Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 116
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593

    First Nitrous Prototype

    Here are the first photos of our Nitrous Prototype. It is a 3.1" Ultra Lite XC race bike. You will see these raced this season by Team Maxxis riders Geoff Kabush and Cesar Grajales. We worked very hard to reduce the weight further than any frame we have ever produced in the past. The large frame with shock, seat collar, and bottle bolts weighed in at 4.600 lbs.

    The Turnerbikes Crew!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    M070R-M0U7H FR3NCHI3
    Reputation: Acadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,599
    wow that bike is gorgeous!!!

    can't wait to see it up close and personal at the Sea Otter!! Thanks for the sneak peak!

  3. #3
    singletrack lush
    Reputation: marzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Here are the first photos of our Nitrous Prototype. It is a 3.1" Ultra Lite XC race bike. You will see these raced this season by Team Maxxis riders Geoff Kabush and Cesar Grajales. We worked very hard to reduce the weight further than any frame we have ever produced in the past. The large frame with shock, seat collar, and bottle bolts weighed in at 4.600 lbs.

    The Turnerbikes Crew!
    Is that an anodized finish?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    The frame is Gold Ano. Here are some detail photos.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    The frame is Gold Ano. Here are some detail photos.
    Nice! What about a total weight as is. I bet if you polished the rear end you'd save another pound or so .

  6. #6
    Motion activated
    Reputation: Steve71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,228
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    The large frame with shock, seat collar, and bottle bolts weighed in at 4.600 lbs.
    Wow! Pardon my ignorance, but would that make it the lightest 3" travel frame ever?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by CrashTheDOG
    Nice! What about a total weight as is. I bet if you polished the rear end you'd save another pound or so .
    Total weight as pictured is 22.5 lbs. It is ano so polishing would not save any weight.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    935

    that is crazy lite!

    sub 5lb fully with real shock and linkage? man, that's unbelievably lite. Looks like the Horst link is shorter. Can you spill the beans on the fox shock and the dual knobs?
    So the inevitable question is, what's the weight limit on this ultralite?

    thanks,

    -Sp

    ps, that seatpost is sky high!

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Here are the first photos of our Nitrous Prototype. It is a 3.1" Ultra Lite XC race bike. You will see these raced this season by Team Maxxis riders Geoff Kabush and Cesar Grajales. We worked very hard to reduce the weight further than any frame we have ever produced in the past. The large frame with shock, seat collar, and bottle bolts weighed in at 4.600 lbs.

    The Turnerbikes Crew!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,967

    Unfrickenbelievable

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Here are the first photos of our Nitrous Prototype. It is a 3.1" Ultra Lite XC race bike. You will see these raced this season by Team Maxxis riders Geoff Kabush and Cesar Grajales. We worked very hard to reduce the weight further than any frame we have ever produced in the past. The large frame with shock, seat collar, and bottle bolts weighed in at 4.600 lbs.

    The Turnerbikes Crew!
    Literally. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I won't believe that weight until the production models are out. The weights posted on the website for the current models seem accurate, so maybe there is cause for hope. However, to best the Burner by a pound and a half (over 25% of the frame's weight) and a Truth by a good pound? It looks to be all aluminum too, right, no carbon fiber? All the better in my book, but all the more amazing if 4.6 lbs can be had.
    Too bad I've been completely won over by 29" wheels for XC racing, and am leaning towards the big wheels for my full suspension trail bike as well, as much as I'd hate to see my Turner go. I'd certainly be the first in line for a 29" Turner if it ever became available: Burner, Nitrous, Spot, you name it, I'm there. Until then I'll day dream about a sub twenty pound 26" Nitrous.

  10. #10
    Not just famous; infamous
    Reputation: coolhandluchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,073

    What's with the shock dial?

    Is that just the rebound dial, or is this the prototype for the adjustable platform Float?

    Nice color!
    Now, can we send our 'Spots back to get them gold anodized?

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    The frame is Gold Ano. Here are some detail photos.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593

    First medium frame onthe scale

    Here is the first medium frame assemble. I will be honest we don't know if a rider weight limit. The large is Greg's personal bike, he is 215 lbs. Our thought is that if it holds up for him it will far outlast any 160 lb leg shaver. The rear shock is a Fox RP3, you may want to contact them to get the low down. As far as being lighter than the Burner, it is not even on the same sheet of paper. We took everything we have done for the past 10 years and thought how to make it lighter. We then had an outside engineer take an even closer look to be certain we were on the right track. These are definitely prototypes and ment for that purpose. We will use them to learn where to go for production.

    Turner Bikes
    Attached Images Attached Images

  12. #12
    what a joke
    Reputation: ozlongboarder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,276

    BLING BLING BLING that is nice!

    When ? MSRP? Geometry?
    blah blah blah

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,967

    Awesome

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Here is the first medium frame assemble. I will be honest we don't know if a rider weight limit. The large is Greg's personal bike, he is 215 lbs. Our thought is that if it holds up for him it will far outlast any 160 lb leg shaver. The rear shock is a Fox RP3, you may want to contact them to get the low down. As far as being lighter than the Burner, it is not even on the same sheet of paper. We took everything we have done for the past 10 years and thought how to make it lighter. We then had an outside engineer take an even closer look to be certain we were on the right track. These are definitely prototypes and ment for that purpose. We will use them to learn where to go for production.

    Turner Bikes
    Looks like you guys are ready to unleash the definitive racing bike just like you did for trail bikes with the 5 Spot. As far as 26" wheeled bikes go, that is

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by ozlongboarder
    When ? MSRP? Geometry?
    I wouldn't expect to see production bikes until late this year. MSRP???? Probably around $2000-$2200 71* head angle 73.5* seat angle 16.7" chainstay 12.25" bb with 80mm fork

  15. #15
    GSS
    GSS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    8
    That's lovely.

    Any insights on the Highline That's the frame I'm really interested to see! Can't decide whether to hold off for one, or to get a Devinci.

  16. #16
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,692
    Thats the Sh!t indeed, totally amazing looking bike, and I look forward to hearing some rider details on it - In particular with regards to stiffens and durability which will no doubt be top notch coming from Turner.

    God good, does this mean I am going to toy with selling my Ellsworth???

    Trevor!
    (Jaws still dropped)
    Trev!

  17. #17
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by miles e
    Looks like you guys are ready to unleash the definitive racing bike just like you did for trail bikes with the 5 Spot. As far as 26" wheeled bikes go, that is
    I agree, if it rides really good too like the spot, that frame will really sell over the likes of the Fuel, Truth, Spider for the weight conscious in particular if they can achieve the weight demonstrated here. - 4" travel would be nice though..
    Trev!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by GSS
    That's lovely.

