Intense, Iron Horse, Giant, Ibis, IF are doing that).

    The only reason Turnner switched to faux-bar is for saving some dollars (both in royalties and manifacturing), and if one really wants a faux-bar Sherwood at Ventana offers better quality and has been doing them for a decade plus ... or go Kona to find a basically identical bike (geometry-wise) for ... half the price (and, to be generous to Turner, 80% of quality).
    Last edited by Davide; 10-10-2005 at 04:37 PM.

  11. #11
    Leash Law Enforcer
    Reputation: Pinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    The only reason Turnner switched to faux-bar is for saving some dollars (both in royalties and manifacturing).

    No one really knows the reason. There has been a lot of speculation. But, until we hear it from the horse's mouth (which, it appears, is currently legally bound) we just don't know for sure. Don't discount the idea that it may be much more than just saving some manufacturing and royalty dollars that is driving this change. I'm not a defender of either party in this spat, but I do think you need to keep an open mind in these situations.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    132

    ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    No, not really ... I already have my Turner, and so do you! But I don't see any reason at all to suggest to anybody a Turner in the future.

    The move to faux-bar is regressive. While a faux-bar might work very well (especially with modern shocks) this move is certanly not looking forward from a design perspective (Santa Cruz, Intense, Iron Horse, Giant, Ibis, IF are doing that).

    The only reason Turnner switched to faux-bar is for saving some dollars (both in royalties and manifacturing), and if one really wants a faux-bar Sherwood at Ventana offers better quality and has been doing them for a decade plus ... or go Kona to find a basically identical bike (geometry-wise) for ... half the price (and, to be generous to Turner, 80% of quality).
    if you think your turner is such a POS why don't you sell it and buy something that is "moving forward?" i seriously doubt kona bikes are as stiff as turners. yah sure buy a ventana, but the offerings are not identical. if you live in really wet conditions turners may be preferable because of the bushing system. ride reports from the TNT fr6 sounds like the bike kicks ass. are you a hater, meaning you love to be negative? or are you really trying to make some legit discussion, i can't really tell.

  13. #13
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    and i take it you have trouble understanding factual inmormation, but ill keep trying to assist you just the same.

    * David Turner and i are indeed friends.
    * David Turner nor his designs walk on water.
    * Youve totally missed the point.
    * Im not surprised in the least that youve totally missed the point.
    * I wont attempt to further help you understand the point.
    * I wish you luck and happyness.
    No, I'm NOT back!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JustMtnB44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    The move to faux-bar is regressive. While a faux-bar might work very well (especially with modern shocks) this move is certanly not looking forward from a design perspective (Santa Cruz, Intense, Iron Horse, Giant, Ibis, IF are doing that).
    Although the faux bar is not exactly moving forward technology wise, I don't see how you can call it regressive. The horst link is what, more than 10 years old now. I don't exactly call that new technology. Therefore the two designs are basically equivalent in terms of technology. While the companies you mentioned are coming out with new suspension designs, they don't necessairly ride any better than a well done faux bar or horst link. Turner would rather stick with what he knows to work well than try and redesign everything about his bikes to make another VPP/DW-link knock off.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    580

    Think what you will

    Quote Originally Posted by geardoc
    I don't know about you, but I read many of the posts on this Turner forum
    about the advantages of the Horst link and was convinced that it was
    necessary. I didn't follow the all the math, but the arguments seemed solid, and
    considering the many Specialized bikes I've had that pedal great ( with the HL)
    I took the plunge on the Turner (rather than a Santa Cruz or some other bike )

    Well that all seems like a lot of hot air now. I'm feeling a bit slighted, like some guy
    who listened to the used car salesman.

    My next bike is more likely to be a Specialized. Or maybe an Ellsworth...
    In the end there are some people here that will get angry with you if you don’t except the latest DT offering. They will accuse you of lying, or “swallowing the “Horst Link Pill”

    I for one did take the HL pill. For god knows how many years I’ve been told HL is the best period, but now because Dave has changed to TNT, now I’m to throw away everything I’ve been preached in favor of TNT? Well guess what, I’m not mixing medicine and I personally think the entire thing stinks.

    Here are the facts:

    I have never ridden a TNT turner. Sure they may be great, but personally (this is my opinion) I think DT has gone to TNT to avoid paying for patent licenses, not because the performance of TNT = a better product.

    That being said, no matter how many times people get angry at me, or use BOLD PRINT TO GET THEIR POINT ACROSS, I’m simply not buying into TNT. TNT may be good, heck it could be great, but it is a step backwards (in my opinion and only my opinion) as I see it.

    In closing, I’m glad I purchased my 6pack prior to TNT and if given the choice, I would not buy a fu-bar turner for 1800+ of my hard earned money. True they could be great bikes, but why compromise, HL is the sh!t because DT says so (or did at least for so many years)

  16. #16
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,389

    No good

    The way some are obsessed by this whole change in design is frankly disgusting. The amount of riding related content in posts has gone WAY down here.

    what happened to riding your bike? Do any of the cyclists you respect obsess so much about equipment? Seriously? The really good riders enjoy making what they have work, because they know this is a sport, not an exercise in design critique.

    Please stop with these endless posts about suspension design and post something actually related to riding your bike, or don't post at all. I plan to do the same.
    Last edited by FM; 10-10-2005 at 08:55 PM.

  17. #17
    And then?
    Reputation: TREK'ed-out!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by FM
    I don't feel shorted by turner, but I do feel shorted by the turner board.

    The way some are obsessed by this whole change in design is frankly disgusting. The amount of riding related content in posts has gone WAY down here. Instead of posting about how happy they are riding their bikes, or just riding, or making their bikes work better, people are posting how upset they are about how they think the new version of their bike works. GET OVER YOURSELVES.

    The bike is just a tool you can use to do fun things. YOU ARE OBSESSING OVER A TOOL.

    what happened to riding your bike? Do any of the cyclists you respect obsess so much about equipment? Seriously? The really good riders enjoy making what they have work, because they know this is a sport, not an exercise in design critique. focking pathetic. embarrassing.

    Please stop with these endless posts about suspension design and post something actually related to riding your bike, or don't post at all. I plan to do the same.
    Hey buddy!
    Take it easy there. I believe the point people are trying to convey here is that money is hard to come by. And we need to be relieved of ANY doubt prior to shelling hard earned cash for a bike. I don't think you'll find homers that purchased their bike just to ride it and have fun. And if there are some out there then they should not care what they ride and spend less on bikes to begin with. People here have invested years in studying the Turner brand and believe to know why it's worth the money. I think a large part of buying/owning a Turner is a question of STATUS - like it or not - Not just monetary/income but more of Knowledge. Turners are made of great quality and thus posess great riding caracteristics. So, my point is that people here REALLY care to know what is the deal with the new product and wheather or not it's worth sticking with it. Nobody likes to be called a sucker afterall...
    People should take the wait and see approach before making irrational decisions. Like I said in an earlier post, I think DT is taking a huge risk and sales numbers will tell the tale at the end of next season...'till then, ta ta.




