Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 102
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,544

    I'm shocked, was horst link finally just a hype or what?

    WOW, I've been out for 3 weeks on vacation and the first news I read on MTBR is that Turner is changing it's suspension design for a non horst rear!!! What's this, is it that finally we've been kidding ourselves with all those years with horst link bikes and bottom line they don't really make a difference? Kona, Jamis, Ventana and a few others must be laughing right now! That may also be why Giant, SantaCruz, Intense and Iron Horse have moved to a new hype VPP design, will we learn in a few years that this was also no better than a regular single pivot bike? Is it still going to be worth is to pay extra money for a Titus or Ellsworth just to get that "hyped" rear suspension?

    Man, I've never owned a full that was not a horst link so I can't really write my opinion but I am sure a bit dissapointed right now.

    Please all of you suspension maniacs (Tscheezy, DGC, ...), give me some reassurance words, I'm sure you've had rides on many bikes at Interbike and you probably have it all figured out by now...

    Cheers.

  2. #2
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    welcome to the party M!, I know you're a bit late, just push the passed-out bodies off the couch, brush the empties off the coffee table, and open up one of those warm beers sitting on the counter.

    Three weeks around here can make a world of difference eh?
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  3. #3
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Horst links and faux bars only work the same in the states.. In the rest of the world the Horst clearly works better. That's why Devinci equip their bikes with a seat stay pivot only in the U.S. and a chain stay pivot every where else.

  4. #4
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Troll Post?

    Gotta be since if you read all the threads, you just stirred the pot some more of the same ole stuff. Of course I am compelled to reply since someone does have a gun to my head and makes me read and post!

    I'm going to sell all my bikes and get a cheap monopivot Weyless now!

    Btw the future is rubber bikes with the suspension integrated into the frame!

  5. #5
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    Troll Post?

    Gotta be since if you read all the threads, you just stirred the pot some more of the same ole stuff. Of course I am compelled to reply since someone does have a gun to my head and makes me read and post!

    I'm going to sell all my bikes and get a cheap monopivot Weyless now!

    Btw the future is rubber bikes with the suspension integrated into the frame!
    FLUBBER BIKE! Sweet!

    BTW, the wife is forcing me to post too, and we are sick of this sht.

  6. #6
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,741

    I've been depressed for a week...

    Quote Originally Posted by BanzaiRider
    WOW, I've been out for 3 weeks on vacation and the first news I read on MTBR is that Turner is changing it's suspension design for a non horst rear!!! What's this, is it that finally we've been kidding ourselves with all those years with horst link bikes and bottom line they don't really make a difference? Kona, Jamis, Ventana and a few others must be laughing right now! That may also be why Giant, SantaCruz, Intense and Iron Horse have moved to a new hype VPP design, will we learn in a few years that this was also no better than a regular single pivot bike? Is it still going to be worth is to pay extra money for a Titus or Ellsworth just to get that "hyped" rear suspension?

    Man, I've never owned a full that was not a horst link so I can't really write my opinion but I am sure a bit dissapointed right now.

    Please all of you suspension maniacs (Tscheezy, DGC, ...), give me some reassurance words, I'm sure you've had rides on many bikes at Interbike and you probably have it all figured out by now...

    Cheers.
    I think Casey and the guys finally got into drugs. I'm guessing either crack or ice. Geeze!

    Jaybo

  7. #7
    what a joke
    Reputation: ozlongboarder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Horst links and faux bars only work the same in the states.. In the rest of the world the Horst clearly works better. That's why Devinci equip their bikes with a seat stay pivot only in the U.S. and a chain stay pivot every where else.
    Interesting.........
    blah blah blah

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drumstix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybo
    I think Casey and the guys finally got into drugs. I'm guessing either crack or ice. Geeze!

    Jaybo


    Its even worse, Casey is selling road bikes in Texas!

  9. #9
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,741

    He should have built a higher wall in Houston

    Quote Originally Posted by drumstix
    Its even worse, Casey is selling road bikes in Texas!
    After the towering homer that sunk the Astros. Poor ba*tards!

    Jaybo


    PS sorry, I know most cycling geeks hate sports. Who are the Astro's? Hmm.

  10. #10
    Natl. Champ DH Poser/Hack
    Reputation: cactuscorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,942

    oh gawd!

    can we move on now? please? would someone be so kind as to point the affore mentioned gun to my head and fire if this doesnt end soon? is it possible to write a entire post in nuthin but questions?
    No, I'm NOT back!

