Results 1 to 49 of 49
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    85

    hornst link Vs. Faux bar

    Hi everybody.. i was just comparing the piviot placements of the hornst link and the faux bar.. from both the pics.. the piviot placement near the rear dropouts are at different places.. other than that.. i don see any differnece.. so i come to this inference.. how can the hornst link be better than the faux bar and how can the faux bar be better then the hornst link? the piviot at the rear dropouts in my opinion is to make the suspension fully active.. so what differnce does it make on where the piviot near the dropouts is?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by bobflyer; 10-11-2005 at 10:15 AM.

  2. #2
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by bobflyer
    .... so what differnce does it make on where the piviot near the dropouts is?
    It made enough difference to Dave Turner to pay royalties to Specialized for several years! So that means he was either paying for something kinematically better, using it for marketing, or just fooled by it.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188

    single pivot bikes

    check any single pivot bike, they don't have a pivot on the chainstay either. Have you heard anything good about singlepivot bikes?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,757
    Turner has never used a Hornst link, nor have they paid Specialized any royalties for a Hornst link. BTW, what the he*l is a Hornst link??????
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by CDMC
    Turner has never used a Hornst link, nor have they paid Specialized any royalties for a Hornst link. BTW, what the he*l is a Hornst link??????
    Hornst link goes PAAAAARP!!!! when you sit on the bike, do you know nothing?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    85
    the whole point of me starting this thread is to find out why people hate the new TNT which turner is going to implement into the bikes for 06.. there is really no difference between hornst link and faux bar.. expect near the rear dropouts.. that may explain why some pros who rode the bikes say they noticed no difference between the 2..

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Prof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,165
    Call them the Hornst linkage and the Fubar linkage,
    And as none of the above exist

    There is nothing to worry about.

  8. #8
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,013
    Quote Originally Posted by bobflyer
    the whole point of me starting this thread is to find out why people hate the new TNT which turner is going to implement into the bikes for 06.. there is really no difference between hornst link and faux bar.. expect near the rear dropouts.. that may explain why some pros who rode the bikes say they noticed no difference between the 2..
    All you really need to do is read the 30+ threads below on the subject and you'll learn more than you'll ever want to know.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,550

    Turner never used a licklock

    He only built very tasty hardtails ---- you can see the finely tuned Ho*&^%NT at the saddle: it outperformed everything on the market in its times
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Davide; 10-11-2005 at 05:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Can Tree Member
    Reputation: Dad Man Walking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by bobflyer
    the whole point of me starting this thread is to find out why people hate the new TNT which turner is going to implement into the bikes for 06.. there is really no difference between hornst link and faux bar.. expect near the rear dropouts.. that may explain why some pros who rode the bikes say they noticed no difference between the 2..
    Don't let the Homer's bad attitudes here get you down...they've just been obsessing over this for several weeks now. Here is the way I understand all of this hoopla...

    (1) With the pivot on the chain stay (Turner HL, Ellsworth, FSR, etc.), the rear axle can move in a path that is different than a simple arc around the main pivot. Also, since the brakes and the axle are both mounted to the same part (the seatstay/shockstay), the braking action is not influenced by the cycling of the suspension.

    (2) With the pivot on the seatstay/shockstay (TNT, Ventana, lots of other good bikes) the rear axle moves in a simple arc around the main pivot. By some people's reasoning, the rest of the suspension parts are just parts of the shock linkage. In these designs, the placement of the main pivot is crucial for establishing the pedaling characteristics of the bike...the TNT and Ventana have pivots low near the bottom bracket; the Santa Cruz Superlight has a pivot higher and further forward. Also, since the brakes calipers are mounted to the seatstay/shockstay and the disc or wheel is attached to the chainstay, the two parts can move in slightly different paths creating unwanted braking effects when the suspension is cycling (brake jack).

    (3) The geometry behind the two paragraphs above are sound and objective. What is much more subjective is "does it really matter?" Or perhaps..."how much does it matter?" Turner stated here that the difference in the axle path between his ICT design and his HL design was around 1mm or so at it's maximum...and he concluded that in the real world, the effects of chain growth and brake jack are simply not discernable by the rider...while they may be there, and noticable in other designs with more extreme placements of the pivots, the effects are probably just overwhelmed by other real world inputs.

    (4) To my eye, it is easy to see that Turner's more recent HL designs bore more than a passing resemblace to the Ellsworth ICT designs. Comparing my Burner (the old XCE design) to the Spot/Flux bikes, the rocker sits much flatter on the bike (parallel to the ground), the pivots on the rocker are closer to being in-line (the rocker is not as triangulated), and the upper pivot moved from behind the seat tube to in front of the tube. And people who have ridden both the new bikes and the old ones say that the new ones have a noticeable "zip" to them that is not present in the XCE linkage bikes. (Check out the recent thread on the Flux to see some comments on the head-to-head comparison between the Burner/XCE and the Flux).