  18. #18
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942
    both you and fm make good points. perhaps a combo of the 2 is reasonable. or we could all just agree not to bag on eachother and what we dont yet understand. how cool would that be?
    No, I'm NOT back!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,742
    Quote Originally Posted by bdog
    if you think your turner is such a POS why don't you sell it and buy something that is "moving forward?"
    Because the 5-spot (when coupled with top-of-the-line suspension) works fairly well and I tend to keep my bikes a long time.

    The Horst, has limitations, BUT a faux-bar (especially in the 4-5" range) is not better .. other systems might offer real advantages (and I will start looking 4-5 years from now. Unfortunately VPP, which I liked a lot, only had the Blur out when I needed a new bike, and the Blus came out with a 4" fork front ).

    Quote Originally Posted by bdog
    i seriously doubt kona bikes are as stiff as turners.
    You might be surprised, Kona have a very large following in the free-ride crowd. And quality is outstanding (I have a Kona Primo Scandium and I am amazed at the detail work you get for $600).

    Quote Originally Posted by bdog
    yah sure buy a ventana, but the offerings are not identical. if you live in really wet conditions turners may be preferable because of the bushing system.
    We have been there many times, I really doubt that a well executed quad-bearing will underform in respect to bushing ... especially one a faux-bar? there is pretty much one manifacturer on the planet that still uses bushings ... is everybody else wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by bdog
    ride reports from the TNT fr6 sounds like the bike kicks ass.
    But of course ... it will work fine ... and the hype will follow. But the point is that it HAS to work as well as any other faux out there, to claim that is better start to cross into bizzarro-land
    Quote Originally Posted by bdog
    are you a hater, meaning you love to be negative?
    What is negative about what I am saying, I don't get it. Is is because I am not going for a parade with a Turner t-shirt on? I am just stating the obvious: (1) that our bikes have been declared obsolete by DT overnight, that (2) top-performing faux-bars have been built by others for years, (3) and that this jump of ship is not exactly forward ... it is backword, toward, what ... a tsingle pivot? It works, especially with the new shocks, but is it a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by bdog
    or are you really trying to make some legit discussion, i can't really tell.
    I am trying to answer the original post, and doing legit discussion ... as you can tell from my detailed reply.


    And to end this: great ride today. Point Reyes with my "new-life-for-an-old-design" Spotty, with Pushes and Martas 180/160 ... what a fine bike it is!
    Last edited by Davide; 10-11-2005 at 12:32 AM.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    580

    True True

    Quote Originally Posted by cactuscorn
    both you and fm make good points. perhaps a combo of the 2 is reasonable. or we could all just agree not to bag on eachother and what we dont yet understand. how cool would that be?
    Yeah, I have to agree with cactuscorn, we’re all crazy here about our rides and both of you make great points. Lets just all agree, we're all very lucky to be riding kick arse bikes but we still have the right to be passionate about our addiction.

  21. #21
    Am not, had mine removed.
    Reputation: markz06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    230
    Amen...can't see the line can you Russ? The end.....
    You want to ride behind someone who does something that?


    770-271-9506

  22. #22
    DLd
    DLd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,536
    We have been there many times, I really doubt that a well executed quad-bearing will underform in respect to bushing ... especially one a faux-bar? there is pretty much one manifacturer on the planet that still uses bushings ... is everybody else wrong?
    The trek fuel 100 I just sold had bushings, so turner's not the only one. Hmmm... looks like it had TNT too?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    54
    I haven't ever owned a turner, but i have owned 3 ellsworths and i can say without a shadow of a doubt i will not get a 4th, for all the great talk about ICT i felt that the rear end flexed way too much (ever noticed why theres so many broken truth frames, which crack around the pivot???), to the point of losing confidence and speed on rocky descents or anything that had rocks/roots/stumps that could knock the rear wheel. I swapped the truth for a ventana el salt and in all fairness never noticed much difference in pedal efficiency, but i did notice the huge difference in stiffness the frame had.

    Now i know turners haven't had the same problems with stiffness that ellsworths seem to have but in all honesty, when horst first came out it was being used with first generation rear shocks, that was back in the days when single pivots either bounced about because the pivot was too high or were to too harsh because the pivot was too low, but now with all the technology in rear shocks companies can place the rear pivot anywhere they want, knowing that the rear shock can in most cases be dialled in for that position. Anyone who disagrees should remember that the 5spot was built around the Romic shock, yet from what i've seen and heard most riders have ditched this shock and gone with a Fox shock, this is proof that rear shock technology has helped improve a design, so why do people find it so difficult to believe that this new TNT might actually do what Dave Turner says, and before you say i must kiss DTs arse, again i say i have never owned a Turner and i'm not even in the US!


  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,742
    Quote Originally Posted by DLd
    The trek fuel 100 I just sold had bushings, so turner's not the only one. Hmmm... looks like it had TNT too?
    wow ... it must be a Turner in disguise maybe that is what it is going on: Turner agents infiltrated Trek and then they double-played!
    Last edited by Davide; 10-11-2005 at 12:43 AM.

  25. #25
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285

    go away

    it's gettin old
    Attached Images Attached Images

  26. #26
    I think I need to Upgrade
    Reputation: AzSpeedfreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,620

    Idea! Has anyone thought.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    The only reason Turnner switched to faux-bar is for saving some dollars (both in royalties and manifacturing).
    Disclaimer: I do not work for Turner nor do I have any inside info, this is pure speculation.

    Has anyone thought about the possibility that DT was forced into changing the HL/ICT rear end? Maybe Ellsworth decided it was time to stop allowing DT to use his current design? Maybe Specialized made the decision (I doubt this is the case). Maybe DT has something in the works and this is a transitional year and he had to make the change to free up some money for R&D so he put into place a dwsign that he knew would work so he would be able to finish what he has on the design table. Maybe it is one of these things maybe it is a combination, maybe it is all of these things. There is one thing that I do know and that is that DT would not put his name on something if it didn't stand up and kick a$$ on the trail.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    The Horst, has limitations, BUT a faux-bar (especially in the 4-5" range) is not better ..
    Every solution is a compromise. Faux-bar can offer better lateral stiffness, or the same stiffness with lower weight, etc. Telling that faux-bar has no theoretical advantage over HL or VPP is obtuse at best.
    You might be surprised, Kona have a very large following in the free-ride crowd. And quality is outstanding (I have a Kona Primo Scandium and I am amazed at the detail work you get for $600).
    Well, maybe Kona full suspension frameset costs $600 in some la-la-land where you're living, here in Europe they go for between €1500 and €2500 depending on the model.
    We have been there many times, I really doubt that a well executed quad-bearing will underform in respect to bushing ... especially one a faux-bar? there is pretty much one manifacturer on the planet that still uses bushings ... is everybody else wrong?
    No, they are not. Every engineering solution is a compromise. They may be more comfortable with bearings, they may cater to public which swears by bearings, they may prefer the feel of it, they may have a supplier of high quality industrial bearings who cuts them a hell of a price - who cares. There is no "one best way". Bushings are low maintenance, humidity-proof and comparatively lighter vs bearings. Turner judged these factors more important thant the others.
    But of course ... it will work fine ... and the hype will follow. But the point is that it HAS to work as well as any other faux out there, to claim that is better start to cross into bizzarro-land
    Oh, haven't you bought your 5-spot because it's HL implementation stood out among other HL bikes? You don't make sense.
    What is negative about what I am saying, I don't get it. Is is because I am not going for a parade with a Turner t-shirt on?
    No, that' because you're beating a dead horse.
    1) that our bikes have been declared obsolete by DT overnight,
    You invented that.
    that (2) top-performing faux-bars have been built by others for years,
    As have been HL designs. Do you have a point?
    (3) and that this jump of ship is not exactly forward ... it is backword, toward, what ... a tsingle pivot? It works, especially with the new shocks, but is it a good idea?
    If you doubt, wait until you ride the bike or hear credible reviews, but by all means stop whinig.