  11. #11
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    I finally will post

    Quote Originally Posted by BanzaiRider
    WOW, I've been out for 3 weeks on vacation and the first news I read on MTBR is that Turner is changing it's suspension design for a non horst rear!!! What's this, is it that finally we've been kidding ourselves with all those years with horst link bikes and bottom line they don't really make a difference? Kona, Jamis, Ventana and a few others must be laughing right now! That may also be why Giant, SantaCruz, Intense and Iron Horse have moved to a new hype VPP design, will we learn in a few years that this was also no better than a regular single pivot bike? Is it still going to be worth is to pay extra money for a Titus or Ellsworth just to get that "hyped" rear suspension?

    Man, I've never owned a full that was not a horst link so I can't really write my opinion but I am sure a bit dissapointed right now.

    Please all of you suspension maniacs (Tscheezy, DGC, ...), give me some reassurance words, I'm sure you've had rides on many bikes at Interbike and you probably have it all figured out by now...

    Cheers.
    Did I hear my name being called for Turner TNT impressions?
    First off, relax, completely.
    I have elected to completely stay away from the posts on this, I have said absolutely nothing........til now. It got out of hand. Seems it finally has settled down some.
    Here is my take.
    We have been treating the "Horst Link" like it is the holy grail of suspension pivots and everything else sucks. In a way, like the performance image of a Ferrari against a Plymouth Neon as an example if that makes sense. However, the position of the HL has changed from years past to its current location. The current location does much less than some around here think. Yes a computer image or a linkage program will show some slight differences as even shown on Turner's own web page inside TNT link, but........................the differences are so minimal. How minimal?.......read on.
    Now take the computer out of the picture and what do you have? The human factor = the rider. Enough people have already proven at Interbike demo day how important the rider is. If there are people here saying they cannot feel the difference then it wont matter what the computer program says. ....Thats how small the difference is. Some may be set in their ways and want to be able to say otherwise just for the sake of arguing a mute point. Just go back 2 years when the 5 Spot was just out, so many non believers questioned that the 5 Spot was really as good as it was being touted and worth its asking price, and today many of those people now swear by the Turner they ride. And many more after them feel the same too. I still get e-mails from some who bought Spots 2 years ago and are still smiling about the bike itself after every ride.
    I am not trying to say its the best bike ever, I am just trying to put some things into perspective. Nothing much has changed.

    Now those who say things like they have ridden many different seat stay pivot bikes and claim the new Turner TNT bikes will exhibit the same drawbacks are not testing apples to apples, they are just talking out their left cheek......A bike that looks almost identical to another of its kind is ......... only that, look -a- like.

    For an accurate test of the Turner 5 Spot TNT (or any other Turner TNT) the non Turner against it would have to be almost to the enth millimeter the exact same dimensions and geometry throughout vs. the 5 Spot.
    I will say, a slight tweek here, 1 degree different angle there, a few millimeters down there, bigger diameter this, all make differences. Discount 100% those ideas from believers of all CS bikes perform same. No 2 different bikes perform the same.
    As for your question of is it going to still be worth it down the road a few years to pay the extra $$$ for a Titus or Ellsworth? More attention needs to be put towards what differences the current HL is actually making, and see if Specialized makes changes down the road to it then that answer will come.
    I dont like the idea of paying more $$$ for a boutique bike with what I call the same Specialized suspension drawbacks. As for Ellsworth? TE has proven plenty on his own forum what kind of person he really is. There is a reason I call it Ellsworthless.

    Sorry for the old picture quality, It is a 1995 picture.....!!!!!!.....By the way, this bike is still being ridden in Tahoe 10 years later.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by DGC; 10-18-2005 at 02:46 AM. Reason: pix
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,544
    First I want to say I'm sorry to all Turner folks for my post. I pulled the trigger too fast. I came back from vacation, checked out some Interbike photos and saw the pivot location on the 06 Turner. So I browsed very quickly the subjects, but did not see a specific discussion so I posted my stupid post immediately. I did expect it would create some level of useless posting considering the subject but honestly my intention was not to raise any kind of forum war.

    Thanks DGC for providing some info. I'll take some time to read a few other threads instead of keeping this one alive by adding my comments to an already useless thread.

    Cheers.

    Quote Originally Posted by DGC
    Did I hear my name being called for Turner TNT impressions?
    First off, relax, completely.
    I have elected to completely stay away from the posts on this, I have said absolutely nothing........til now. It got out of hand. Seems it finally has settled down some.
    Here is my take.
    We have been treating the "Horst Link" like it is the holy grail of suspension pivots and everything else sucks. In a way, like the performance image of a Ferrari against a Plymouth Neon as an example if that makes sense. However, the position of the HL has changed from years past to its current location. The current location does much less than some around here think. Yes a computer image or a linkage program will show some slight differences as even shown on Turner's own web page inside TNT link, but........................the differences are so minimal. How minimal?.......read on.
    Now take the computer out of the picture and what do you have? The human factor = the rider. Enough people have already proven at Interbike demo day how important the rider is. If there are people here saying they cannot feel the difference then it wont matter what the computer program says. ....Thats how small the difference is. Some may be set in their ways and want to be able to say otherwise just for the sake of arguing a mute point. Just go back 2 years when the 5 Spot was just out, so many non believers questioned that the 5 Spot was really as good as it was being touted and worth its asking price, and today many of those people now swear by the Turner they ride. And many more after them feel the same too. I still get e-mails from some who bought Spots 2 years ago and are still smiling about the bike itself after every ride.
    I am not trying to say its the best bike ever, I am just trying to put some things into perspective. Nothing much has changed.