    Any insights on the Highline That's the frame I'm really interested to see! Can't decide whether to hold off for one, or to get a Devinci.
    We hope to show the Highline protos in July. Production frames hopefully in Nov. As for comparing it to a Truth, and Spider. Those are what we would consider the average joe trail bike. This is the frame for the guy who spends 4 of his 6 riding days on a road bike only to go and spank the locals in the XC race. With that said 4" is not really an option on that frame. Weight was the main goal and the biggest way to achive it is stay short travel to match an XC race fork.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xl_cheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    524
    The rear end looks to be kinda noodley. The seat and chainstays seem pretty small. Especially if you're expecting to have pros torquing the big ring!

    I like the idea of the bike tho. Simple and no gimmicks. Prolly using bushing in the linkages to keep weight down, but that's ok for a race bike. The problem there is you'll have the ww trail rider purchasing this bike, not performing any maintence on it, and complaining about durability.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    It is ano so polishing would not save any weight.
    Ya, I know. Just my meager attempt to get you guys to go back to the polished rear. Afterall, how often do we get the chance to take pop shots at you guys on the forum .

  21. #21
    Motion activated
    Reputation: Steve71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,228
    Quote Originally Posted by xl_cheese
    The rear end looks to be kinda noodley. The seat and chainstays seem pretty small. Especially if you're expecting to have pros torquing the big ring!

    I like the idea of the bike tho. Simple and no gimmicks. Prolly using bushing in the linkages to keep weight down, but that's ok for a race bike. The problem there is you'll have the ww trail rider purchasing this bike, not performing any maintence on it, and complaining about durability.
    Dam! It looks like it's back to the drawing board Dave!

  22. #22
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Here are the first photos of our Nitrous Prototype. It is a 3.1" Ultra Lite XC race bike. You will see these raced this season by Team Maxxis riders Geoff Kabush and Cesar Grajales. We worked very hard to reduce the weight further than any frame we have ever produced in the past. The large frame with shock, seat collar, and bottle bolts weighed in at 4.600 lbs.

    The Turnerbikes Crew!
    Oh daaaaaaammmmmmm,
    I am so freakin' impressed!!! gold anno too??? It's times like this I almost wish I raced!

    Thanks for the Heads up and welcome to the forum!
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckeye_nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    45

    Where does the Burner stand?

    So once the Nitrous goes into production, what will happen to the Burner? They are similar as far as travel goes, so will the burners be bumped up to 4"? Will some kind of upgrade kit be available to burner owners who wants 4" of travel. I'm just curious because I just bought a Burner and I'm interested in knowing if there will be any changes to it in the future.

    Thanks

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by buckeye_nut
    So once the Nitrous goes into production, what will happen to the Burner? They are similar as far as travel goes, so will the burners be bumped up to 4"? Will some kind of upgrade kit be available to burner owners who wants 4" of travel. I'm just curious because I just bought a Burner and I'm interested in knowing if there will be any changes to it in the future.

    Thanks
    The Burner is a trail bike, this is an XC race bike. This is for the no holds bared racer looking to be atop the podium. As for the future of the Burner.....currently it is what it is and we do not anticipate building any more.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    376

    so what happens from a warranty perspective

    If the Burner is no longer going to be manufactured....then (Knock on wood) if my Burner were to fail (i.e. front or rear cracked frame) are you going to be keeping replacement parts for 2 years from your last production run? I just want to make sure we don't have another "Ell***th" type "you must pay for the upgrade" scenario.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,025
    I feel like I bought the black sheep!!! The Turner Burner 11-03 - 3-04, shortest lived production bike in history.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,025
    Quote Originally Posted by sperky
    If the Burner is no longer going to be manufactured....then (Knock on wood) if my Burner were to fail (i.e. front or rear cracked frame) are you going to be keeping replacement parts for 2 years from your last production run? I just want to make sure we don't have another "Ell***th" type "you must pay for the upgrade" scenario.
    What happens is that Turner takes care of you. This was one of the main reasons I bought a Burner.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by sperky
    If the Burner is no longer going to be manufactured....then (Knock on wood) if my Burner were to fail (i.e. front or rear cracked frame) are you going to be keeping replacement parts for 2 years from your last production run? I just want to make sure we don't have another "Ell***th" type "you must pay for the upgrade" scenario.
    First off the Burner is a bit overbuilt so we anticipate a very small rate of failure. The bike is based on those we have built for years and we pretty much know what they can and can't do. If the bike fails within the warranty period we will replace it. With what??? It will be a decision made after talking to the person who broke the frame. Turner frames are as durable as anything on the market so what we have found is that the majority of failures occur when the rider is riding outside what the bike was designed for. Here is an example. When I first began working for David, we had a Canadian customer call with a broken Stinger. He sent us the frame along with a photo of the fully built bike. He had a dual crown SID with Shimano flat pedals and rode with his buddies on longer travel frames. He rode drops, log shutes, and ladders on a regular basis. Even though he bought the wrong bike, we still replaced it but chose to do it with an RFX. A bike more well suited to his riding style.

    Bottom line: we take care of our bikes, if it brakes we will take care of it. With that said, hitting the garage with the bike attached to the roof is not covered!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by CDMC
    I feel like I bought the black sheep!!! The Turner Burner 11-03 - 3-04, shortest lived production bike in history.
    Funny how a bike that is lite, strong, and great handling becomes the Black Sheep. It was the travel that was the demise of the Burner. Another .4" and I think we would have had a winner!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,025
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Funny how a bike that is lite, strong, and great handling becomes the Black Sheep. It was the travel that was the demise of the Burner. Another .4" and I think we would have had a winner!
    I'm just kidding about the black sheep part. I absolutely love the bike and love the fact that at 225 pounds, I do not need to worry about it being fragile. It handles great, climbs great and the only things that would improve it would be 4" rockers and a faster rider (well the fox shock having to be fixed kinda sucked, but it was there and back in less than a week).

    Just out of curiousity (assuming you are willing to answer) how many Burners were sold? How many 5 spots? Have you considered re-releasing the burner with 4" travel.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,714

    Sub-22

    Quote Originally Posted by SinglePivot
    sub 5lb fully with real shock and linkage? man, that's unbelievably lite. Looks like the Horst link is shorter. Can you spill the beans on the fox shock and the dual knobs?
    So the inevitable question is, what's the weight limit on this ultralite?

    thanks,

    -Sp

    ps, that seatpost is sky high!
    The total weight seems a little optimistic with disk brakes but it is ballpark right: my 5-spot with a 7.25 frame is currently at 25.75, save 1.2 for the fork (Z1 MCR vs SID) and 2.65 for the frame = 3.85 and you get down to 21.9 vs 22.6 ... so Sub-22 is possible with V-brakes.

  32. #32
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363


    That's a kickin' chicken.

    tscheezy
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,714

    Z1 MCR vs SID

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    What are you talking about?

    A SID is 1.2 pounds lighter than a Z.1?

    Like i said, I have no idea what your saying.