    (5) When pressured by Ellsworth, Turner's choices were to either (a) fight the patent, (b) continue licensing the ICT design at some undisclosed but presumably expensive terms, (c) keep the HL and revert to the XCE design approach, or (d) abandon the HL but keep the rest of the suspension (the rocker design and the forward pivot locations) as they were. Why he elected to not do (a) or (b) is nobody's business but his own. He made a statement, however, when he elected to keep the ICT-like front end suspension design and abandon the HL.

    Engaging blatant personal opinion mode, proceed at your own risk

    It seems to me that for at least the short term, Turner decided that the ICT-like parts of the suspension contributed more to the overall feel of the bike than the HL did. It had to be one or the other, and he chose to run something similar to ICT, without the HL (which thereby seems to circumvent all of the patent claims that Ellsworth was making). Some people think that by abandoning the HL, he is rescinding all of the claims that he had made for HL up to this point. That's totally unfair. I ride a HL Burner and it works great. It's just that the ICT bikes work even better, it would seem. And when he relocated the pivot to create the TNT design, I am guessing he found that he didn't miss the HL as much as we thought he would.

    For all the bashing that TE has taken on this board (for as long as I've been lurking), it seems that he may be somewhat vindicated in his claims for the advantages of ICT. Not that 100% efficient stuff, but his clear conviction he had that it was the best possible design for a bicycle suspension. Because it would appear to this (admittedly uninformed and very casual observer) that the front end of the ICT designs were good enough that you may not even need the HL (in the real world).

    The theoretical loss may or may not be noticable in the real world. Time will tell. Time will also reveal what DT can do with a design when he does not have to hang the rear axle off of a pair of skinny little pivots. On suspension bikes, the parts that are supposed to move are supposed to move in predictable, controllable, supple ways. And they are not supposed to twist around in ways that the designer didn't put down on paper when he or she penned the design. We know how much better the bike handles in rough stuff with a rigid fork vs. a noodlely one. Likewise, we hear of the benefits of the very stiff Ventana, Turner, and Titus rear ends. Turner and Titus get there even with the HL...so imagine what DT can do without it.

    Those are my 2 cents...for the time being.

    Dad Man out, flame on.
    Dad is sad.
    Very, very sad.
    He had a bad day.
    What a day Dad had!

  11. #11
    Time flies...
    Reputation: xjbebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,211

    Synopsis....

    ""hornst link Vs. Faux bar""

    1) It's HORST LINK
    2) it's FOUR BAR (generic term)
    3) The reason people are upset is because for many years we've been led to believe that the HORST LINK was the best, ultimate trail rear suspension design. DT was a major proponent of such. Now he says that his new version of the FOUR BAR design (which the main diff between the two is the pivot location, as you pointed out...) works just as well.
    Basically, lots of people have got their feelings hurt, many of us are confused and unsure. There is tons of speculation as to why DT is making the switch, but there has been no official statement yet.
    Also, TNT is new and not enough people have tried it enough to give the masses enough reviews to form a global opinion.
    So we wait
    And way too many people speculate.
    DT is not god, but he has built some of the best bikes for some time now, and people should just remember that...
    ...every day sends future to past...

  12. #12
    Time flies...
    Reputation: xjbebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,211
    Nice write-up Dead Man. I already started my 'redneck' version b4 yours popped up...sorry...
    ...every day sends future to past...

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by zaxxon
    check any single pivot bike, they don't have a pivot on the chainstay either. Have you heard anything good about singlepivot bikes?
    The TNT is a single pivot bike, with a complicated way of actuating the shock. This allows the frame designer to tune how the shock ramps up etc. This is the only advantage the design has over a Heckler / Superlight.
    With the availability of tuneable shocks, this is increasingly less of an issue.
    The advantage the SC design has is the the brake is located on the same bar as the pivot, negating the possibility of braking forces influencing the suspension.
    HL bikes are also supposed to have more rear flex than TNT style, but if you ask the owners of the previous HL designs they may disagree with you.