    Now those who say things like they have ridden many different seat stay pivot bikes and claim the new Turner TNT bikes will exhibit the same drawbacks are not testing apples to apples, they are just talking out their left cheek......A bike that looks almost identical to another of its kind is ......... only that, look -a- like.

    For an accurate test of the Turner 5 Spot TNT (or any other Turner TNT) the non Turner against it would have to be almost to the enth millimeter the exact same dimensions and geometry throughout vs. the 5 Spot.
    I will say, a slight tweek here, 1 degree different angle there, a few millimeters down there, bigger diameter this, all make differences. Discount 100% those ideas from believers of all CS bikes perform same. No 2 different bikes perform the same.
    As for your question of is it going to still be worth it down the road a few years to pay the extra $$$ for a Titus or Ellsworth? More attention needs to be put towards what differences the current HL is actually making, and see if Specialized makes changes down the road to it then that answer will come.
    I dont like the idea of paying more $$$ for a boutique bike with what I call the same Specialized suspension drawbacks. As for Ellsworth? TE has proven plenty on his own forum what kind of person he really is. There is a reason I call it Ellsworthless.

    Sorry for the old picture quality, It is a 1995 picture.....!!!!!!.....By the way, this bike is still being ridden in Tahoe 10 years later.

  13. #13
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Horst links and faux bars only work the same in the states.. In the rest of the world the Horst clearly works better. That's why Devinci equip their bikes with a seat stay pivot only in the U.S. and a chain stay pivot every where else.
    Maybe they just sell better.

  14. #14
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573

    Proof of true 4-bar superiority?

    It should be pointed out that when Devinci first released the Banzai, now called the Remix, they said it was the result of their research with an "instrumented bike". This was a bike with all kinds of sensors at various points on the frame and a back pack carried computer.

    They were looking for info on which points were most under stress and would need reinforcement and which points could be made lighter. They were also looking for the ideal pivot placements to produce efficiency.

    What they came up with looks somewhere between an Ellsworth and a Turner. The drop-out pivot is very close to and right ahead of the axle, like an Ellsworth. The rocker arm is shorter and more angled than an Ellsworth--more like a Turner.

    The bike fell within the claims of the ICT patent, which is international, and Devinci licensed ICT from Ellsworth and put on a sticker.

    Presumably, the reason they do not sell the true 4-bar version in the U.S. is that Specialized won't let them. They would have to license from both just as Dave Turner did.

  15. #15
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,531
    Oh, enough on this topic already!
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  16. #16
    FleshwoundGravityResearch
    Reputation: mtn hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    It ... did.
    Cross posting crap. Go away.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    157
    "For an accurate test of the Turner 5 Spot TNT (or any other Turner TNT) the non Turner against it would have to be almost to the enth millimeter the exact same dimensions and geometry throughout vs. the 5 Spot."

    We could now have just such a test by taking a new 05 5-Spot and when availabel a new 06 5-Spot and outfit them with identical components and test them side by side as the rest of the bikes appear to be the same except for the near rear wheel pivot. Then have a number of different riders of different abilities test ride them on varying terrain. You could probably shroud the axle areas on both bikes to make it a true blind test.

    I'm sure Turner has allready done this and according to their sales info you can't tell the difference. I believe that there will be differences in some situations and that in certain situations the Horst link will perform better, most likely traction during pedalling and braking under loose and bumpy condtions. There will probably also be condtions where the single pivot performs better, most likely smooth dry hardpack. Anybody got a spare 10 grand for a couple of real nice bikes?

  18. #18
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Or someone could just acquire a TNT rear triangle and bolt it onto an existing HL Spot.
    But then you'd have to trust that person's opinion, and ability to tell the difference, and accecpt their riding style and terrain might play a factor.

    If the two are really close in performance, I suspect it's going to be very difficult to get a fix on the different ride reviews.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    My inclination is that when the TNT bikes hit the street, the bubble will be burst and people will get to see in real life that they can't tell the difference and Turners are the sum of many parts, only one of which was the nostalgic use of the HL.

    People will see, just like at IB that he designs great riding bikes. HL or not.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,544
    OK, I've had enough, stop posting in this lame thread of mine or I'm moving to the Ells forum

    Noooo, I could not do that, I'm already quite a bad guy not even a Turner owner and posting here all the time to get answers to my "sometimes" stupid questions.