    That Nitrous is a damn light bike. Perhaps only about 1 pound heavier in its prototype form than a hardtail. That can build a seriously light FS bike.
    A Z1 MCR 2001 is (on my digital scale with cut steerer but with cup/starnut) 1987 grams, a SID is around 1400-1450, so the difference is about 1.2 pounds or somewhat more.

    or check out http://weightweenies.starbike.com/li...uspensionforks

    If the difference is a bit larger it simply means that Sub-22 is easily achievable even with disk-brakes. By the way learn to check facts before posting a reply
    Last edited by Davide; 04-12-2004 at 06:09 PM.

  34. #34
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132

    Words of Wizdom

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    ...This is the frame for the guy who spends 4 of his 6 riding days on a road bike only to go and spank the locals in the XC race.
    Might I suggest that the above gets in the brochure and website descriptions. It just might save us all a lot of fuss later on . (Also thinking of the JRA Threads)

    We all know there are going to be some people who will want to make this a 22lb aggressive Trail bike...

    It looks like there will be some late night redesigning sessions at few other mfgr's this fall, this may be the new high bar for XC race.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    73
    Ok I have to ask. Will this be offered with optional v-brake bosses??

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,714

    What a ....

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    Sorry, Davide, but you made a pointless post that had absolutely nothing to do with anything, with regard to comparing the Spot and the prototype Nitrous.

    <yawn>
    I am not comparing the 5-spot with the nitrous, I am just replying to the post above and getting a quick and dirty estimate of how light the nitrous can get. Make your own estimate instead of being a moron,

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Funny how a bike that is lite, strong, and great handling becomes the Black Sheep. It was the travel that was the demise of the Burner. Another .4" and I think we would have had a winner!
    Yeah, sucks. Looked like it would have been a winner, and I love mine, but the market will determine what wins. Heck, the market likes bearings, thanks to Intense, which I think used bearings because they couldn't align a frame to save their lives.

    The Nitrous looks great. It looks very dialed for the intended usage. I'm surprised that at 215lbs Greg likes it, I guess that's a testament to good design. But, I will admit, I'm 210lbs, and I like throwing a leg over my Stinger every once in a while. Good call on the price too, given it's a race frame and very well engineered, it makes sense that it should be worth more than the 5-Spot, particularly given it's target audience. ...gotta make hay while the sun shines...

    Question for Turner. At 210lbs, I don't do jumps with my Stinger, but ride singletrack with lots of babyhead size rocks, but that's about it. I would probably avoid riding it on the rougher trails, only for the odd race. Think it will be OK? (it's long since out of warrantee so I won't come crying if it does break)

    James
    Last edited by jjcarr; 04-12-2004 at 08:27 PM.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,714

    What a ....

    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    Sorry, Davide, but you made a pointless post that had absolutely nothing to do with anything, with regard to comparing the Spot and the prototype Nitrous.

    <yawn>
    I am not comparing the 5-spot with the nitrous, I am replying to SingelPivot with a quick and dirty estimate of how light the nitrous can get. Make your own estimate instead of being a moron,

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,714

    nice to loose my patience

    Steve! don't be an idiot, it is not that hard
    Last edited by Davide; 04-12-2004 at 06:42 PM.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jedoaks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    85

    I'd have to agree with Davide

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    I am not comparing the 5-spot with the nitrous, I am just replying to the post above and getting a quick and dirty estimate of how light the nitrous can get. Make your own estimate instead of being a moron,
    As far as meaningless posts, Steve, you are the King.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    241
    I don't think Tony Ellsworth, Sherwood Gibson or Chris Cocalis are going to sleep very well tonight.

    What did the engineers estimate the % of stiffness lost versus the Burner/XCE rear end?

  42. #42
    Baked Alaskan
    Reputation: AK Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,812
    Now that is what I call a full suspension XC race bike. DT raises the bar on the Truth, Racer X, El Salty and most other bikes out there. Still makes me wonder why no Stinger, wasn't it a light 3" racer? And the ano finish, nice. Very nice.

    BTW, need any Alaskan test riders?

  43. #43
    hip boy
    Reputation: FuelForThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    83

    New question here. V-brake bosses??

    Quote Originally Posted by sc_slite
    Ok I have to ask. Will this be offered with optional v-brake bosses??
    Second that.

    PS: it would be so sweet if you could keep the weight down for production and put a 175lbs rider limit on it. Everything on the market is way overbuilt for 150lbs racers.

  44. #44
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxXx
    Second that.

    PS: it would be so sweet if you could keep the weight down for production and put a 175lbs rider limit on it. Everything on the market is way overbuilt for 150lbs racers.
    Then it's a good thing I don't race b/c I'd have to cut off a leg to get down to 150lbs
    (and before you say it ..."what? Just one leg?")

    Cheers Gears and Beers!
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    809
    Looks hot. Love the pimpin' ano...

  46. #46
    I love Pisgah
    Reputation: Duckman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,407
    Um..so much for that "dream bike" thing. LOL! The humanity indeed.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by AK Chris
    Now that is what I call a full suspension XC race bike. DT raises the bar on the Truth, Racer X, El Salty and most other bikes out there. Still makes me wonder why no Stinger, wasn't it a light 3" racer? And the ano finish, nice. Very nice.

    BTW, need any Alaskan test riders?
    No Stinger cuz no custom Stinger shock. Fox is a big company and acts like it. ...yeah, you can have a custom shock...if you buy 20,000 of them... And the Noleen is junk.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    The frame is Gold Ano. Here are some detail photos.
    Hey, looking at that frame up close, got a question. I'm sure you guys have considered this before, but have you thought about running the rear der cable through the seatstay? If you drill a hole big enough for your disk/std cable adaptors the holes would probably be big enough to make threading the cable easier. Would make for a nice, clean, racy look. And you wouldn't have to weld bosses on.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by steve3
    Fox still makes a pull shock for the K2 Razorback. No Propedal on this model, however.
    I think that's the Noleen (air and coil versions) you're referring to. I've ridden them and wasn't impressed. Not sure if it was the shock or the K2 design, didn't ride nearly as well as the Stinger.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    102

    Over $2k?!?!

    Finally, a light Turner with different Ano color! Great work. Just a little feedback: beware the $2k mental barrier. I know that I am not alone in having a mental block spending over $2000 for a frame. There are no stocking Turner dealers in NorCal so I ended up buying my spot without a test ride; I dont think I would have gone for it at over $2k, the great reviews and cult following here aside...

    PS Before killing the Burner, you should try selling it with the Romic or Paul 4in rockers. I bet you'd sell a ton of these once you get over that mental "4 in travel" barrier...

    My 0.02. We're all pulling for you to kick some a$$.