    I have owned a variety of bikes - Horst Link / VPP / Single pivot, and to be truthful there ain't all that much difference.
    IMHO, in order of importance,
    1 - skill of rider
    2=- quality of frame
    2= quality of shock
    4 - suspension design

    Buy your bike, ride, enjoy in that order.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    85
    thanks Dad Man Walking.. very informative post

    maybe he changed the link for political reason.. like maybe an argument with specialized or ellsworth.. otherwise why would he chage something that was proven to work.. but it does not concern me.. what concerns me is that i wanna buy a turner flux.. so i want to be sure that the bike i buy is the best money can buy.. and i was with turner when he had the hornst link.. but i am not as sure now.. i think i will wait for about 6 months and wait for the 2006 reviews to get into the revews pages..

    thanks everybody..

  15. #15
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by xjbebop
    "
    Also, TNT is new and not enough people have tried it enough to give the masses enough reviews to form a global opinion.
    Why do you think it's new? Because it's called "TNT?" Ventana and others (Kona) have been using it for years.

    I shall make a parallellogram rear suspension bike and call it symmetrical motion techology (SMT). Will you agree it's a whole new concept?
    Last edited by lidarman; 10-11-2005 at 07:12 PM.

  16. #16
    Time flies...
    Reputation: xjbebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,211
    TNT is new for (from?) Turner, that's what I was referring to...
    Doesn't mean it will (or won't) ride the same as any other brand.
    ...every day sends future to past...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    85
    here is rear end of the new flux rear end i got from another post.. look at the exact place where the brakes are placed.. i must hand it to david.. he does really put thoght into his bikes.. and this could also put to rest some of the worries that the TNT will freeze up the suspension.. but please correct me if i am wrong about this infernece.. i am putting alot of reaearch into buy the new TNT turners.. so please give me a decent reply like dad man walking..
    Attached Images Attached Images

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JustMtnB44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    545
    This topic has been covered 50 times already in other posts, but I'd like to claify a few points made in this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dad Man Walking
    (1) With the pivot on the chain stay (Turner HL, Ellsworth, FSR, etc.), the rear axle can move in a path that is different than a simple arc around the main pivot. Also, since the brakes and the axle are both mounted to the same part (the seatstay/shockstay), the braking action is not influenced by the cycling of the suspension.
    Correct - but on all bikes the brakes and axle are mounted to the same suspension link.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dad Man Walking
    (2) With the pivot on the seatstay/shockstay (TNT, Ventana, lots of other good bikes) the rear axle moves in a simple arc around the main pivot. By some people's reasoning, the rest of the suspension parts are just parts of the shock linkage. In these designs, the placement of the main pivot is crucial for establishing the pedaling characteristics of the bike...the TNT and Ventana have pivots low near the bottom bracket; the Santa Cruz Superlight has a pivot higher and further forward. Also, since the brakes calipers are mounted to the seatstay/shockstay and the disc or wheel is attached to the chainstay, the two parts can move in slightly different paths creating unwanted braking effects when the suspension is cycling (brake jack).
    With the rear pivot on the seatstay, the the rest of the suspension parts are just parts of the shock linkage. Always. Not just by some people's reasoning. Yes the main pivot point placement makes all the difference. No the brake caliper is never mounted to the seatstay, it is on the main swingarm with the axle. This applies to all bikes, the caliper and axle are always on the same link. The brake caliper must always be mounted to the same link as the axle (unless a floating system is used) because otherwise its location with respect to the rotor would change and it would either bind up or move away and not have enough braking surface. Single pivot bikes do not suffer from brake jack (stiffening and rising/extending of the rear suspension), they suffer from mild brake squat (compressing and therefore stiffening of the rear suspension).


    Quote Originally Posted by Dad Man Walking
    (3) The geometry behind the two paragraphs above are sound and objective. What is much more subjective is "does it really matter?" Or perhaps..."how much does it matter?" Turner stated here that the difference in the axle path between his ICT design and his HL design was around 1mm or so at it's maximum...and he concluded that in the real world, the effects of chain growth and brake jack are simply not discernable by the rider...while they may be there, and noticable in other designs with more extreme placements of the pivots, the effects are probably just overwhelmed by other real world inputs.
    Correct, how much a rider notices this is very dependant on riding style, terrain, bike setup, etc. That is why it is hard to make a broad statement like "all single pivots suck" with actually riding similar Horst and SP bikes.

  19. #19
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Yes the main pivot point placement makes all the difference. No the brake caliper is never mounted to the seatstay, it is on the main swingarm with the axle. This applies to all bikes, the caliper and axle are always on the same link. The brake caliper must always be mounted to the same link as the axle
    Actually, before disc brakes became standard, faux bar bikes often had rim brakes mounted on the seatstay. The bikes were short enough travel so that the discrepancy in rotation didn't cause a problem. The pads moved a little vertically on the rims as the suspension cycled.

    This also produced a kind of floating brake effect as the brake carrying link rotated around the instant center of the 4-bar.