    Anyway, I've done my homework now and my thread is definitely useless, there are plenty of other interesting (and not so interesting) threads which cover the subject very thoroughly so please stop posting in this one and if there is a moderator in the house, I would be happy if my thread would just be removed completely.

    Thanks guys, I hope most of you will not be angry with me, next time I go on vacation I'll do my homework before posting a stupid one like this.

    Cheers.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,684

    $15

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy
    Maybe they just sell better.
    it is just that manifacturers get tired (perhaphs rightly so) of giving $15 to Specialized for each frame they produce. Blame the idiotic laws of the USA that allow a coorporation to buy rights on "inventions" they did not develop. (To look at another idiotic example: the long tentacles of Specialized seems to be able to reach to Stratos now, pushing the quite wonderful ID inertia valve out of production).

    It is also less expensive to build a faux-bar and Turner will be getting a little nice extra $/frame. This of course assuming somebody buys a Turner next year it will be kind of a foolish thing to do with Ventana (and Sycip ... and Kona!) around ...

    and without mentioning the systems that work better from a start. IBIS DW (which might be too risky for the homer conservative types) the VPP (that ought to be better than a faux-bar, don't they?), all the nice Mestro-DW-VPP linkage floating around and of course the Horst/ITC variants Titus, Nicolai, Ellsworth, Scott ...
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Davide; 10-18-2005 at 08:12 PM.

  22. #22
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    bingo.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Or someone could just acquire a TNT rear triangle and bolt it onto an existing HL Spot.
    But then you'd have to trust that person's opinion, and ability to tell the difference, and accecpt their riding style and terrain might play a factor.

    If the two are really close in performance, I suspect it's going to be very difficult to get a fix on the different ride reviews.
    Hey Zilla,
    I will be doing such a test just like that soon enough. DT is sending me a TNT rear end to bolt onto my 2005 Spot. It will get ridden for weeks on the same trails i have been riding for the past 12 years.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    415

    Upset

    Quote Originally Posted by DGC
    Hey Zilla,
    I will be doing such a test just like that soon enough. DT is sending me a TNT rear end to bolt onto my 2005 Spot. It will get ridden for weeks on the same trails i have been riding for the past 12 years.
    I should be getting my '06 demo bike soon in 10 days or so. I know more than 3 HL spot owners that we could swap bikes during a ride to compare them. Drawback is that all other components will be different. Your test will be a better benchmark and mine will have more riders' input. Once in for all HL vs TNT will be put to rest.

  24. #24
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,741

    It doesn't make sense

    A lot of guys, myself included, are done buying Turner's because of the change. Why do it? It certainly isn't a selling point for the company. Is it a legal issue? A profit issue? I would rather pay another $100 and get a HL. I'm really not getting it. By the way, I owned a seatstay pivot bike, it did not brake nearly as well as my Turner. I hope the new seatstay bike (errr, TNT) is as good as the HL. However, I would not hold my breath.

    Jaybo

  25. #25
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Guys like you aren't in the market for a new bike anyway.

  26. #26
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    well

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybo
    A lot of guys, myself included, are done buying Turner's because of the change. Why do it? It certainly isn't a selling point for the company. Is it a legal issue? A profit issue? I would rather pay another $100 and get a HL. I'm really not getting it. By the way, I owned a seatstay pivot bike, it did not brake nearly as well as my Turner. I hope the new seatstay bike (errr, TNT) is as good as the HL. However, I would not hold my breath.

    Jaybo
    Consider what JC said.....if your not in the market, why bother getting worked up over it before they are even out. Now onto your questions:

    I will just say this: Dont hold it against DT personally or Turner Bicycles as a whole. Dont get too worked up about it either, the explanation I would guess will come in time then everyone will know the answer to your question why? In the meantime myself and a few others will be testing the TNT against HL rear ends soon enough. You need to read my response above about the seat stay bikes vs. HL's closer.
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  27. #27
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,741

    Conviction should mean something

    Quote Originally Posted by DGC
    Consider what JC said.....if your not in the market, why bother getting worked up over it before they are even out. Now onto your questions:

    I will just say this: Dont hold it against DT personally or Turner Bicycles as a whole. Dont get too worked up about it either, the explanation I would guess will come in time then everyone will know the answer to your question why? In the meantime myself and a few others will be testing the TNT against HL rear ends soon enough. You need to read my response above about the seat stay bikes vs. HL's closer.
    Does DT actually believe the informaton he has been telling us for years or is it just marketing dribble? Did he believe the HL makes a bike brake, pedal, etc better? There has to be a legal reason. The Turner website certainly doesn't state the TNT is better. Just maybe not worse. There has to be a legal reason for all this. I have read your post.