    //

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark M13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    126

    Bonking ... not feelin' well

    Quote Originally Posted by TREK'ed-out!
    Hey buddy!
    Take it easy there.
    Agreed Trek!
    Boy, some folks need to relax and just go ride. I just read the TNT bit on the Turner site. I'm considering a 5 Spot or a Moto-lite (Titus). Seems to me the ad copy says that the 06 spot will perform the same as the HL version.
    So what the heck is the big deal???? It's known as a great bike with a loyal following. If it rides/races/performs the same who cares what type of pivot is on it. Just enjoy your machine. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but it seems to me it's the ride that counts

    Mark

    PS if it doesnt' stop raining in the North East, we're going to be using kayacks anyway

  29. #29
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    The big deal is that Turner owners are fickle and can't stand any change, even if it's for the survival of the company. The caliper position, as well as David Turner's word should be good enough to show people that this wasn't an overnight solution, but something he spent much time deliberating over before he made the change. Just notice that the caliper is on the chainstay and NOT on the seatstay like most all other bikes.

    David Turner supported all of you guys as owners for ten years, and now you abandon him overnight without a single bike actually hitting the street. 95% of you are not even in the market for a new frame now, nor in the near future. You're just looking for *****ing material.

    Gosh, this board is like watching The View. You guys worrying so much about the on paper dynamics of a bike, rather than how it actually feels. And the La Z Boy engineers out there like Jayem and Steve from JH are comical because they only isolate on point, rather than analyzing the entire bike as a closely interrelated system that is affected by outside forces.

    Comical. I choose to support DT, since he has shown nothing but integrity and respect to his customers. At least he doesn't treat you guys as liabilities like the other fellow.

  30. #30
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    The big deal is that Turner owners are fickle and can't stand any change, even if it's for the survival of the company. The caliper position, as well as David Turner's word should be good enough to show people that this wasn't an overnight solution, but something he spent much time deliberating over before he made the change. Just notice that the caliper is on the chainstay and NOT on the seatstay like most all other bikes.

    David Turner supported all of you guys as owners for ten years, and now you abandon him overnight without a single bike actually hitting the street. 95% of you are not even in the market for a new frame now, nor in the near future. You're just looking for *****ing material.

    Gosh, this board is like watching The View. You guys worrying so much about the on paper dynamics of a bike, rather than how it actually feels. And the La Z Boy engineers out there like Jayem and Steve from JH are comical because they only isolate on point, rather than analyzing the entire bike as a closely interrelated system that is affected by outside forces.

    Comical. I choose to support DT, since he has shown nothing but integrity and respect to his customers. At least he doesn't treat you guys as liabilities like the other fellow.
    WOW, talk about a lot of generalizations.


    • Why is it wrong for people to address their concerns when something changes like this?
    • How is Dave Turner supporting all these people? Seems quite the opposite.
    • Where do you get this that everyone is abandoning Turners?
    • Who are you do understand the motivation of the posts?
    • This is starting to sound like the apologist mentality that many were accused of on the Ellsworth Board when they defended Tony E.
    I guess we have the evangelists and the crusaders here.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    132

    some good points

    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    WOW, talk about a lot of generalizations.


    • Why is it wrong for people to address their concerns when something changes like this?
    • How is Dave Turner supporting all these people? Seems quite the opposite.
    • Where do you get this that everyone is abandoning Turners?
    • Who are you do understand the motivation of the posts?
    • This is starting to sound like the apologist mentality that many were accused of on the Ellsworth Board when they defended Tony E.
    I guess we have the evangelists and the crusaders here.
    i actually think his post makes some decent points. tunerer supports people by going above and beyond the warranty and often times being personally available. i am also sure he put major time into the design change and takes it very seriously. ride reports will be more inforamtive than engineering speculation. it is not wrong to question anything, but people do react to emotionally charged statements no matter what the topic.........

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,986
    Quote Originally Posted by bdog
    i actually think his post makes some decent points. tunerer supports people by going above and beyond the warranty and often times being personally available. i am also sure he put major time into the design change and takes it very seriously. ride reports will be more inforamtive than engineering speculation. it is not wrong to question anything, but people do react to emotionally charged statements no matter what the topic.........

    People react emotionally because it's an emotional issue. Like it or not, owning a bike is in a large part, emotional. When people post about the new bling, or how much they love they way their bike feels and rides, it's an emotional response. Companies like Turner count on favorable emotional responses to help with sales.

    Nobody here complained about emotional responses when they were favorable. So I guess it's OK to be emotional about a Turner bike as long as it's favorable.

    DT needs to see the responses, both favorable and unfavorable. It would be terrible if everyone just bit their tongue and just didn't buy product. That wouldn't help DT at all.

    DT's use of the HL and the gradual refinement over the years has meant a lot to Turner owners. The sudden change to a single pivot was a shock to most. Maybe all will be fine once the shock wears off. I hope so....... but it's important to remember that emotional attachment is a big part of boutique bike ownership...... like it or not.

  33. #33
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    The only reason Turnner switched to faux-bar is for saving some dollars (both in royalties and manifacturing), and if one really wants a faux-bar Sherwood at Ventana offers better quality and has been doing them for a decade plus ... or go Kona to find a basically identical bike (geometry-wise) for ... half the price (and, to be generous to Turner, 80% of quality).
    People have ridden the X5 and the Turner FB 5 Spot, and the bikes clearly do not ride the same. Quality or not.

    But other than that, I'm sure the Kona rides exactly the same as the Turner.

  34. #34
    mad aussie
    Reputation: Flying Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,129

    glad I switched to SS!

    Reading the p*ssing match going on on this board makes me feel better about selling my 5-spot. Now I dont have to worry about the four bar, faux bar, VPP or any other setup on my inbred as it is fully rigid, steel and so completely outdated and obsolete technology it cant get any further behind.

  35. #35
    Time flies...
    Reputation: xjbebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,211

    "DT needs to see the responses, both favorable and unfavorable."

    geezzz.... DT doesen't need to see any of this crap. And that's all that 99% of this has been.

    Y'all need to stop acting like a bunch of little girls and go ride whatever bike you already own. Any changes to new Turner bikes don't change the bikes you already own!

    The ONLY posts I want to see about Turner TNT bikes are actual ride reports.
    Imagine that...
    ...every day sends future to past...

  36. #36
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Wombat
    Reading the p*ssing match going on on this board makes me feel better about selling my 5-spot. Now I dont have to worry about the four bar, faux bar, VPP or any other setup on my inbred as it is fully rigid, steel and so completely outdated and obsolete technology it cant get any further behind.
    Now this is a good response!