    What practically everybody ignores in discussing the Horst vs. Faux bar question is that axle path doesn't explain everything. The behavior of the axle carrying link is vitally important in explaining suspension performance. And you can have virtually identical axle paths and still have quite different patterns of movement of the axle carrying link.

    If you look at books on automotive and motorcycle design, axle path is almost never even mentioned. It's only guys talking about bicycles who are hung up on it.

  20. #20
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,997
    Quote Originally Posted by bobflyer
    here is rear end of the new flux rear end i got from another post.. look at the exact place where the brakes are placed.. i must hand it to david.. he does really put thoght into his bikes.. and this could also put to rest some of the worries that the TNT will freeze up the suspension.. but please correct me if i am wrong about this infernece.. i am putting alot of reaearch into buy the new TNT turners.. so please give me a decent reply like dad man walking..
    No, placement of the brake there causes the rear end to get harsh and loose traction when the rear brake is used in rough terrain.

    The reason is that as the suspension is cycled, the brake caliper is forced to rotate with the swingarm, and that would be great except for the fact that the rear tire is on the ground, so the force of the caliper rotating will compress the suspension and cause it to feel harsher.

    If the brake is mounted on the other member (the seatstay) it will remain in relatively the same position as the suspension is cycled, therefore it doesn't put a moment on the suspension that causes your suspension to compress.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  21. #21
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Actually, before disc brakes became standard, faux bar bikes often had rim brakes mounted on the seatstay. The bikes were short enough travel so that the discrepancy in rotation didn't cause a problem. The pads moved a little vertically on the rims as the suspension cycled.

    This also produced a kind of floating brake effect as the brake carrying link rotated around the instant center of the 4-bar.

    What practically everybody ignores in discussing the Horst vs. Faux bar question is that axle path doesn't explain everything. The behavior of the axle carrying link is vitally important in explaining suspension performance. And you can have virtually identical axle paths and still have quite different patterns of movement of the axle carrying link.

    If you look at books on automotive and motorcycle design, axle path is almost never even mentioned. It's only guys talking about bicycles who are hung up on it.
    Kinda like this?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    No, placement of the brake there causes the rear end to get harsh and loose traction when the rear brake is used in rough terrain.

    The reason is that as the suspension is cycled, the brake caliper is forced to rotate with the swingarm, and that would be great except for the fact that the rear tire is on the ground, so the force of the caliper rotating will compress the suspension and cause it to feel harsher.

    If the brake is mounted on the other member (the seatstay) it will remain in relatively the same position as the suspension is cycled, therefore it doesn't put a moment on the suspension that causes your suspension to compress.
    This is ********. It's all about conservation of angular momentum. Jayem is probably an old fart who doesn't ride and sits in front of his computer all day.

  23. #23
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Dad Man Walking
    (5) When pressured by Ellsworth, Turner's choices were to either (a) fight the patent, (b) continue licensing the ICT design at some undisclosed but presumably expensive terms, (c) keep the HL and revert to the XCE design approach, or (d) abandon the HL but keep the rest of the suspension (the rocker design and the forward pivot locations) as they were. Why he elected to not do (a) or (b) is nobody's business but his own. He made a statement, however, when he elected to keep the ICT-like front end suspension design and abandon the HL.

    [For all the bashing that TE has taken on this board (for as long as I've been lurking), it seems that he may be somewhat vindicated in his claims for the advantages of ICT. Not that 100% efficient stuff, but his clear conviction he had that it was the best possible design for a bicycle suspension. Because it would appear to this (admittedly uninformed and very casual observer) that the front end of the ICT designs were good enough that you may not even need the HL (in the real world).
    What you seem to be missing is that the horst link is part of the ICT patent.
    ICT blankets a range of angles for the rockers, but the HL is a mandatory element.

    As it has been said, no one knows what the terms of the licensing is through ell$. It may not have been an option for the future.

    Also, if the new TNT design is as good as I expect it to be given Dave Turner's commitment to excellence, maybe it will help prove that the ICT is BS.
    Last edited by mtn hack; 10-11-2005 at 10:46 PM.

  24. #24
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by jamisfoes
    This is ********. It's all about conservation of angular momentum. Jayem is probably an old fart who doesn't ride and sits in front of his computer all day.
    I don't know about old, but I am doubting any actual engineering credentials.

  25. #25
    ajr
    ajr is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    Why do you think it's new? Because it's called "TNT?" Ventana and others (Kona) have been using it for years.