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    I wouldn't expect to see production bikes until late this year. MSRP???? Probably around $2000-$2200 71* head angle 73.5* seat angle 16.7" chainstay 12.25" bb with 80mm fork

  51. #51
    Feeding your addiction
    Reputation: Ventanarama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,663
    Quote Originally Posted by NAHTNOJ
    I don't think Tony Ellsworth, Sherwood Gibson or Chris Cocalis are going to sleep very well tonight.

    What did the engineers estimate the % of stiffness lost versus the Burner/XCE rear end?
    If Sherwood's losing any sleep over the Nitrous it's not for the reasons you are thinking

    Larry Mettler
    http://www.mtnhighcyclery.com

  52. #52
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by NAHTNOJ
    I don't think Tony Ellsworth, Sherwood Gibson or Chris Cocalis are going to sleep very well tonight.
    I doubt it. At present none of the above really have a frame in their current lines that were in the comprehension of super light weenie like XC race bike. Even though, for example the Truth is advertised as being so light its not really marketed towards the same end of the spectrum that I think this bike will be (ie Weenie racer type)

    Just my .02
    Trev!

  53. #53
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by jjcarr
    Hey, looking at that frame up close, got a question. I'm sure you guys have considered this before, but have you thought about running the rear der cable through the seatstay? If you drill a hole big enough for your disk/std cable adaptors the holes would probably be big enough to make threading the cable easier. Would make for a nice, clean, racy look. And you wouldn't have to weld bosses on.
    It would be a PITA though. Just like on my truth its a pain to run cables and lines and alike.
    Trev!

  54. #54
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,880

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Here are the first photos of our Nitrous Prototype.
    nice work crew.
    good timing too.
    I think we were about to run out of things to discuss regarding the 5 spot and the Burner...
    Last edited by airwreck; 04-12-2004 at 11:49 PM. Reason: because i can.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    Awsome, again!
    Ofcource can a company like Turner build a 4,435 pound racebike. Italian Extralite have done that many years ago.

    Some of you americans allways use US products as parameters

    E

  56. #56
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen
    Some of you americans allways use US products as parameters

    E
    I don't get this comment?
    Trev!

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    Am I just reading too much into your statement?

    I seem to remember that Sherwood used to build Turners. Are you implying that that's going to start happening again? Now THAT would make it just about perfect!

    Dave

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen
    Awsome, again!
    Ofcource can a company like Turner build a 4,435 pound racebike. Italian Extralite have done that many years ago.

    Some of you americans allways use US products as parameters

    E
    We also use periods, rather than commas, for the decimal place (just in case anyone else was initially confused by your statement like I was). You're right though, not all of us are always up on what is going on elsewhere. I'm guessing US litigation being what it is may play a factor in American companies not being quite as aggressive when it comes to weight- from what I've seen Extralite's track record isn't even on the same playing field as most US companies (outside of Ellsworth) when it comes to strength and durability.

  59. #59
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by jjcarr
    Hey, looking at that frame up close, got a question. I'm sure you guys have considered this before, but have you thought about running the rear der cable through the seatstay? If you drill a hole big enough for your disk/std cable adaptors the holes would probably be big enough to make threading the cable easier. Would make for a nice, clean, racy look. And you wouldn't have to weld bosses on.
    Yeah and with some laser etched graphics and a big "E" on the headbadge they'd really have somehting .

    oh wait, it's been done before?
    Last edited by Bikezilla; 04-13-2004 at 06:39 AM.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    241
    [QUOTE=Ventanarama]If Sherwood's losing any sleep over the Nitrous it's not for the reasons you are thinking

    Sherwood did the welding for the prototypes, right? I seem to remember you posting this a few months back when the bike was first announced....

    The Nitrous doesn't seem to be like anything else out there right now. Even if right around 5 pounds in production form it significantly raises the bar. There is no way a bearing-equipped bike could get that light. I guess what I'm saying is that the others, as good as they are (I own a Racer-X, had an XCE) might have to re-think their marketing strategies.

  61. #61
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573

    Pivot locations like an Ellsworth

    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    Here are the first photos of our Nitrous Prototype. It is a 3.1" Ultra Lite XC race bike. You will see these raced this season by Team Maxxis riders Geoff Kabush and Cesar Grajales. We worked very hard to reduce the weight further than any frame we have ever produced in the past. The large frame with shock, seat collar, and bottle bolts weighed in at 4.600 lbs.

    The Turnerbikes Crew!

    I have to point out that if you just look at the pivot locations the bike is very much like a Truth.

    I have been saying for more than four years now on this forum that that's the best way to locate pivots on a XC type FS bike.

    Ellsworth has a fancy theory to explain it (a theory that isn't entirely accurate). Turner seems to have arrived at it by experimentation (a good solid way to go). Devinci in Canada has arrived at very much the same thing using an instrumented bike for measuring efficiency, among other things.

  62. #62
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I have to point out that if you just look at the pivot locations the bike is very much like a Truth.

    I have been saying for more than four years now on this forum that that's the best way to locate pivots on a XC type FS bike.

    Ellsworth has a fancy theory to explain it (a theory that isn't entirely accurate). Turner seems to have arrived at it by experimentation (a good solid way to go). Devinci in Canada has arrived at very much the same thing using an instrumented bike for measuring efficiency, among other things.
    I was thinking along those lines myself, the 5 Spot has a similiar confiquration and I've said before that I thought the Truth & 5 Spot ride similiar. Maybe the Nitrous will be a bit more plush than prior 3" travel four bar designs. The O2 was not very plush or active, but it had a diff. rocker confiquration, I'm guessing the new shock technology has a lot to do with it.

    Awesome looking rig for sure!, but the seatstays look wimpy. Remember the AMPs, they had smallish seat/chainstays and were flexy.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,714

    For a great list of superlights

    Quote Originally Posted by Espen
    Awsome, again!
    Ofcource can a company like Turner build a 4,435 pound racebike. Italian Extralite have done that many years ago.

    Some of you americans allways use US products as parameters

    E
    check out:

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.ph...993#post126993

    and I agree: it is part of the colture here to have little memory of the past or awareness of the present. So it is not surprising that some in this forum might think that the bike is "unbelievable" ... although it is not everybody
    Last edited by Davide; 04-13-2004 at 08:53 AM.

  64. #64
    eastman
    Reputation: eastman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    133

    New question here. What!

    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    Maybe the Nitrous will be a bit more plush than prior 3" travel four bar designs. The O2 was not very plush or active, but it had a diff. rocker confiquration, I'm guessing the new shock technology has a lot to do with it.

    Awesome looking rig for sure!, but the seatstays look wimpy. Remember the AMPs, they had smallish seat/chainstays and were flexy.
    That’s a pretty interesting comment, and I’m not sure what the comparison is here…but the o2 (at least for me) is an extremely PLUSH setup for a 3.1 inch travel bike…and the suspension is exceptionally active in just about every type of terrain I’ve encountered.

    When folks take a spin on my o2…the two words they mention the most are: “plush and active.”

    Great to finally see the Nitrous…wonder if Mr. Casey is behind this one !