    I may not be in the market but mountain biking is rough sport. I could destroy a frame. Heck! I'm a pretty average mechanic. I would destroy a bike changing the pivots

    Jaybo

  28. #28
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    JB IMO it's a little premature to throw in the towel.

    If as you suggest the TNT is "Just maybe not worse" then wouldn't it be pretty much the same? If that's true, then it's still, by your own assertion the best trail bike you've had. If that's true, then wouldn't switching to another brand, simply b/c it's a HL, be accecpting a compromise in the total bike performance / feel ?

    I have no idea how much a difference the TNT is going to make but I see it as quite likely to be much less a difference than going to a completely different bike.
    Last edited by Bikezilla; 10-19-2005 at 09:39 AM.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  29. #29
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    Blame the idiotic laws of the USA that allow a corporation to buy rights on "inventions" they did not develop.
    FYI: Similar patent laws exist worldwide. Patents are properties just like a car or house. You can sell or lease it if you want to.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  30. #30
    Knomer
    Reputation: Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    JB IMO it's a little premature to throw in the towel.

    If as you suggest the TNT is "Just maybe not worse" then wouldn't it be pretty much the same? If that's true, then it's still, by your own assertion the best trail bike you've had. If that's true, then wouldn't switching to another brand, simply b/c it's a HL, be accecpting a compromise in the total bike performance / feel ?

    I have no idea how much a difference the TNT is going to make but I see it as quite likely to be much less a difference than going to a completely different bike.
    How can TNT possibly be the same as HL if Dave Turner has been swearing by the HL since the inception of Turner bikes? The fact is, he's either been BSing about HL for the last 10 years, or he's BSing now about TNT. The new bike might ride great, but this blind loyalty to ride whatever DT produces is freaking hilarious.(not referring to you personally). There are too many cool bikes and designs out there.
    Director of Sales: Knolly Bikes

  31. #31
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    I'm sure the new TNT and the HL bikes both ride well, I don't know which rides better.

    All I know is the "Quality without Compromise" marketing phrase is now not applicable.

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    132

    gettin freaked on horst

    [QUOTE=this blind loyalty to ride whatever DT produces is freaking hilarious.[/QUOTE]

    blind loyalty to HL is also freaking hilarious................every freakin design out there has some kind of compromise because, like all of us, nothing is perfect...........now i am going to go cry about it.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,544
    Well since you guys wont stop posting in my thread, I think I will permit myself to lay down my opinion.

    Since I don't own a Turner maybe my opinion is kind of more objective than many others here. However, I don't own a Turner for financial reasons only because I love the 5-spot and 6-pack, if I had the money at the time, I would have one instead of my cheaper but very similar Banzai.

    What irritates me most in this whole Turner saga is not the fact that a Turner bike will now be less of a performer without the HL and not because DT would have lied to everybody for years.

    It's a lot of people in the bike industry that frustrates me. The magazines, the HL bike manufacturers (Spec, Ells, Turner, Titus, Devinci, etc...) and also some of the MTBR members, all those people that have been bragging about HL, that have been demolishing other suspension design as inferior and so forth. I personally relied on the "professional' opinion of those people to buy a HL bike instead of, for example, a Giant VT, a Kona Dawg or a SantaCruz Heckler because, heck, a HL bike was supposed to be so much better. As a consumer, I don't have the opportunity to try out all those bikes at Interbike, I don't work for a bike shop and I ride most of the time alone or with my GF so I don't have a wide circle of friends with all sorts of different bikes to try out. So I rely on the industry, the magazines and my MTBR buddies to forge my opinion on what's best to buy.

    So suddenly, after years of hype, just because Mr. Turner switches over to faux 4-bar, well horst link may still be a bit better, but it's so insignificant that you are much better off still buying a Turner for all the other advantages a Turner offers.

    Well yes, I still agree with that statement! A Turner really offers A LOT of advantages over other bikes, BUT, for me, it's finding the "best" rear suspension design that makes me happy and if suddenly HL is nothing but a tiny advantage, just an insignificant difference versus a regular faux 4-bar then I feel that I've been a bit deceived by all those years of BS and I don't hold JUST Mr.Turner responsible for it, many others have and are still lying about it (Titus, Ells, ...).

    So, bottom line, I think this whole issue by Turner brings up so much crap on the forum because a lot of "non technical" regular joe rider/consumer like me feel they have been somewhat deceived by an industry they so much love.

    Ho well, it will pass, probably in a few months we wont be talking about it anymore, Turner non HL bikes will have proved to be as nice as their predecessor HL and some will still buy them, others will buy something else and life will be good because trails don't mind if you ride a HL, a Turner or a hardtail, they are there to bring you fun and sometimes kick you off your saddle, specially if you ride a non HL bike!