    I shall make a parallellogram rear suspension bike and call it symmetrical motion techology (SMT). Will you agree it's a whole new concept?
    What you say is correct. DT has not come up with some new suspension concept. It is the same as all the other non HL designs he has said were inferior to the HL design he has used for so long. Turner followers take a realality check. It will not perform better than a Ventana or Kona. The shock he specs on his new frames will decide how good they ride.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    54
    This type of subject always cracks me up, do people really believe that the horst linkage makes a bike better, or actually sitting down and working out how to get the best out of your rear shock, how many folk check the right settings, then test it, then check it before every ride, this will have more of an issue than whether it has a horst link or not.

    I'll put money on the TNT version with a PUSH shock setup for the rider (weight including gear) will ride without any noticeable difference.

    As for the ICT, well Ellsworth use this as an advertising feature more than anything these days, they go on about how the 5spot isn't as good because its only using ICT version 1 whereas the new ellsworths are using version 3, but in the end Ellsworth are more professional at all the patents and paperwork, the likes of Dave Turner and Sherwood Gibson are the more professional engineers.

  27. #27
    ajr
    ajr is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Argee
    This type of subject always cracks me up, do people really believe that the horst linkage makes a bike better, or actually sitting down and working out how to get the best out of your rear shock, how many folk check the right settings, then test it, then check it before every ride, this will have more of an issue than whether it has a horst link or not.

    I'll put money on the TNT version with a PUSH shock setup for the rider (weight including gear) will ride without any noticeable difference.

    As for the ICT, well Ellsworth use this as an advertising feature more than anything these days, they go on about how the 5spot isn't as good because its only using ICT version 1 whereas the new ellsworths are using version 3, but in the end Ellsworth are more professional at all the patents and paperwork, the likes of Dave Turner and Sherwood Gibson are the more professional engineers.
    Is DT an engineer ?

  28. #28
    Trail Rider
    Reputation: Quattro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by bobflyer
    here is rear end of the new flux rear end i got from another post.. look at the exact place where the brakes are placed.. i must hand it to david.. he does really put thoght into his bikes.. and this could also put to rest some of the worries that the TNT will freeze up the suspension.. but please correct me if i am wrong about this infernece.. i am putting alot of reaearch into buy the new TNT turners.. so please give me a decent reply like dad man walking..
    On the old frame, the brake caliper was on the seatstay part of the rear. It didn't hurt braking performance. Are you referring to the rearward placement of the caliper? I haven't compared the Ventana caliper position with the Turner.
    Don

  29. #29
    Do It Yourself
    Reputation: Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,721
    Quote Originally Posted by ajr
    Is DT an engineer ?
    I could be wrong but I don't think either one of them are Professional Engineers. A Professional Engineer is licensed by the state in which they live to practice engineering. Just like Doctors, Electricians, etc, you can't advertise your services without a being a licensed. Just going to school in Engineering doesn't qualify you to be a Professional Engineer. You have to go through an apprenticeship program, take a comprehensive exam and be accepted by the State Board of Examiners.
    Long Live Long Rides

  30. #30
    Can Tree Member
    Reputation: Dad Man Walking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Actually, before disc brakes became standard, faux bar bikes often had rim brakes mounted on the seatstay. The bikes were short enough travel so that the discrepancy in rotation didn't cause a problem. The pads moved a little vertically on the rims as the suspension cycled.
    Yeah, every time I go out riding with my buddy, I end up starting at the rear end of his Ventana Marble Peak with V-brakes mounted on the seatstay. That was my point of reference in the original comment, sorry if I mislead anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    If you look at books on automotive and motorcycle design, axle path is almost never even mentioned. It's only guys talking about bicycles who are hung up on it.
    But that may be entirely appropriate. We are all running little, inefficient fractional horsepower motors with very low power/weight ratios compared to a high performance auto or motorcycle. Very different applications.

    Quote Originally Posted by xjbebob
    Nice write-up Dead Man
    That's Dad Man...
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Dad is sad.
    Very, very sad.
    He had a bad day.
    What a day Dad had!

  31. #31
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Homebrew
    I could be wrong but I don't think either one of them are Professional Engineers. A Professional Engineer is licensed by the state in which they live to practice engineering. Just like Doctors, Electricians, etc, you can't advertise your services without a being a licensed. Just going to school in Engineering doesn't qualify you to be a Professional Engineer. You have to go through an apprenticeship program, take a comprehensive exam and be accepted by the State Board of Examiners.
    So what? D.T. doesn't need to be a P.E. Competence and getting a license by the state are two different things. P.E. exams are all about liability and allowing a P.E. to sign off on designs meant for public projects. D.T. makes good bikes thus he is competent and he has a business that takes on the liability. He's not designing public bridges.