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,986
    Quote Originally Posted by xjbebop
    geezzz.... DT doesen't need to see any of this crap. And that's all that 99% of this has been.

    Y'all need to stop acting like a bunch of little girls and go ride whatever bike you already own. Any changes to new Turner bikes don't change the bikes you already own!...
    DT doesn't NEED to sell bikes, either. I believe that he wants to, though.

    You're right. I just checked my Turner and it's the same. Imagine that. I was, however, preparing to buy a Flux next year. Now I'll have to wait to determine if I will want one with the new suspension. So it does affect me. I still may buy the Flux, but the odds are lower than before.

    Quote Originally Posted by xjbebop
    The ONLY posts I want to see about Turner TNT bikes are actual ride reports.
    Imagine that...
    You're getting a bit emotional, don't you think?

    So, tell me, who's holding a gun to your head forcing you to read (and respond) to this post?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Shorts
    People react emotionally because it's an emotional issue. Like it or not, owning a bike is in a large part, emotional. When people post about the new bling, or how much they love they way their bike feels and rides, it's an emotional response. Companies like Turner count on favorable emotional responses to help with sales.

    Nobody here complained about emotional responses when they were favorable. So I guess it's OK to be emotional about a Turner bike as long as it's favorable.
    what i meant is that this issue has really triggered people one way or the other. just because people are triggered into a strong emotional response does not necessarily mean that they are crusaders.

  39. #39
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,373
    The real fun should begin when the old Turner owners "turn" on the new Turner owners in regards to which is better. The last month has been spent on convincing the world that "the bikes are identical! we promise!" That will be replaced with "yours may be newer, but mine's got the coveted HL." No matter what happens, its made for some enjoyable reading.
    Director of Sales: Knolly Bikes

  40. #40
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,024

    That's so last year

    Quote Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms
    The real fun should begin when the old Turner owners "turn" on the new Turner owners in regards to which is better. The last month has been spent on convincing the world that "the bikes are identical! we promise!" That will be replaced with "yours may be newer, but mine's got the coveted HL." No matter what happens, its made for some enjoyable reading.

    Um, you mean like the RFX vs. 6-Pack good natured ribbing? Yeah, we'll just turn on each other and it'll be a huge bugger-a-thon.

    You seem to have lost the ol' zing there Dust; just hang in there bro, it'll come back to ya.

  41. #41
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,745

    Hold on!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    The big deal is that Turner owners are fickle and can't stand any change, even if it's for the survival of the company. The caliper position, as well as David Turner's word should be good enough to show people that this wasn't an overnight solution, but something he spent much time deliberating over before he made the change. Just notice that the caliper is on the chainstay and NOT on the seatstay like most all other bikes.

    David Turner supported all of you guys as owners for ten years, and now you abandon him overnight without a single bike actually hitting the street. 95% of you are not even in the market for a new frame now, nor in the near future. You're just looking for *****ing material.

    Gosh, this board is like watching The View. You guys worrying so much about the on paper dynamics of a bike, rather than how it actually feels. And the La Z Boy engineers out there like Jayem and Steve from JH are comical because they only isolate on point, rather than analyzing the entire bike as a closely interrelated system that is affected by outside forces.

    Comical. I choose to support DT, since he has shown nothing but integrity and respect to his customers. At least he doesn't treat you guys as liabilities like the other fellow.
    DT and the boys have been shouting about the superiority of the HL for years. It would be like DT going to bearings now. It just doesn't jive. It is double talk.

    Jaybo

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,742

    Kona

    Quote Originally Posted by greenskin
    Well, maybe Kona full suspension frameset costs $600 in some la-la-land where you're living, here in Europe they go for between €1500 and €2500 depending on the model.

    //
    No point in arguing ... if Turner came out with a single-pivot 5-spot we would have people saying that it is not that different from a horst and actually it has some advantages. It is just getting tiresome.

    But you might want to be a more careful reader. The Kona Primo is a hardtail, check things out before bla-blaing about la-la-land. In the USA you can buy a full suspension Kona Dwang frame for $900-1100 (or less if you get last year frame). Right now you can get 4" Kona for sale at $700.

    Quality is just outstanding, the welding of my Primo is more accurate in the details (reinforcements, cable guides) than it is on my 5-spot, and geometry is ... guess what .. identical to the Turner faux-bars

  43. #43
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    No point in arguing ... if Turner came out with a single-pivot 5-spot we would have people saying that it is not that different from a horst and actually it has some advantages. It is just getting tiresome.

    But you might want to be a more careful reader. The Kona Primo is a hardtail, check things out before bla-blaing about la-la-land. In the USA you can buy a full suspension Kona Dwang frame for $900-1100 (or less if you get last year frame). Right now you can get 4" Kona for sale at $700.

    Quality is just outstanding, the welding of my Primo is more accurate in the details (reinforcements, cable guides) than it is on my 5-spot, and geometry is ... guess what .. identical to the Turner faux-bars

    Then why aren't you riding one, troll?

    Sell your spot to someone worthy, and go to the kona board. I'm sure you'll be missed here.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    No point in arguing ... if Turner came out with a single-pivot 5-spot we would have people saying that it is not that different from a horst and actually it has some advantages. It is just getting tiresome.

    But you might want to be a more careful reader. The Kona Primo is a hardtail, check things out before bla-blaing about la-la-land. In the USA you can buy a full suspension Kona Dwang frame for $900-1100 (or less if you get last year frame). Right now you can get 4" Kona for sale at $700.

    Quality is just outstanding, the welding of my Primo is more accurate in the details (reinforcements, cable guides) than it is on my 5-spot, and geometry is ... guess what .. identical to the Turner faux-bars
    Even if Kona Primo existed (hint: it does not; Kona uses Primo and Supreme denominations across the product line for higher end framesets), isn't it kind of stupid to bring hardtail's price as a discussion argument? As for last year's models, yawn: my burner cost me €760 with delivery. So what the hack is your point?

    //

  45. #45
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybo
    DT and the boys have been shouting about the superiority of the HL for years. It would be like DT going to bearings now. It just doesn't jive. It is double talk.

    Jaybo
    I think I missed most of those statements. It certainly hasn't been in his advertisements. Not that Turner advertised much before the Spot came out.

    Most of Turner's "marketing" came through word-of-mouth from gobs of satisfied customers. (like those here)

    Most of what I recall DT saying about the HL was to the effect he prefered the design. If you can link some posts where he has been "shouting about the superiority of the HL" please share.

    Is it possible that after years of refinements some kind of convergence was reached between his HL and SSP designs? He has used SPs (and bearings) on other bikes y'know.
    It's sort of unfair to restrict them from any change whatsoever.
    Last edited by Bikezilla; 10-19-2005 at 10:10 AM.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  46. #46
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Let's just go back to having a pivot in both places! Then everyone can be happy.




  47. #47
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,373

    here ya go....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Most of what I recall DT saying about the HL was to the effect he prefered the design. If you can link some posts where he has been "shouting about the superiority of the HL" please share.
    Dave Turner talks HL at the bottom of this page

    Key thought by DT being..."There is a reason that I pay Specialized, proper positioning of the Horst link is the best way to build a bicycle rear suspenion."