    Hope I didn't bore you too much.

    Cheers

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    You made some good points. Advent of a design change:

    1. Another businessman, happens to be better at it than DT, patents DT's design. DT arrived at it from trial and error over the years, while the other guy took Turners apart over the years and reverse engineered them to find the basis for their riding charateristics. Makes bikes along this reasoning, DT does not cry foul, nor tries to patent it. He just wants to concentrate on the bikes and the cs.
    2. Because he's a dirtbag, and has a history of screwing over other industry partners, the other guy decides to crush his most direct competitor.
    3. Asks for a high license fee. DT figures he'll just license it until he can make his next move, talk to attoneys, etc.
    4. Prior art is there, but the fight would ruin both companies financially. Perhaps DT first. Effect would be that we would not have the great CS during the fight, as well as after the companies fold.
    5. The other guy claims himself as the inventor, furthermore claiming DT was inspired by him to use the design.
    6. DT speaks to lawyers and they point out that removal of the HL will put the whole design outside of the patent's parameters. A tough pill to swallow, since DT has been using the HL simply because he can, as well as being there from the beginning. It was also a good marketing tool.
    7. He decides to just try the non-horst 4 bar out, found that it's less fool-proof to design it to feel like a HL bike, but worked very hard on his design. Takes more engineering to make the non-horst equal, but the Turner HL was mostly a device of nostalgia, due to its positioning.
    8. Tries out said bike. Bike performs like a Turner.

  35. #35
    ajr
    ajr is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    You made some good points. Advent of a design change:

    1. Another businessman, happens to be better at it than DT, patents DT's design. DT arrived at it from trial and error over the years, while the other guy took Turners apart over the years and reverse engineered them to find the basis for their riding charateristics. Makes bikes along this reasoning, DT does not cry foul, nor tries to patent it. He just wants to concentrate on the bikes and the cs.
    2. Because he's a dirtbag, and has a history of screwing over other industry partners, the other guy decides to crush his most direct competitor.
    3. Asks for a high license fee. DT figures he'll just license it until he can make his next move, talk to attoneys, etc.
    4. Prior art is there, but the fight would ruin both companies financially. Perhaps DT first. Effect would be that we would not have the great CS during the fight, as well as after the companies fold.
    5. The other guy claims himself as the inventor, furthermore claiming DT was inspired by him to use the design.
    6. DT speaks to lawyers and they point out that removal of the HL will put the whole design outside of the patent's parameters. A tough pill to swallow, since DT has been using the HL simply because he can, as well as being there from the beginning. It was also a good marketing tool.
    7. He decides to just try the non-horst 4 bar out, found that it's less fool-proof to design it to feel like a HL bike, but worked very hard on his design. Takes more engineering to make the non-horst equal, but the Turner HL was mostly a device of nostalgia, due to its positioning.
    8. Tries out said bike. Bike performs like a Turner.
    I am lucky enough to have two customers who are suspension experts. One is a suspension consultant to Ford WRC and the other Williams F1. They both ride faux bar frames for there own reasons even though they could have bought Turner. They have been amused by the amount of misinformed comments on the TNT design. The rear link plays no part in the action of the suspension as a lot of people on this forum imagine it does. The design is no better than any other non HL design that has been said to be inferior to the HL design that for so long has been a major selling point for Turner frames. I have ridden Turner frames since 95 and was blinded by the HL into thinking I was one the top design. When I swopped to a non HL frame it did not make any noticeable difference and I have never missed it. This may be due to the fact I ride another top quality frame. On paper the HL is marginally better in reality not so. I think the main reason so many Turner owners are upset by this change around is that they feel they can no longer look at other frame designs and imagine that they have something superior. We can all get blinded by BS TNT is nothing new.

  36. #36
    Buckle Up
    Reputation: WheelieMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    896
    Quote Originally Posted by ajr
    The rear link plays no part in the action of the suspension as a lot of people on this forum imagine it does.
    Huh? Can you elaborate on this? So can a pivot be placed anywhere and the bike will always ride the same??? Clearly you are misinterpreting your friends' opinions.
    <><

  37. #37
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Perhaps that statement should be corrected to say "Plays no part on a bike the way people think it does.

  38. #38
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by ajr
    I am lucky enough to have two customers who are suspension experts.
    The guys who came up with the Horst link and the ICT design are also, respectively, motorcycle and automotive "suspension experts".

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,684
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    FYI: Similar patent laws exist worldwide. Patents are properties just like a car or house. You can sell or lease it if you want to.
    I know ... but it is till annoying: it is skewing the whole USA bicycle market for really no reason other than profit ...