    The question is whether DT is using engineering principles in his design. I'm sure he at a minimum, has someone in house with some engineering background.

  32. #32
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480
    My dee-dee-dee question.



    Does the location on the main Chainstay pivot come into play at all? How does this effect the overall suspension characteristics, if at all, when the TNT pivot is used?

    I see a lot of focus on the HL and seatstay pivots but no mention of the main pivot location.
    Nothing to see here.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Surfas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    808
    [QUOTE=dropkirk]
    I have owned a variety of bikes - Horst Link / VPP / Single pivot, and to be truthful there ain't all that much difference.
    IMHO, in order of importance,
    1 - skill of rider
    2=- quality of frame
    2= quality of shock
    4 - suspension design
    QUOTE]

    From all Manufacturer Forums this is the best answer for all the suspension designs questions.
    When Turner had the horst link, Turner fans rave and tell that Faux bar, is bad because of this, this and …. Now Turner they tell that Faux bar is even better than previous horst link.
    Forget and let’s all go to the mountains and ride!

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,757
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    So what? D.T. doesn't need to be a P.E. Competence and getting a license by the state are two different things. P.E. exams are all about liability and allowing a P.E. to sign off on designs meant for public projects.
    You forgot the other important reason for the P.E., Expert Witness.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  35. #35
    Do It Yourself
    Reputation: Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,721
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    So what? D.T. doesn't need to be a P.E. Competence and getting a license by the state are two different things. P.E. exams are all about liability and allowing a P.E. to sign off on designs meant for public projects. D.T. makes good bikes thus he is competent and he has a business that takes on the liability. He's not designing public bridges.

    The question is whether DT is using engineering principles in his design. I'm sure he at a minimum, has someone in house with some engineering background.

    I wasn't trying to downplay Turner's ability to put out a good bike. You don't need to be an engineer, P.E. or otherwise, to do that. You can play up your engineering capabilities like E. does, e.g. f.e.a. (b.s.) but that doesn't impress me. Bikes with a good reputation for great rides do impress me. "On paper" only gets you so far. It's real world experience that make the difference. DT has plenty of that.
    Long Live Long Rides

  36. #36
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,997
    [QUOTE=Surfas]
    Quote Originally Posted by dropkirk
    I have owned a variety of bikes - Horst Link / VPP / Single pivot, and to be truthful there ain't all that much difference.
    To be truthfull, some of us have owned a variety of bikes and do notice a pretty big difference. Single pivots, faux bars, HLs, etc... If I didn't notice a difference, I wouldn't have bought an HL bike in the first place.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Homebrew
    I could be wrong but I don't think either one of them are Professional Engineers. A Professional Engineer is licensed by the state in which they live to practice engineering. Just like Doctors, Electricians, etc, you can't advertise your services without a being a licensed. Just going to school in Engineering doesn't qualify you to be a Professional Engineer. You have to go through an apprenticeship program, take a comprehensive exam and be accepted by the State Board of Examiners.
    sherwood gibson has a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    252
    I have an SP and a FSR set up with same contact points, same tyres, same pressures and the shocks set up for my weight riding style, geometries are pretty much identical, and it is impossible to discern any difference, but hell I'm from the UK and only been ridiing since 1985 so what do I know?!

  39. #39
    Bike to the Bone...
    Reputation: rzozaya1969's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    8,291
    Quote Originally Posted by mtn hack
    ...Also, if the new TNT design is as good as I expect it to be given Dave Turner's commitment to excellence, maybe it will help prove that the ICT is BS.
    I don't see why many people believe that if somebody comes with a good/great/bad idea, it will afect previous or other ideas.

    I believe that a bike is more that it's rear suspension design. And I think that a good designer will find workarounds any suspension limitations to bring a good ride. And I think that DT will come up with a very good bike even if the decides on using krazy glue and q-tips in building his suspension.

    I have a Titus Moto Lite wich I really like. But I don't think that because I like the ML I should just like the Moto Lite, Titus or the horst. Or that if somebody comes up with a newer design, or better bike, or whatever it will make my bike useless. There are a lot of different bikes I would love to have, and one high in my list is a 6-Pack or the new version for it, HL or not.

    I think it's pretty valid to argue if the HL is better or not than the TNT, or what are the advantages of each, or speculate on why Turner decided to change the HL for TNT. But what I just don't get is why some think that Dave personally insulted or betrayed them by changing its design.

    I just don't think the bike industry has come up with the absolute perfect, best, no doubt about it rear design. Besides, I think that different design favors different riders and trails, so I think that it's normal for the industry to keep searching for different designs.