    He has some explaining to do.
    Director of Sales: Knolly Bikes

  48. #48
    Buckle Up
    Reputation: WheelieMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    896
    Quote Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms
    Dave Turner talks HL at the bottom of this page

    Key thought by DT being..."There is a reason that I pay Specialized, proper positioning of the Horst link is the best way to build a bicycle rear suspenion."

    He has some explaining to do.
    Yep, there's no doubt in my mind that Turner would prefer to keep the Horst-Link if there was no legal issue. Both the actual advantages and the perceived "superiority" of the Horst-Link design add up to more sales. There's no denying that. The question, is whether or not this loss of sales will be made up for by the money saved from patents.

    I strongly believe that the majority of consumers don't understand the physics involved here, and are convinced by marketing more than anything. Heck, even enthusiasts like ourselves still argue over the physics.
    <><

  49. #49
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,115
    Quote Originally Posted by WheelieMan
    I strongly believe that the majority of consumers don't understand the physics involved here, and are convinced by marketing more than anything. Heck, even enthusiasts like ourselves still argue over the physics.
    Being that Turners are a "word of mouth" purchase, Does marketing actually apply?

  50. #50
    Buckle Up
    Reputation: WheelieMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    896
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    Being that Turners are a "word of mouth" purchase, Does marketing actually apply?
    I suppose you could argue that, but that doesn't mean that the "recommender" isn't affected by marketing.
    <><

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    666
    I wish Schwinn was still "Schwinn". Now THERE was a bike company.

  52. #52
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Hmmm, good example Dusty.

    He also points out HLs can be made rather sucky or really great depending on the pivot placement...perhaps that is what he was refering to when he said that is why he paid Spechy's fees as opposed to putting the HL in a less effective place that avoided patent infringement.

    Note that he also says "A "low" pivot SP stiffening under braking will not be "noticeable" to many riders," (Qualified with can't or don't want to feel it) and he also says modern shocks can help to some degree.

    I agree, it seems DT has been long prefered working with HLs.(every artist has his medium) That dosen't mean there isn't more than one way to skin a cat. I don't think it's fair to say he's been running around hyping HLs though. Spechy and EW marketd FSR and ICT to a far greater degree, in comparison.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  53. #53
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Hmmm, good example Dusty.

    He also points out HLs can be made rather sucky or really great depending on the pivot placement...perhaps that is what he was refering to when he said that is why he paid Spechy's fees as opposed to putting the HL in a less effective place that avoided patent infringement.

    Note that he also says "A "low" pivot SP stiffening under braking will not be "noticeable" to many riders," (Qualified with can't or don't want to feel it) and he also says modern shocks can help to some degree.

    I agree, it seems DT has been long prefered working with HLs.(every artist has his medium) That dosen't mean there isn't more than one way to skin a cat. I don't think it's fair to say he's been running around hyping HLs though. Spechy and EW marketd FSR and ICT to a far greater degree, in comparison.
    I agree, not every HL design is a winner. It's just not cool for Dave to change his tune about the ride characteristics after all these years. It would have been much more acceptable if he were to say....

    "HEY! ME AND TONY BROKE UP! GET OVER IT! HERE'S MY NEW BIKE."

    The blind faithful pledging allegiance to ANY design he comes up with need a refresher course.
    Director of Sales: Knolly Bikes

  54. #54
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy
    Um, you mean like the RFX vs. 6-Pack good natured ribbing? Yeah, we'll just turn on each other and it'll be a huge bugger-a-thon.

    You seem to have lost the ol' zing there Dust; just hang in there bro, it'll come back to ya.
    I know, I know. Truth be told there aren't THAT many features of a Turner to make fun of. It's hard work! Thanks for the words of encouragement.
    Director of Sales: Knolly Bikes

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mike67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    178
    Regardless of the new suspension design, what about the rest of the frame?

    Some qualities that I like about my Turners:

    CNC bb shock bolt area thingy
    Nice welds and gussets
    Low stand over - great geometry
    You can Franken-bike them (plates, rear ends, front triangles) There was a guy on here with a 5-pack.
    Customer service*
    The list goes on, lots of things to consider.

    It's not like the only thing Turner frames had going for them was the HL.
    and the arguement continues...

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Interesting that many people consider the move to TNT to be a backward or regressive step. What would you consider a forward step to have been? No change at all ever, or perhaps VPP or some other over-hyped linkage of the year? The big forward steps at the moment are coming from shock design, not kinematics. There are some hideous looking linkages kicking around at the moment which appear completely pointless. There isn't much wrong with the good old Faux Bar from a linkage point of view other than that it doesn't sound very sophisticated.

  57. #57
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    Interesting that many people consider the move to TNT to be a backward or regressive step. What would you consider a forward step to have been? No change at all ever, or perhaps VPP or some other over-hyped linkage of the year? The big forward steps at the moment are coming from shock design, not kinematics. There are some hideous looking linkages kicking around at the moment which appear completely pointless. There isn't much wrong with the good old Faux Bar from a linkage point of view other than that it doesn't sound very sophisticated.
    People consider f.u.b.a.r. a step back becuase Dave Turner claimed it was inferior for 10 years.
    Director of Sales: Knolly Bikes

  58. #58
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    The big forward steps at the moment are coming from shock design, not kinematics.
    I agree with you on this, believe it or not.

    Kinematics is for me just an intellectual hobby, kind of like chess.

  59. #59
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    I recently rode Bob The Wheelbuilder's Moment. The overall cockpit setup was similar to my Pack, perhaps a bit longer feeling overall. It was very harsh riding imo. He agreed that my 6-Pack was far plusher. He has a DHX coil rear shock, comparably sprung, with 40psi less pressure in the boost valve, far less propedal dialed in, and the same BO setting. It was also far harsher riding than the TNT 6-Packs at Interbike, though I cannot quote all the shock settings on those bikes. I'm curious what Steve's sliderule has to say about that?
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  60. #60
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    I recently rode Bob The Wheelbuilder's Moment. The overall cockpit setup was similar to my Pack, perhaps a bit longer feeling overall. It was very harsh riding imo. He agreed that my 6-Pack was far plusher. He has a DHX coil rear shock, comparably sprung, with 40psi less pressure in the boost valve, far less propedal dialed in, and the same BO setting. It was also far harsher riding than the TNT 6-Packs at Interbike, though I cannot quote all the shock settings on those bikes. I'm curious what Steve's sliderule has to say about that?
    What's your explanation? Bad aura from Tony E. clinging to the frame? What's a sliderule?

    Seriously, maybe it was tires. Derby came to visit me a couple of summers ago with his Tracer. I swapped my Truth for it for a while. The Tracer felt a lot plusher. Then I noticed he had Mutanoraptor 2.4's on there. Inflated to about 30#. I had Panaracer Trailblaster 1.9's inflated to about 45#.
    Last edited by Steve from JH; 10-20-2005 at 07:21 PM.