  40. #40
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    I know ... but it is till annoying: it is skewing the whole USA bicycle market for really no reason other than profit ...
    I hear you but it's really part of doing business. Companies spend hundreds of thousands to billions of dollars to develop something; surely you want some market exclusivity to recoup your cost and make a profit. That's why it's good business practice to file patents on your idea before someone else does and messes you up. One should take advantage of the system and not ignore it since licensing patents can be a good source of revenue.
    Last edited by SCUBAPRO; 10-20-2005 at 01:36 PM.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  41. #41
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by DGC
    Hey Zilla,
    I will be doing such a test just like that soon enough. DT is sending me a TNT rear end to bolt onto my 2005 Spot. It will get ridden for weeks on the same trails i have been riding for the past 12 years.
    It won't be a fiar test anyway... is it just me or somewhere over here DT said the pivot location on the TNT moved a bit to mimic the HL wheelpath??

    If so, the TNT swingarm will work in a different position from what's it's intended while mounted on the HL front end.
    Check my Site

  42. #42
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    nope

    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    It won't be a fiar test anyway... is it just me or somewhere over here DT said the pivot location on the TNT moved a bit to mimic the HL wheelpath??

    If so, the TNT swingarm will work in a different position from what's it's intended while mounted on the HL front end.
    HL version 05 main frame and 06 TNT main frame's are identical, nothing changed there at all.
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  43. #43
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    DGC, Kewl on you for getting the resources to test both rear triangles. It ought to be a interesting experiment. I suspect some others may soon be doing the same thing.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrashTheDOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,470
    Hey DGC, is that a white Spot frame I see you riding in the last pic or are you on a 6 Pack? I can't imagine a non-36 Vanilla on a Pack.

  45. #45
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    DGC, Kewl on you for getting the resources to test both rear triangles(That's the seat stay AND chanstay, Warp ). It ought to be a interesting experiment. I suspect some others may soon be doing the same thing.
    LOL!!!

    DGC thanks for the insight. Obviously my memory was not clear.

    All this mess reinforces my theory that the execution is more important thatn the design itself.

    I don't wanna beat a dead horse but there are some who have held its position regarding this mess of SP / HL and some others that don't... and that's good. Diversity is a good thing in any field.

    Kudos to DT for the courage to renounce to HL... I don't have a doubt the TNT's will be great bikes. The DHR is a SP and is a great bike.
    Check my Site

  46. #46
    Team Sanchez
    Reputation: El Chingon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,366
    Crash,

    Quit posting stupid questions, and get back to work so we can ride tonight!

  47. #47
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    silver/white

    Quote Originally Posted by CrashTheDOG
    Hey DGC, is that a white Spot frame I see you riding in the last pic or are you on a 6 Pack? I can't imagine a non-36 Vanilla on a Pack.
    The lack of a real good camera sux sometimes. That is my 05 silver spot, the camera decided to show otherwise.
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    The guys who came up with the Horst link and the ICT design are also, respectively, motorcycle and automotive "suspension experts".
    Doesn't seem to be many Horst Link motorbikes out there at the moment. They appear to be all single pivots. Not a chainstay pivot in sight.

    We're talking here about subtle differences in rear wheel path geometry. It's not a big deal for me because I can see the bigger picture and weigh the influence of the HL accordingly (i.e fairly trivial unless you work in advertising). You get similar discussions in the automotive world regarding kinematic roll centres, wheel paths etc, etc and at the end of the day there are other more important parameters that hardly get a mention. Usually because they don't market as effectively.

    Anyway, let's see if these Turner guys can actually tell the difference between HL and TNT. That will prove how significant the HL design is in the real world. The HL Turners were obviously great bikes, but not just because they had a HL. IMHO they will be equally good with TNT/Faux Bar or whatever you wish to call it. They might even be slightly better!

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by WheelieMan
    Huh? Can you elaborate on this? So can a pivot be placed anywhere and the bike will always ride the same??? Clearly you are misinterpreting your friends' opinions.
    I'm one of the friends he's referring to and what he means is that the HL doesn't affect how the suspension fundamentally operates. It only changes the rear wheel path marginally compared to an equivalent 'Faux Bar" or TNT in this case. It has no effect on how the suspension reacts to inputs from the ground or rider. There are people who will argue that braking is better with the HL due to reduced caliper rotation, but I don't believe them! There are also people who will argue that HL bikes have less pedal bob and more traction than any Faux Bar. Again it doesn't make sense to me and I refuse to believe it. Perhaps engineers are just harder to convince than the press

    I'll gladly eat my hat if someone proves otherwise, but so far I haven't heard a convincing argument to say that a HL bike is fundamentally superior to a Faux Bar in any measurable way. That's not to say I think Faux Bars are any better, more a statement of indifference. I'm guessing that's the conclusion DT has reached too after many years of development and evolution.

