Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: geardoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    96

    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
    Silence and Thunder...
    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
    96
    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
    Silence and Thunder...
    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
    96
    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
    12,971
    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
    96
    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
    6,756
    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! Silly boy


  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,858

    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
    1,099
    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.
    "I didn't even use crutches when I broke my leg!" - Aquaholic

  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
    12,971
    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
    499
    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
    143

    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
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,919

    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
    12,971
    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
    1,858
    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
    143

    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
    989
    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
    1,858
    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

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 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
  •