  61. #61
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    My explanation is that I have never been able to feel the negative traits you seem to spend a lot of time calculating until I get on something as far afield of my preferred ride as a high, forward, single pivot, while shock nuances are far more obvious to me. Your "this design is better than that" stuff assumes the shocks are somehow perfectly dialed on every bike. I'd take the demo TNT 6-Pack over Bob's Moment any day of the week, and it's not because of the name on the downtube.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  62. #62
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    My explanation is that I have never been able to feel the negative traits you seem to spend a lot of time calculating until I get on something as far afield of my preferred ride as a high, forward, single pivot, while shock nuances are far more obvious to me. Your "this design is better than that" stuff assumes the shocks are somehow perfectly dialed on every bike. I'd take the demo TNT 6-Pack over Bob's Moment any day of the week, and it's not because of the name on the downtube.
    What I have to say to that is . . .











    Nuances, by definition, cannot be obvious. Now I'm dealing with something I actually have a degree in.

  63. #63
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    You seem to make a career out of twisting words. Let me restate what I said above and see if you can follow it this time: we have two types of nuances here: Linkage and Shock. The differences in one (Shock) I find to be more apparent than the other (Linkage).

    I'm not sure what your degree is in, but I can tell it is not English.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I agree with you on this, believe it or not.

    Kinematics is for me just an intellectual hobby, kind of like chess.
    LOL, I know what you mean. I spend too much time thinking about kinematics too! It is an interesting subject for sure and I do have a masters degree in vehicle dynamics to fall back on. However, I learnt years ago from motor racing that kinematics are less important than most other factors when it comes to performance and ultimately laptime. I should have studied aerodynamics and composites really, but that's another story. That's not to say kinematics should be ignored, just that there are more important parameters to consider. That's why I always get cynical whenever a manufacturer claims that their super duper linkage is better than everything else out there. Sticking with bikes I would rank the following in order of importance:-

    Basic frame geometry - since it governs centre of gravity and hence tyre contact patch loads and load transfer under braking and acceleration. Get this wrong and nothing works.

    Tyres - they are the only thing that actually touches the ground (other than my ass when I fall off) and will have the most influence on traction, braking and cornering grip. Although providing there is adequate clearance for the appropriate tyre width, this can be ignored when choosing your bike since you can freely choose tyres. It should definitely be taken into account when back-to-back testing bikes though, otherwise you could easily be misled and end up choosing a slightly inferior bike with better tyres. Any serious critical comparison of 2 similar bikes should be on the same tyres. Magazines rarely adhere to this as far as I can see.

    Frame and suspension compliance - If the frame isn't stiff enough or the suspension linkages are bending and flexing, it will all feel vague and mushy anyway regardless of how expensive your shocks are or however magical the kinematics. There are many bikes that are poor in this respect and it largely accounts for differences in what appear on paper to be very similar designs.

    Suspension i.e Fork, shock and travel - Big steps forward in this area over the last few years, mainly because they started off from such a low point. I'm quite impressed with the damping on offer these days and it's inevitably pushed travel longer and longer on XC bikes. No good fitting a flash fork and shock on a $99 special though, it just won't work for you - see above. As with tyres a serious critical comparison of bikes should be with the same shocks and forks - assuming they fit of course.

    Wheels - Again these can make quite a big difference and certainly enough to slew a comparison of otherwise similar bikes.

    Suspension kinematics - low on the list overall, especially when considering well designed examples of each type eg. Ventana Faux Bar v Turner HL v Santa Cruz VPP etc. Unless the kinematics are very poor I just don't see them as having that much influence overall. Particularly with the case in point Turner HL v TNT.

    You could argue a little over the exact order of the above, but I can't see how you can put kinematics much further up the list. Hence my point about it being silly to rank bikes largely on whether or not they have a HL. It really doesn't matter that much as long as they are well designed overall.

  65. #65
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,161
    Quote Originally Posted by geardoc
    I don't know about you, but I read many of the posts on this Turner forum
    about the advantages of the Horst link and was convinced that it was
    necessary. I didn't follow the all the math, but the arguments seemed solid, and
    considering the many Specialized bikes I've had that pedal great ( with the HL)
    I took the plunge on the Turner (rather than a Santa Cruz or some other bike )

    Well that all seems like a lot of hot air now. I'm feeling a bit slighted, like some guy
    who listened to the used car salesman.
    Yes,

    I feel weird about it.

    I thought it was this absolutely necessary thing for the ride quality.

    Now I don't know what to think.

    I feel like some direct answers to some of the questions are in order.

  66. #66
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    Yes,

    I feel weird about it.

    I thought it was this absolutely necessary thing for the ride quality.

    Now I don't know what to think.

    I feel like some direct answers to some of the questions are in order.
    Personal conflict? A personal conflict over a bicycle?

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    Yes,

    I feel weird about it.

    I thought it was this absolutely necessary thing for the ride quality.

    Now I don't know what to think.

    I feel like some direct answers to some of the questions are in order.
    I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. A lot of other "technical" things you buy like cars, computers, hi-fi, etc, etc. are also full of BS even if they do happen to be very good. That's how marketing of technical stuff generally works. They pick up on "features" they can hype up to help sell the product.

  68. #68
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    LOL, I know what you mean. I spend too much time thinking about kinematics too! It is an interesting subject for sure and I do have a masters degree in vehicle dynamics to fall back on. However, I learnt years ago from motor racing that kinematics are less important than most other factors when it comes to performance and ultimately laptime. I should have studied aerodynamics and composites really, but that's another story. That's not to say kinematics should be ignored, just that there are more important parameters to consider. That's why I always get cynical whenever a manufacturer claims that their super duper linkage is better than everything else out there. Sticking with bikes I would rank the following in order of importance:-

    Basic frame geometry - since it governs centre of gravity and hence tyre contact patch loads and load transfer under braking and acceleration. Get this wrong and nothing works.

    Tyres - they are the only thing that actually touches the ground (other than my ass when I fall off) and will have the most influence on traction, braking and cornering grip. Although providing there is adequate clearance for the appropriate tyre width, this can be ignored when choosing your bike since you can freely choose tyres. It should definitely be taken into account when back-to-back testing bikes though, otherwise you could easily be misled and end up choosing a slightly inferior bike with better tyres. Any serious critical comparison of 2 similar bikes should be on the same tyres. Magazines rarely adhere to this as far as I can see.

    Frame and suspension compliance - If the frame isn't stiff enough or the suspension linkages are bending and flexing, it will all feel vague and mushy anyway regardless of how expensive your shocks are or however magical the kinematics. There are many bikes that are poor in this respect and it largely accounts for differences in what appear on paper to be very similar designs.

    Suspension i.e Fork, shock and travel - Big steps forward in this area over the last few years, mainly because they started off from such a low point. I'm quite impressed with the damping on offer these days and it's inevitably pushed travel longer and longer on XC bikes. No good fitting a flash fork and shock on a $99 special though, it just won't work for you - see above. As with tyres a serious critical comparison of bikes should be with the same shocks and forks - assuming they fit of course.

    Wheels - Again these can make quite a big difference and certainly enough to slew a comparison of otherwise similar bikes.

    Suspension kinematics - low on the list overall, especially when considering well designed examples of each type eg. Ventana Faux Bar v Turner HL v Santa Cruz VPP etc. Unless the kinematics are very poor I just don't see them as having that much influence overall. Particularly with the case in point Turner HL v TNT.