    -e

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeremy R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    First off the Burner is a bit overbuilt so we anticipate a very small rate of failure. The bike is based on those we have built for years and we pretty much know what they can and can't do. If the bike fails within the warranty period we will replace it. With what??? It will be a decision made after talking to the person who broke the frame. Turner frames are as durable as anything on the market so what we have found is that the majority of failures occur when the rider is riding outside what the bike was designed for. Here is an example. When I first began working for David, we had a Canadian customer call with a broken Stinger. He sent us the frame along with a photo of the fully built bike. He had a dual crown SID with Shimano flat pedals and rode with his buddies on longer travel frames. He rode drops, log shutes, and ladders on a regular basis. Even though he bought the wrong bike, we still replaced it but chose to do it with an RFX. A bike more well suited to his riding style.

    Bottom line: we take care of our bikes, if it brakes we will take care of it. With that said, hitting the garage with the bike attached to the roof is not covered!

    That kind of service is why I will not ride anything else!!
    Now, I just need to find a big sack of money, so I can get a Nitrous and a Rail!
    SEI Racing

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I have to point out that if you just look at the pivot locations the bike is very much like a Truth.

    I have been saying for more than four years now on this forum that that's the best way to locate pivots on a XC type FS bike.

    Ellsworth has a fancy theory to explain it (a theory that isn't entirely accurate). Turner seems to have arrived at it by experimentation (a good solid way to go). Devinci in Canada has arrived at very much the same thing using an instrumented bike for measuring efficiency, among other things.
    Ellsworth has marketing, he is not an engineer (I'd heard he was an insurance salesman before, not sure how accurate that is). His latest bikes are copies of the designs that Turner has been doing for a long time. Ellsworth continued to sell his old geometry Truth long after fork travel had grown by 2" without ever changing his geometry, but saw fit to jack the price up whenever he did made a minor, long overdue, tweek.

    Turner got the design right on the original Burner, long before Ellsworth saw the light and started copying Turner. Notice how Ellsworth no longer uses the radically obtuse seatstay-rocker angle, which used to be is trademark. He copied Turner when he came out with the new Truth, look at the linkage setup and you'll see it has a lot more in common with the Turner that it does with the original Truth.

  67. #67
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    ...Remember the AMPs...
    I ride with a guy who's on an AMP... he keeps it in showroom condition. It's so clean you can't look at it w/o sunglasses. Yet he rides it, and agressively, all the time. Of course, I have pocket lint that weighs more than he does.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  68. #68
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401

    ... and if we just ...

    Quote Originally Posted by eastman
    That’s a pretty interesting comment, and I’m not sure what the comparison is here…but the o2 (at least for me) is an extremely PLUSH setup for a 3.1 inch travel bike…and the suspension is exceptionally active in just about every type of terrain I’ve encountered.

    When folks take a spin on my o2…the two words they mention the most are: “plush and active.”

    Great to finally see the Nitrous…wonder if Mr. Casey is behind this one !

    -e
    The O2 rides more like the Fuel IMO, it is not as plush as the Truth or 5 Spot which have the same pivot conf.'s. The Nitrous appears to have a similiar pivot confiquration to the Truth/5 Spot, so maybe it will be more plush. I agreed w/ Steve from JH that the pivot/rocker conf. and the new platform shocks have a lot to do with the quality of Turner's newer rides, as well as Ells. and others. Sorry about the confusion.

  69. #69
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573

    Wrong on almost all counts

    Quote Originally Posted by jjcarr
    Ellsworth has marketing, he is not an engineer (I'd heard he was an insurance salesman before, not sure how accurate that is). His latest bikes are copies of the designs that Turner has been doing for a long time. Ellsworth continued to sell his old geometry Truth long after fork travel had grown by 2" without ever changing his geometry, but saw fit to jack the price up whenever he did made a minor, long overdue, tweek.

    Turner got the design right on the original Burner, long before Ellsworth saw the light and started copying Turner. Notice how Ellsworth no longer uses the radically obtuse seatstay-rocker angle, which used to be is trademark. He copied Turner when he came out with the new Truth, look at the linkage setup and you'll see it has a lot more in common with the Turner that it does with the original Truth.
    If Ellsworth was really good at marketing he'd be selling lots more bikes. Instead he pisses people off at him and generates what amounts to hatred on this forum.

    True that he's not an engineer; he was an investment broker type with a bicycle hobby. He however has Mike Kojima, a noted car racing engineer, working with him.

    The original version of the Truth and the first Turner 4-bar were both introduced in the same year, l993, and were arrived at independently. Turner had worked with Horst Leitner and used the Horst link. Ellsworth must have asked some suspension engineer type what to do and was told to go with a parallel beam linkage.

    The newer version of the Truth is not a copy of the Turner Afterburner but rather a scaled down version of the Dare, which was Mike Kojima's contribution circa 1997. He was the originator of the ICT theory.

    The seatstay-rocker angle on the '04 Truths and the Moment are about the same as the original Truth.

    Look at the placement of the drop-out pivot on the Turner bikes over time. They have moved closer to Ellsworth's, which have stayed about the same. This placement moves the bike away from the original Horst-link idea and closer to the parallel beam idea.

  70. #70
    Flyin Canine
    Reputation: shanedawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,287
    Great direction the company is taking lately. I have always thought most of the Turner line was a bit heavy and lately you guys have been making your great quality available to people with lighter tastes. I still like the heavy bikes too and just picked up a 2001 RFX since the Highline is not available yet. Hope you guys make a better showing at the Sea Otter this year. You had a nice booth in 01 and 02 but in 03 you guys were non-existant except for the race team support van.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    The O2 rides more like the Fuel IMO, it is not as plush as the Truth or 5 Spot which have the same pivot conf.'s. The Nitrous appears to have a similiar pivot confiquration to the Truth/5 Spot, so maybe it will be more plush. I agreed w/ Steve from JH that the pivot/rocker conf. and the new platform shocks have a lot to do with the quality of Turner's newer rides, as well as Ells. and others. Sorry about the confusion.
    Since you're comparing bikes with basically the same rear end, but different travel, plushness will be directly related to travel. The O2 is not plush if you compare it to a 5 Spot. It wouldn't be plush compared to a Burner. I think it is slightly more plush than a Fuel. The )2 has the same travel with a more active suspension.

    I wouldn't call any 3" bike plush. I guess it's all relative. a 3" O2 is plush compared to a hardtail I suppose.

  72. #72
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by jjcarr
    Ellsworth has marketing, he is not an engineer (I'd heard he was an insurance salesman before, not sure how accurate that is). His latest bikes are copies of the designs that Turner has been doing for a long time. Ellsworth continued to sell his old geometry Truth long after fork travel had grown by 2" without ever changing his geometry, but saw fit to jack the price up whenever he did made a minor, long overdue, tweek.