    Regarding ICT and Horst, if horst is a big deal on the ICT pattern, I think that Specialized has the pattern for the horst link. So, Ell$ has a pattern that requires a Specialized licence? This is just a question.

  40. #40
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,013
    ...Also, if the new TNT design is as good as I expect it to be given Dave Turner's commitment to excellence, maybe it will help prove that the ICT is BS.
    I agree with RZ. ICT isn't BS as it's proven to be a solid suspension design/performer. There may be way overhype on it, but that's just marketing BS. If, for argument's sake, TNT performs equal to or even better than ICT, that won't make ICT BS. It will simply make ICT one of several good performing suspensions - which it already is.

    Of course mtn_hack was probably referring to the propaganda that ICT is the best design, period, then regardless of how the Fubar performs, it's safe to say ICT is BS right now. But that's hype for you. Same goes for VPP hype, Brain shock hype, HL hype, left earring hype, whatever.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188

    If you can't tell the difference....

    Quote Originally Posted by dogvet
    I have an SP and a FSR set up with same contact points, same tyres, same pressures and the shocks set up for my weight riding style, geometries are pretty much identical, and it is impossible to discern any difference, but hell I'm from the UK and only been ridiing since 1985 so what do I know?!

    If you can't tell the difference between the designs that's great, for you. I personally can tell quite a bit of difference. The bottom line is this, if you can't tell. Great, you can buy the cheapest, non effective design on the market and be happy. For the other people looking for a quality well executed design I would look at the choices that are available. Sure, if you want to do a faux bar you can run a floating brake adapter and a single chainring and it will feel alright.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188

    Not quite true...

    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    Why do you think it's new? Because it's called "TNT?" Ventana and others (Kona) have been using it for years.

    I shall make a parallellogram rear suspension bike and call it symmetrical motion techology (SMT). Will you agree it's a whole new concept?

    Actually that's not quite the case, Turner was licensing both the ICT tech and the HL tech. He opted out of the HL location, but kept all the remaining parts of the ICT. So basically its a subpar ICT technology. Otherwise known as TNT. If he was following Ventana, Kona design and then called it TNT then yes it would be correct there is no basis for it.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Actually, before disc brakes became standard, faux bar bikes often had rim brakes mounted on the seatstay. The bikes were short enough travel so that the discrepancy in rotation didn't cause a problem. The pads moved a little vertically on the rims as the suspension cycled.

    This also produced a kind of floating brake effect as the brake carrying link rotated around the instant center of the 4-bar.

    What practically everybody ignores in discussing the Horst vs. Faux bar question is that axle path doesn't explain everything. The behavior of the axle carrying link is vitally important in explaining suspension performance. And you can have virtually identical axle paths and still have quite different patterns of movement of the axle carrying link.

    If you look at books on automotive and motorcycle design, axle path is almost never even mentioned. It's only guys talking about bicycles who are hung up on it.

    Motorcycles aren't included because they are on a single arm with the chain and ring always at equal distance. Once you include derailleurs and multiple gears it completely fxcks up the system. Therefore brakejack, pedal induced bob. That's why bikes of the future will be using an internal gearing system. It will completely make this conversation a mute point. It will be a motorcycle with pedals.

    Also as a note to a post above about other things being important. If you take a Faux bar bike and drop into the small ring, big cog and climb a hill out of the saddle you will feel the suspension pulling on the cranks. So the questions that have been raised have been primarily under the circumstances that the drive train is in the middle ring aligned with the main pivot point and somewhere in the middle of the cogset. Which is why the ICT technology works well, it tracks the chainline as it goes through its travel, which makes for the bike to pedal so efficiently. So the REAL question is...Does there need to be a HL link to provide the same benefits as the ICT technology.

  44. #44
    Buckle Up
    Reputation: WheelieMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    896
    Quote Originally Posted by zaxxon
    Actually that's not quite the case, Turner was licensing both the ICT tech and the HL tech. He opted out of the HL location, but kept all the remaining parts of the ICT. So basically its a subpar ICT technology. Otherwise known as TNT. If he was following Ventana, Kona design and then called it TNT then yes it would be correct there is no basis for it.
    Huh? ICT requires the horst-link pivot... So by eliminating the horst-link pivot, TNT has absolutely nothing to do with ICT.
    <><

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188

    HL vs ICT

    Quote Originally Posted by rzozaya1969
    I don't see why many people believe that if somebody comes with a good/great/bad idea, it will afect previous or other ideas.

    I believe that a bike is more that it's rear suspension design. And I think that a good designer will find workarounds any suspension limitations to bring a good ride. And I think that DT will come up with a very good bike even if the decides on using krazy glue and q-tips in building his suspension.