    You could argue a little over the exact order of the above, but I can't see how you can put kinematics much further up the list. Hence my point about it being silly to rank bikes largely on whether or not they have a HL. It really doesn't matter that much as long as they are well designed overall.
    I could argue over the details of your list, but I won't.

    Except for a couple of things.

    The kinematics can be so bad that it moves up the list. For example the low pivot URT (Voodoo Zobop) I once owned. I think I lost a significant amount of power to suspension movement on every stroke. My theory is that the cranks turned the whole rear triangle directly, compressing the shock, rather than accelerating the mass. Only if you move the pivot up to the sweet spot or farther do you completely lose that effect. And then you have the BB moving with every bump, and if you stand up on the pedals, you're standing on the swingarm and exerting significant leverage against its bump compliance.

    And on frame and suspension compliance I think all the prestige brands are pretty good in this department. I know Ventana owners think otherwise. Someday I'll have to ride a Ventana. So far I've never even seen one on the trail.

    But even if frame kinematics is low on the list, if that's what we're discussing then that's what we're discussing. People are interested in the subject as is shown by how many hits these threads get. It does no good to say it's not very important so stop discussing it.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    358
    This is great entertainment. Most Turner owners have no idea which components, fork or shock to buy, and probably know even less about how to set them up properly. And now there's a superfluous amount of group therapy threads due to a pivot point being moved. I find it hard to believe that most people are going to be able to tell the difference. I doubt that the non HL Turners are going to ruin anyone's riding experience.

    I don't like the fact that the suspension design had to change. I got caught up in the HL marketing hype, but there's plenty of other designs that work well too. I don't like companies that change their design and/or philosophy to satisfy the latest trends, but we all know why Turners had to change, and I feel DT was quite honest about it. Anyone who is more worried about a 1mm difference or whether their bike is cool anymore should probably sit back and think about how absurd this has become.

    It's just a bike. Enjoy the ride.

  70. #70
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    You seem to make a career out of twisting words. Let me restate what I said above and see if you can follow it this time: we have two types of nuances here: Linkage and Shock. The differences in one (Shock) I find to be more apparent than the other (Linkage).

    I'm not sure what your degree is in, but I can tell it is not English.
    C'mon tzcheesy let's be friends. I was nitpicking at your word usage because I couldn't find anything to disagree with. I too think the fork and shock nuances are easier to see than the linkage ones.

    Yes, I have a degree in English. Much to the disappointment of my father, who was a prof. of mathematics, I chucked that career path after one year of college and got artsy. I probably should have stuck with the other side of my brain. I was offered a full scholarship in physics and was in the Stanford Honors math program for one year. I got a lot of C's from English professors, who didn't like rigorous thinking. And I've never had any kind of job that used my college training.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I could argue over the details of your list, but I won't.

    Except for a couple of things.

    The kinematics can be so bad that it moves up the list. For example the low pivot URT (Voodoo Zobop) I once owned. I think I lost a significant amount of power to suspension movement on every stroke. My theory is that the cranks turned the whole rear triangle directly, compressing the shock, rather than accelerating the mass. Only if you move the pivot up to the sweet spot or farther do you completely lose that effect. And then you have the BB moving with every bump, and if you stand up on the pedals, you're standing on the swingarm and exerting significant leverage against its bump compliance.

    And on frame and suspension compliance I think all the prestige brands are pretty good in this department. I know Ventana owners think otherwise. Someday I'll have to ride a Ventana. So far I've never even seen one on the trail.

    But even if frame kinematics is low on the list, if that's what we're discussing then that's what we're discussing. People are interested in the subject as is shown by how many hits these threads get. It does no good to say it's not very important so stop discussing it.
    Agreed in principle. But there are examples of prestige brands having issues with compliance eg Marin/Whyte, certain Santa Cruz models and some Ellsworth frames. I also think there is enough difference in frame compliance between a Turner 5-spot and Ventana X5 to easily notice. But as you say, most top bikes are pretty good in terms of frame compliance. It's what usually lets the cheaper bikes down. The hardest part is achieving low weight and high stiffness.

    Regarding kinematics, I just wanted to point out how low on the overall list it is (apart from in the case of some pretty atrocious designs) however interesting it may be. The good old HL often gets hyped as the centrepiece and most important part of the whole bike. There are loads of people who will now refuse to buy a Turner because it hasn't got a HL anymore. What complete madness. In reality, there will be some very subtle changes in the TNT version, hardly detectable, some negative and some positive. The overall effect on the bike will be minimal. A change of tyres or shock will have far more effect on the ride. HL may be interesting but it doesn't make any real difference compared to an equivalent single pivot. I've always thought that way and would never consider the HL as a reason for buying a particular bike. I'm indifferent to HL and consider the TNT version equal. In fact I'd go as far as saying I prefer it with the seatstay pivot. The bushes will wear less.

  72. #72
    Brass Nipples!
    Reputation: Bob the Wheelbuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,007
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    I recently rode Bob The Wheelbuilder's Moment. The overall cockpit setup was similar to my Pack, perhaps a bit longer feeling overall. It was very harsh riding imo. He agreed that my 6-Pack was far plusher. He has a DHX coil rear shock, comparably sprung, with 40psi less pressure in the boost valve, far less propedal dialed in, and the same BO setting. It was also far harsher riding than the TNT 6-Packs at Interbike, though I cannot quote all the shock settings on those bikes. I'm curious what Steve's sliderule has to say about that?
    To be fair, I like my Moment better than tscheezy's 6 Pack as I rode it, but I have a spring on my DHX that only gets me 25% sag and I outweigh tscheezy by 20 or more pounds. I'd imagine his sag was closer to 20 percent when he rode my bike. His 6 Pack as I rode it was very plush, but I wasn't hitting any really big stuff and I felt like I was blowing through the mid portion of the travel, which I hear is how a DHX-A rides. I thnk I'd need to set up a DHX-A a fair amount firmer to get the ride I wanted. Ballpark suspension setup comes easy for me, but I usually need a couple of hours tweaking things on a shock like the DHX coil before I'm ready to call it done.

    Right after we switched bikes back, we rode up a very steep, loose, rocky uphill and we both commented on how we thought a lesser bike wouldn't have allowed us to make the climb. We needed fully active travel under pretty high power output in a low gear to make that climb.

    I know my Blur would have (1) stiffened under max power in a low gear and lost traction and (2) hit the cranks, ending the climb attempt on that hill.

    I guess I'm starting to be convinced that the shock technology and bike geometry affect performance much more than the kinematics. I'm still looking forward to the reports from those that will be able to ride one setup, change rear ends and ride again.
    {Principal Skinner} Hmm. Whoever did this is in very deep trouble.
    {Martin} And a sloppy speller too. The preferred spelling of 'wiener' is w - i - e - n - e - r, although 'e - i' is an acceptable ethnic variant.