    Turner got the design right on the original Burner, long before Ellsworth saw the light and started copying Turner. Notice how Ellsworth no longer uses the radically obtuse seatstay-rocker angle, which used to be is trademark. He copied Turner when he came out with the new Truth, look at the linkage setup and you'll see it has a lot more in common with the Turner that it does with the original Truth.
    Is Turner an engineer?, I would imagine both companies use engineers for their designs. As far as Ells. copying Turner, the pivot/rocker confiquration on the Truth/ID has been around since 2001 and the 5 Spot, which uses the same confiq., came out in 2003. The original Burner and O2 used a diff. pivot/rocker setup and they were not as plush or active as the current Turners or Ells. bikes IMO.

    I think both companies, as well as others, are using a diff. pivot/rocker setup now because the shock technology has allowed them to.

  73. #73
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401

    ... and if we just ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I ride with a guy who's on an AMP... he keeps it in showroom condition. It's so clean you can't look at it w/o sunglasses. Yet he rides it, and agressively, all the time. Of course, I have pocket lint that weighs more than he does.
    I tried an AMP in 96' and felt the ride was too flexy for my 200lb frame. I wanted a Turner but nobody sold them where I lived so I ended up buying a Szazbo, which had a decent ride, but the Fox shock blew up 4 times in 2 years and then the frame cracked on me so I sold it. Suspension has come a looooong way since then!

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    If Ellsworth was really good at marketing he'd be selling lots more bikes. Instead he pisses people off at him and generates what amounts to hatred on this forum.

    True that he's not an engineer; he was an investment broker type with a bicycle hobby. He however has Mike Kojima, a noted car racing engineer, working with him.

    The original version of the Truth and the first Turner 4-bar were both introduced in the same year, l993, and were arrived at independently. Turner had worked with Horst Leitner and used the Horst link. Ellsworth must have asked some suspension engineer type what to do and was told to go with a parallel beam linkage.

    The newer version of the Truth is not a copy of the Turner Afterburner but rather a scaled down version of the Dare, which was Mike Kojima's contribution circa 1997. He was the originator of the ICT theory.

    The seatstay-rocker angle on the '04 Truths and the Moment are about the same as the original Truth.

    Look at the placement of the drop-out pivot on the Turner bikes over time. They have moved closer to Ellsworth's, which have stayed about the same. This placement moves the bike away from the original Horst-link idea and closer to the parallel beam idea.
    Don't confuse marketing with customer (or vendor) relations. I call him a marketer because he always puts a marketing spin on his bikes, like the ICT. It's like Ford's "Quiet Steel" crap or "Quadra Coil" from Jeep. Maketing hype around relatively pointless concepts. I remember when he did the carbon rear triangles and tie die anodizing, marketed those big time. Look at Ellsworth compared to Turner and he definitely looks like a marketer.

    It may be fair to say that Ellsworth didn't copy Turner, but if you look at his original Truth, the new Truth looks more like the original Turner than it does it's forebarer.

    My biggest beef with Ellsworth is that he penned the original Truth for 93, then didn't change any of the geometry until the latest Truth came out. And when he did, he jacked the price up. I remember riding a Truth with a 4" fork and thinking how it handled worse than the GT LTS I had at the time, which is to say pretty badly. Comparatively, look at Turner, and he tweeks each bike for the intended use and fork, and he makes gradual improvements almost every year.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    212
    does the proto bike use bushings or bearings?

  76. #76
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401
    Quote Originally Posted by jjcarr
    It may be fair to say that Ellsworth didn't copy Turner, but if you look at his original Truth, the new Truth looks more like the original Turner than it does it's forebarer.

    Comparatively, look at Turner, and he tweeks each bike for the intended use and fork, and he makes gradual improvements almost every year.
    I don't know what the original Truths looked like, but the new Truth does not look like the original Turner that had smaller rockers that looked like the Fuel or the 2000 model O2.

    Ells. certainly does make changes almost every year, hell he's been criticized on this forum for doing so.

  77. #77
    Motion activated
    Reputation: Steve71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,228
    I just wanted to point out that Turner bushing are superior to bearing in most ways. They are not like the bushing in the gt LTS's etc.

    I think it’s a testament to Turner Bikes that they aren’t bowing down the ball bearing fashion. I'm sure it’s cost them some sales, but in the end they make a better bike IMHO.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Espen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    362
    No offence man. I should have placed a after that.
    My point was:
    Many guys here had a hard time to belive a stiff, light, durable 4.435 (note the . separator) Horstlinked racebike, which is completely possible........Done right ofcource.
    I think it's amazing that Turner actually did it too.

    From my experience, Turner is defenately one of the best companies in the biz. The line if defenately impressive. They really takes care of their customers, and last but not least, these bikes feels awsome!

    Keep up the good work!

    E


    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor!
    I don't get this comment?

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve71
    I just wanted to point out that Turner bushing are superior to bearing in most ways. They are not like the bushing in the gt LTS's etc.

    I think it’s a testament to Turner Bikes that they aren’t bowing down the ball bearing fashion. I'm sure it’s cost them some sales, but in the end they make a better bike IMHO.
    Hey, my old LTS bushings where great...squeek...squeek...squeek...

    I agree, with the grease ports and good frame alignment, I think the bushings are the way to go. I rode my XCE hard for over 2 years before I replaced my bushings, and found that they didn't really need it at that point. My SC Heckler showed wear in it's main bearing after one year. Plus, bushings should make for a latterally stiffer rear end over the long haul.

    I still believe that Intense started using bearings because they couldn't align a frame right.

    James

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by rroeder
    I don't know what the original Truths looked like, but the new Truth does not look like the original Turner that had smaller rockers that looked like the Fuel or the 2000 model O2.

    Ells. certainly does make changes almost every year, hell he's been criticized on this forum for doing so.
    Yes, the rocker sizes have changed, largely due to increasing travel demands. I'm referring more to the locations of the pivots, angles on the rockers, and location of the shock. Plus, if you look at the ID and other long travel Ellsworth's you'll see they don't use the obtuse angle of the Truth, but a more Turner-like angle.

    The original Truth ran with unchanged geometry (to the best of my knowledge) from it's introduction (93) until the new model came out (200?). In fact, the only changes I'm aware of in that time frame were the carbon rear end (Absolute Truth I believe) and different paint jobs. No change to geometry. And we're talking about a frame made for 2" travel forks being sold with 4" travel forks, which caused the handling to suffer. Whereas if you look at Turner, each new model had different geometry and minor tweeks (rear dropouts, pivot point, linkage plates, grease ports) to improve the bike.

    Granted, the current Truth is a nice bike, but it was way past due.

    James

  81. #81
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Espen
    No offence man. I should have placed a after that.
    My point was:
    Many guys here had a hard time to belive a stiff, light, durable 4.435 (note the . separator) Horstlinked racebike, which is completely possible........Done right ofcource.
    I think it's amazing that Turner actually did it too.