    I have a Titus Moto Lite wich I really like. But I don't think that because I like the ML I should just like the Moto Lite, Titus or the horst. Or that if somebody comes up with a newer design, or better bike, or whatever it will make my bike useless. There are a lot of different bikes I would love to have, and one high in my list is a 6-Pack or the new version for it, HL or not.

    I think it's pretty valid to argue if the HL is better or not than the TNT, or what are the advantages of each, or speculate on why Turner decided to change the HL for TNT. But what I just don't get is why some think that Dave personally insulted or betrayed them by changing its design.

    I just don't think the bike industry has come up with the absolute perfect, best, no doubt about it rear design. Besides, I think that different design favors different riders and trails, so I think that it's normal for the industry to keep searching for different designs.

    Regarding ICT and Horst, if horst is a big deal on the ICT pattern, I think that Specialized has the pattern for the horst link. So, Ell$ has a pattern that requires a Specialized licence? This is just a question.

    Specialized and Ellsworth went toe to toe over the patent infringements. They decided they both had better places to spend money. So they are living in harmony. Unfortunately if you decide to do ICT you have to license the HL link as well. You don't get ICT with HL all inclusive. Last ICT is a international patent, HL is only US. The international patenting office didnt' think specialized had enough merits to claim an international patent. Which is why a crap-ton of european and canadian models use the HL link without paying any money.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zaxxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by WheelieMan
    Huh? ICT requires the horst-link pivot... So by eliminating the horst-link pivot, TNT has absolutely nothing to do with ICT.
    Yes, you are correct. But what you said about it being the same as a ventana or kona is not true. If you look at the ICT the patent is designed to keep the rear axle path in line with chain through its travel. So as the shock goes down and moves the pivot up on the rocker the virtual point in which the chainline and the suspension point meets stays constant. Unlike Ventana and Kona. So the if you DT keeps all of the pivots in the same location as the ICT, but changes the pivot on the stay, the question is does it still follow and track the chainline the same as it did with HL link. If it does, then it means that HL link is still important for brake jack issues, but should pedal similar. If it doesn't then, yes, it can be lumped into a more fauxbar style. My theory, is that because it runs similar to the ICT path, he can name it something else, before all the other Faux bar guys realize they can get the same type of pedaling out of there bikes.

    DT was using the HL link before specialized and most other Full sussers were ever using it. I rode a Turner Burner in 1994, with HL. Amp research (horst laetner) owned the patent, but didn't have enough money to fight it in courts. When Specialized bought the patent, they filed cease papers to all people using the pivot. You either signed over licensing fee or you did faux bar. That puts DT online for 11 years at least with HL link.

  47. #47
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Quote Originally Posted by zaxxon
    Specialized and Ellsworth went toe to toe over the patent infringements. They decided they both had better places to spend money. So they are living in harmony. Unfortunately if you decide to do ICT you have to license the HL link as well. You don't get ICT with HL all inclusive. Last ICT is a international patent, HL is only US. The international patenting office didnt' think specialized had enough merits to claim an international patent. Which is why a crap-ton of european and canadian models use the HL link without paying any money.
    This is actually sort of true. I can't say what happened with the dealings with S and EW, but I spoke to S's engineer in the board, Jason Chamberlain and he said, "Ellsworth is a partner in FSR".

    As far as the FSR patent, it is included in Taiwan because back when it was patented, bike production was in that country, so it barred people from infringing on it even in production sites. China does not recognize S's patent, nor does the rest of the world. I can also tell you that no one else in the world recognizes the ICT, as you can see there are many companies all over the world using the rocker angles and pivot positions of the EW bikes and nothing can be done about them.

  48. #48
    Buckle Up
    Reputation: WheelieMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    896
    Quote Originally Posted by zaxxon
    Yes, you are correct. But what you said about it being the same as a ventana or kona is not true.
    Huh? You must be confusing me with someone else. I have not mentioned kona or ventana in this thread.
    <><

  49. #49
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by WheelieMan
    Huh? You must be confusing me with someone else. I have not mentioned kona or ventana in this thread.
    You know Wheelieman and lidarman sorta sound the same, hhmmmmmm.


    I have been making that generalization. And why? Because on a faux bar, the axle is set just like on a single pivot and now the rear link really only matters in regards to the leverage ratio on the shock. It can't affect the axle path or brake one bit. Sure, you can move the main pivot around but there is nothing that hasn't been looked at by Kona or Ventana (I think the main chainstay pivots are in almost the exact same places), who, have done it successfully.
    Last edited by lidarman; 10-14-2005 at 10:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

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