  73. #73
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,302
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    LOL, I know what you mean. I spend too much time thinking about kinematics too! It is an interesting subject for sure and I do have a masters degree in vehicle dynamics to fall back on. However, I learnt years ago from motor racing that kinematics are less important than most other factors when it comes to performance and ultimately laptime. I should have studied aerodynamics and composites really, but that's another story. That's not to say kinematics should be ignored, just that there are more important parameters to consider. That's why I always get cynical whenever a manufacturer claims that their super duper linkage is better than everything else out there. Sticking with bikes I would rank the following in order of importance:-

    Basic frame geometry - since it governs centre of gravity and hence tyre contact patch loads and load transfer under braking and acceleration. Get this wrong and nothing works.

    Tyres - they are the only thing that actually touches the ground (other than my ass when I fall off) and will have the most influence on traction, braking and cornering grip. Although providing there is adequate clearance for the appropriate tyre width, this can be ignored when choosing your bike since you can freely choose tyres. It should definitely be taken into account when back-to-back testing bikes though, otherwise you could easily be misled and end up choosing a slightly inferior bike with better tyres. Any serious critical comparison of 2 similar bikes should be on the same tyres. Magazines rarely adhere to this as far as I can see.

    Frame and suspension compliance - If the frame isn't stiff enough or the suspension linkages are bending and flexing, it will all feel vague and mushy anyway regardless of how expensive your shocks are or however magical the kinematics. There are many bikes that are poor in this respect and it largely accounts for differences in what appear on paper to be very similar designs.

    Suspension i.e Fork, shock and travel - Big steps forward in this area over the last few years, mainly because they started off from such a low point. I'm quite impressed with the damping on offer these days and it's inevitably pushed travel longer and longer on XC bikes. No good fitting a flash fork and shock on a $99 special though, it just won't work for you - see above. As with tyres a serious critical comparison of bikes should be with the same shocks and forks - assuming they fit of course.

    Wheels - Again these can make quite a big difference and certainly enough to slew a comparison of otherwise similar bikes.

    Suspension kinematics - low on the list overall, especially when considering well designed examples of each type eg. Ventana Faux Bar v Turner HL v Santa Cruz VPP etc. Unless the kinematics are very poor I just don't see them as having that much influence overall. Particularly with the case in point Turner HL v TNT.

    You could argue a little over the exact order of the above, but I can't see how you can put kinematics much further up the list. Hence my point about it being silly to rank bikes largely on whether or not they have a HL. It really doesn't matter that much as long as they are well designed overall.
    No disrespect to the other posters, some of whom have made similar but less extensive observations, but that was the most useful post on the whole HL/TNT controversy. Thank you.
    Last edited by rmac; 10-21-2005 at 06:32 PM.

  74. #74
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    C'mon tzcheesy let's be friends.
    I'm not mad at you, just a little irritated that you of all people are helping to perpetuate a rather silly whine-a-thon. I actually read your posts regularly and it has helped make me far more informed on points of useless minutiae. (When I went to DW's DW-link talk I think I was one of the only ones there who actually was able to follow what he was saying. And it's not because I have a degree in biology.)

    And Bob, I was not trying to bag on your bike, I was simply pointing out that to worry solely about the pivots when the shock setups are what makes or breaks a bike's performance is misdirected reductionism.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  75. #75
    Brass Nipples!
    Reputation: Bob the Wheelbuilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,007
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    And Bob, I was not trying to bag on your bike, I was simply pointing out that to worry solely about the pivots when the shock setups are what makes or breaks a bike's performance is misdirected reductionism.
    Understood. Did your power supply arrive yet?
    {Principal Skinner} Hmm. Whoever did this is in very deep trouble.
    {Martin} And a sloppy speller too. The preferred spelling of 'wiener' is w - i - e - n - e - r, although 'e - i' is an acceptable ethnic variant.

  76. #76
    Time flies...
    Reputation: xjbebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,211
    ""Personal conflict? A personal conflict over a bicycle?""

    All this -bs- isn't so much about the bicycle, it's much more about "I thought I knew something....but now I don't know....again..."


    ""don't believe anything you read or hear, and only half of what you see...""
    ...every day sends future to past...

  77. #77
    And then?
    Reputation: TREK'ed-out!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    72

    New question here. Just a thought...

    What happens when you crash and need a HL rear in 2006-7? Does this mean my HL Spot will be warrantied with a TNT Spot rear end? I don't think I like the sound of that at all.
    Is Turner Bikes going to keep making the HL rear ends for warranty replacement?
    Anyone?

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50
    Hi,

    I'm new around these parts, I just brought a 2005 Flux which costs a small fortune to buy in Australia, though still $500AU cheaper than an Ellsworth Truth. I don't claim to be an expert on different suspension designs and their pros and cons but I want to share my thoughts on why I brought a Turner.

    My previous ride was a 2003 Stumpjumper FSR, what always bugged me about that ride was the average build quality, especially the pivots and the lack of attention to detail. So when I decided to get a new bike I wanted best quality I could get. I looked around and Turner seemed to have a really strong following (nay fanatical) and the build quality was excellent, especially the pivots. I don't think that the fact that the linkage had Horst Links was a prime consideration, heck my brothers single pivot Cannondale will outride my Turner in its element. I simply don't think that one suspension design can claim to be the ultimate design against which all others are judged. Our opinions are manipulated by marketing hype, convincing us that one design is better than another. Then we sink a heap of money in a particular design and proceed to convince ourselves and others that it is actually better. Dave Turner got my money because he makes a quality product, is anyone saying that moving the pivots will change that? In addition from the reports that are filtering back the new design has a ride that is indistingisable from the previous Turners. So do I feel "shorted by the move to faux bar?" NO. Would I buy the faux bar Turner should the need arise? YES

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    Agreed in principle. But there are examples of prestige brands having issues with compliance eg Marin/Whyte, certain Santa Cruz models and some Ellsworth frames. I also think there is enough difference in frame compliance between a Turner 5-spot and Ventana X5 to easily notice. But as you say, most top bikes are pretty good in terms of frame compliance. It's what usually lets the cheaper bikes down. The hardest part is achieving low weight and high stiffness.

    Regarding kinematics, I just wanted to point out how low on the overall list it is (apart from in the case of some pretty atrocious designs) however interesting it may be. The good old HL often gets hyped as the centrepiece and most important part of the whole bike. There are loads of people who will now refuse to buy a Turner because it hasn't got a HL anymore. What complete madness. In reality, there will be some very subtle changes in the TNT version, hardly detectable, some negative and some positive. The overall effect on the bike will be minimal. A change of tyres or shock will have far more effect on the ride. HL may be interesting but it doesn't make any real difference compared to an equivalent single pivot. I've always thought that way and would never consider the HL as a reason for buying a particular bike. I'm indifferent to HL and consider the TNT version equal. In fact I'd go as far as saying I prefer it with the seatstay pivot. The bushes will wear less.
    Please elaborate as to what you mean by "compliance".

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Ridge Rider
    Please elaborate as to what you mean by "compliance".
    General term for frame and suspension stiffness (not to be confused with spring or damping rates). You can measure compliance in several ways eg. torsional stiffness, lateral and longitudinal stiffness, vertical stiffness (measured with a solid link in place of the shock). Together these have a significant effect on the overall handling of the bike. Stiffer (i.e low compliance) is better, although there are a few people who would argue otherwise. Obviously there are diminishing returns and stiffness/weight ratio has to be considered carefully.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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