    From my experience, Turner is defenately one of the best companies in the biz. The line if defenately impressive. They really takes care of their customers, and last but not least, these bikes feels awsome!

    Keep up the good work!

    E


    No problem just checking is all.
    Trev!

  82. #82
    banned
    Reputation: Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    it is part of the colture here to have little memory of the past or awareness of the present.
    Speak for yourself.

    Examples available, again, by request Martino.

  83. #83
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by jjcarr

    It may be fair to say that Ellsworth didn't copy Turner, but if you look at his original Truth, the new Truth looks more like the original Turner than it does it's forebarer.

    I remember riding a Truth with a 4" fork and thinking how it handled worse than the GT LTS I had at the time, which is to say pretty badly.
    I owned a 99 Truth and rode it with a 4" travel fork for two years. I thought it handled quite well. I would prefer it to most bikes available today. It's true that Tony E. thought it should be ridden with no more than an 80 mm fork. The fact that he didn't change over to designing for 4" forks for so long is an example of bad marketing, as I would use the term. As is the too high BB on the Id.

    As for how much the new Truth looks like the original is concerned, I'll let the pictures below speak for themselves:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  84. #84
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,401

    New question here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I owned a 99 Truth and rode it with a 4" travel fork for two years. I thought it handled quite well. I would prefer it to most bikes available today. It's true that Tony E. thought it should be ridden with no more than an 80 mm fork. The fact that he didn't change over to designing for 4" forks for so long is an example of bad marketing, as I would use the term. As is the too high BB on the Id.

    As for how much the new Truth looks like the original is concerned, I'll let the pictures below speak for themselves:
    Looks very similiar, except the shock mount for the shorter shock. What is that angle called in the upper photo? That seems like it would be relevant to our discussion about the pivot/rocker confiqurations. The older Turners seemed to have a lower rocker/seatstay angle whereas the newer ones and the Ells. ICT bikes have a larger angle. Would this make the design more plush and active?

  85. #85
    roots, rocks, rhythm
    Reputation: Dawgprimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    656

    Sweeeeeet.......

    That is one very nice bike. Love the color.....
    Turner is always putting the bar a little higher........congrats
    I should of bought a Turner a few years ago but in a few days I will be getting my first (that's right like Madonna sang '"Like a v____n") ...............Turner out on the trails and I can't wait.........

    KC

    p.s - this site is the most informative. I learn more here then any other place.

    thanks

  86. #86
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    MBA magazine used to make a big deal out of the "obtuse" angle of the old Truth. They thought that it explained the good pedaling characteristics of the bike. I can't see any engineering principle that would account for this.

    What does matter is how close the linkage top and bottom arms are to parallel. The closer to parallel, the farther forward the instant center. The farther forward the less the suspension tends to "wind up" from the transition from deceleration to acceleration that occurs with every pedal stroke (especially when climbing). This makes for an efficient bike.

    But if the IC is way ahead of the center of gravity ( which is usually somewhere above the BB), then the bike becomes less plush rather than more.

    So the change around 2000 to the ICT, bearing equipped Truth made for a more plush bike that also bobbed a little more from rider weight shift. The new shocks can deal with this.

    The odd bikes among the Horst type linkages are actually the Turner XCE, Burner, and O2 with their nearly 90 degree angle between seatstay and rocker. I suspect the reason for that angle was less stress on the seat tube and therefore more durability.

    The early Turner Afterburner was a long travel bike that looked a lot like the RFX and 5-Spot. Ellsworth refers to it in the ICT patent as falling within the parameters of the patent.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    MBA magazine used to make a big deal out of the "obtuse" angle of the old Truth. They thought that it explained the good pedaling characteristics of the bike. I can't see any engineering principle that would account for this.
    I think the obtuse angle increases the initial rate of the suspension. The rocker arm must swing in it's arc to compress the shock. If the angle were 90 degrees, then all of the force of the chainstay moment would go towards moving the rocker. As the angle goes away from 90 degrees, a component of the force is not acting in that direction. As an example, push one finger against another at 90 degrees, then do it at 160 degrees and you'll feel the difference. Most of the force is wasted pushing against each other at 160, and none is wasted at 90.

    This should make the rate of the suspension falling to some extent, other factors not withstanding.

    Obviously the other factors you mention do have an impact, and may be greater, I'm not sure.

    James

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    241
    The early Turner Afterburner was a long travel bike that looked a lot like the RFX and 5-Spot. Ellsworth refers to it in the ICT patent as falling within the parameters of the patent.[/QUOTE]

    When did Ellsworth patent the ICT? The Afterburner came out around 96/97.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by coolhandluchs
    Is that just the rebound dial, or is this the prototype for the adjustable platform Float?

    Nice color!
    Now, can we send our 'Spots back to get them gold anodized?
    I may be wrong, but that shock looks like the new platform shock from Fox .....the RP3.

    "The RP3, featured here is the flagship of the FLOAT line featuring externally adjustable ProPedal via a three-position lever. The on-the-fly lever offers the rider three distinctly different ProPedal modes; very light compression damping, a medium amount of pedaling platform, and a firm mode that provides the rider with extremely efficient pedaling while remaining compliant to sharp, square edged bumps. The RP3 also features a new wide range Rebound Damping adjuster that is concentric with and behind the ProPedal lever."

    http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=1314

  90. #90
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by NAHTNOJ
    When did Ellsworth patent the ICT? The Afterburner came out around 96/97.
    The patent was applied for when the Afterburner already existed. Ellsworth's argument is that the Afterburner's geometry was arrived at by trial and error, not by applying his ICT theory, and so the patent claim is still valid. The Patent Office apparently bought it since they granted the final patent last year.

  91. #91
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by jjcarr
    I think the obtuse angle increases the initial rate of the suspension. The rocker arm must swing in it's arc to compress the shock. If the angle were 90 degrees, then all of the force of the chainstay moment would go towards moving the rocker. As the angle goes away from 90 degrees, a component of the force is not acting in that direction. As an example, push one finger against another at 90 degrees, then do it at 160 degrees and you'll feel the difference. Most of the force is wasted pushing against each other at 160, and none is wasted at 90.

    This should make the rate of the suspension falling to some extent, other factors not withstanding.

    Obviously the other factors you mention do have an impact, and may be greater, I'm not sure.

    James
    Your argument would make sense if the rocker arm had significant mass. But the assumption we make when talking about suspension is basically that the moving parts of the suspension have no mass.

    Imagine a big heavy beam pivotally anchored at one end so that it could rotate horizontally. You try to move it by pushing on a rod that is pivotally connected to the other end. You could move it most easily by making the angle between your push rod and the beam 90 degrees. Otherwise you're wasting some of your force in trying to compress or stretch the beam. That's analagous to what you're saying about the rocker arm and seat stay. But it's only an important consideration if the beam is hard to move.

    From having owned an older Truth I can assure that if you remove the rear wheel, disconnect the shock, and, with the bike up on a stand, try to move the rear linkage, it will move right through its travel with the push of one finger--just like any other linkage with smooth working bushings or bearings. If the obtuse angle really made any difference, you would feel more resistance.

  92. #92
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve71
    Wow! Pardon my ignorance, but would that make it the lightest 3" travel frame ever?
    Nope, Amp F4 Carbons were 4.4 Ibs in the largest size (important distinction since what company A calls a large might be what company B calls a medium).

  93. #93
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    The patent was applied for when the Afterburner already existed. Ellsworth's argument is that the Afterburner's geometry was arrived at by trial and error, not by applying his ICT theory, and so the patent claim is still valid. The Patent Office apparently bought it since they granted the final patent last year.
    Considering the evolution of ellsworth's frames, one could argue that tony arrived at the ICT theory by trial and error and outright accident also and so the patent shouldn't be valid at all (since any suspension designer could have come up with the same thing on their own).

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zonoskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    970
    When (if?) this goes into production, does that mean we can get anodized finishes on 5 Spots too? Yummie....

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,593

    Nitros and such

    We are back from the Sea Otter and completely happy with the weekend. On the subject of Nitros, Kabush rocked into second place for the weekend. He only rode the bike the morning of the Short Track for a little test to check it out. I spoke to him then, and he was very happy with the stiffness under pedaling. Saying that it was almost as stiff as the Woody hardtail we made him. He also stated that it climbed like a scalded cat or something like that. After the XC on Sunday afternoon I was not able to ask to many questions as he was swamped with press types, but he said the bike rocked. That was enough for me to drive home on a high with.

    I put in almost 50 miles on the Sea Otter course myself and was also happy with the stiffness under pedaling. As Casey pointed out, Greg is our biggest guy and with over 220 mashing down on the crank he is impressed with the short burst stiffness. There will be no step to production untill more of the testers have time to give me feedback with regards to performance. This frame is all about speed.

    It is not about plush, it feels much firmer than the 02 when you sit on it. The 02 was too plush for a real race bike. I cashed a check for 5 years as an XC pro way back when and I know how a racer thinks. The 02 was too much like a short travel XCE and the Stinger with the low angle strut was pretty soft for a short travel frame also. The Nitros feels fast from the first pedal stroke, but it gets over 3" of travel out on the course.

    We are swamped here so I cannot answer all question about all models, but I skimmed through and picked out some points to make. The Stinger was 4.9 lbs for an 18" back in the last century. Almost all of them are still being ridden, with only a few failing--ever. With guys like JJ riding them for years I knew that the Nitros could go lighter for the lightweight XC racer type. Casey did a great job of explaining the intent of the frame.

    There will be NO canti mounts. Canti brakes are done, sure they are light and the wheels are light but the demand is so low that we quit making the clamp-on mounts that have been around since 1999or so. All over seas customers never ask for them either. Magura and Formula are making so real light stuff and for the Shimano rider the XTR stuff is not too far off the weight mark.

    As for weight limits, I think we set the Stinger at 170 back then. That was mostly for ride quality if a heavy rider is on a light bike is starts wagging around like a, a, well you get the picture. If a guy is around 200 lbs or more, an extra pound or so to jump up to a Burner is negligible, but the ride quality and longevity is superior.

    About Ventana, Sherwood built the first 150 Turner frames. That was in 93-94. We were unable to keep building there as he was maxed out. Sherwood and I have always had a good relationship but at this time, we are very happy with our other sources all in the USA.

    The reason the Horst links have raised over the years is to save weight and reduce the clang of deraileur on it. Thats all. I do all rear designs based on axle path. Not instant center. I do almost every drawing myself and with the out side engineer for the Nitros we were using SolidWorks to pre-view the machine parts to reduce weight as much as possible. In the end though it has to feel good in the dirt. Not just look good on the screen.

    Anyone remember the Mako bike from San Marcos California. That bike is the only walking beam to pre-date Turner, Green and Alpinestars. The 3 of us were all on the dirt in 1993, No One else had that type of design untill a year later. But Mako was first, I visited them before I went to Ventana in January 03 to talk about welding 5 protos for me. Sitting right there in the office was a 4 bar bike with a Noleen coil shock on it, and a MountainCycle upside down fork with cable disc brakes! Yes it had dirt on it. It's super minimalist design by todays standards and flat rocker are one of the reasons I was inspired to build the Nitros as a 4 bar instead of pursue other designs for a racing XC frame. I would like to know what happened to those guys, anyone know where they went?

    Happy Trails
    David Turner

  96. #96
    Motion activated
    Reputation: Steve71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,228
    Congratulations on the bike placing 2nd. Good stuff.

  97. #97
    Ian
    Ian is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    22
    The Nitrous frame appeared at the UK bike show a few days ago. See URL
    http://www.bikemagic.com/news/images...turner_big.jpg

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by turnerbikes
    We are back from the Sea Otter and completely happy with the weekend....

    Happy Trails
    David Turner
    I'd just like to chime in briefly and thank Dave for his support and responsiveness on this board. I remember going into Rage Cycles back in 94-95 and drooling on the Burner they had in there, never could afford it then. But I'm glad I can now, and all the happier that the guy who makes the bikes is so helpfull and courteous to his customers. I think we all need to thank Dave.

    James

  99. #99
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by jjcarr
    I'd just like to chime in briefly and thank Dave for his support and responsiveness ... I think we all need to thank Dave.
    If you really want to see praise and thanks just read through this forum and the WBTB archive...

    But okay, I'll thank the big D for the iSht-eating grin I get every time I ride my bike (that is why we ride right?) ... Dave, your attention to details of real world riding makes all the difference. The runnaway success of the 5 Spot is confirmation of that. And thanks for the no BS CS...for me, it's just as important as the ride. This Nitrous thread has been very interesting, while I may never race, it's really great to observe part of the development process. Thanks for keeping us informed...but if it ever comes down to deciding weather to post here vs. tweaking a design, well let me just say your products speak well enough for themselves.

    (...can I have a free bike now? )
    Last edited by Bikezilla; 04-20-2004 at 11:30 AM.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    20

    That is beautiful

    It's about time someone made a lightweight xc fully with a weight limit rather than make an xc frame with no weight limit and end up with a nearly 6lb frame.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Prototype steel Phil Wood SS
    By crosschain in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 04:37 PM
  2. what do you think about mi PROTOTYPE????
    By MIRANDA in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-15-2004, 12:13 PM
  3. new business starting, prototype picture
    By gonzostrike in forum Custom Builders & Other Manufacturers
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-13-2004, 07:33 PM
  4. FOX Enduro prototype seals available !!!!!!!
    By DGC in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-21-2004, 08:41 PM

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
  •