  50. #50
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    Doesn't seem to be many Horst Link motorbikes out there at the moment. They appear to be all single pivots. Not a chainstay pivot in sight.

    We're talking here about subtle differences in rear wheel path geometry. It's not a big deal for me because I can see the bigger picture and weigh the influence of the HL accordingly (i.e fairly trivial unless you work in advertising). You get similar discussions in the automotive world regarding kinematic roll centres, wheel paths etc, etc and at the end of the day there are other more important parameters that hardly get a mention. Usually because they don't market as effectively.

    Anyway, let's see if these Turner guys can actually tell the difference between HL and TNT. That will prove how significant the HL design is in the real world. The HL Turners were obviously great bikes, but not just because they had a HL. IMHO they will be equally good with TNT/Faux Bar or whatever you wish to call it. They might even be slightly better!
    There are several motorcycles with drive shafts and 4-bar suspensions.

    Dave Weagle of DW link predicts that quality motorcycles in the future will have chain drives and 4-bar linkage suspensions (not to be confused with linkage driven shocks, which already exist). Presumably, he has his linkage in mind.

    If there is a significant difference between the pedaling behavior of Horst/ICT bikes and faux bars or single pivots, it's going to have to be because of something other than simply axle path differences.

    Turner guys are not the ones who should be testing to see if any difference can be detected. Better would be riders who never heard of Turner, or at least who don't care one way or the other.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    There are several motorcycles with drive shafts and 4-bar suspensions.

    Dave Weagle of DW link predicts that quality motorcycles in the future will have chain drives and 4-bar linkage suspensions (not to be confused with linkage driven shocks, which already exist). Presumably, he has his linkage in mind.

    If there is a significant difference between the pedaling behavior of Horst/ICT bikes and faux bars or single pivots, it's going to have to be because of something other than simply axle path differences.

    Turner guys are not the ones who should be testing to see if any difference can be detected. Better would be riders who never heard of Turner, or at least who don't care one way or the other.
    I knew you'd think of some obscure 4-bar motorbike out there. Come back to me when one of these wins a World Championship or two.

    Of course you can make a single pivot design pedal in lots of different ways just by moving the main pivot around. Of course you can also mess around with virtual pivots and swingarms to get similar effects on other designs. But having a HL doesn't allow you to suddenly transcend the laws of physics. I'm just saying that a well designed Faux Bar or SP will perform in the real world just as well as a more complicated HL. There are loads of practical examples of this e.g. Yeti 575, Ventana X5, Orange Patriot, Cannondale Prophet. These are all contemporary SP and Faux Bar bikes that are a match for their HL peers. And why aren't we seeing more HL downhill bikes? In fact I'm struggling to think of any.

  52. #52
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    I would like to add.....

    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    I'm one of the friends he's referring to and what he means is that the HL doesn't affect how the suspension fundamentally operates. It only changes the rear wheel path marginally compared to an equivalent 'Faux Bar" or TNT in this case. It has no effect on how the suspension reacts to inputs from the ground or rider. There are people who will argue that braking is better with the HL due to reduced caliper rotation, but I don't believe them! There are also people who will argue that HL bikes have less pedal bob and more traction than any Faux Bar. Again it doesn't make sense to me and I refuse to believe it. Perhaps engineers are just harder to convince than the press

    I'll gladly eat my hat if someone proves otherwise, but so far I haven't heard a convincing argument to say that a HL bike is fundamentally superior to a Faux Bar in any measurable way. That's not to say I think Faux Bars are any better, more a statement of indifference. I'm guessing that's the conclusion DT has reached too after many years of development and evolution.
    A few went to the i-bike demo day with their own HL turner to ride against the now new TNT version and came away saying.....I cant tell the difference. This will be interesting: how many of the people here who shoot TNT down hard and believe the HL is the holy grail of pivots, once they ride the TNT will they be able to be totally honest and give TNT its due, or will they refuse to believe a seat stay bike can ride the exact equal performance???
    As you said, and I will re-iterate the differences here or so slight. On paper there might be a slight difference but to the rider which is the most important, I highly doubt it can be felt.
    A lot of us dont or didnt realize that the recent position of the HL does very little anymore. Weve all just thought ...."its got a HL, it must be gods gift to mountain bikes"....Deep inside the industry including ALL the magazine test riders, and us regular folk included are still learning about suspension and its effects. The HL was different a few years ago with bikes like the GT LTS and Giant NRS both of which had much lower and farther forward HL's. There are good and bad HL bikes just as there are good and bad seat stay bikes. The HL bike does not automatically rule.
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  53. #53
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    I knew you'd think of some obscure 4-bar motorbike out there.
    BMW is hardly an obscure company. Nobody said we had to be limited to racing bikes.

    And I think there are or have been 4-bar racing motorcycles on the circuit but I don't know enough about it to name one.
    Last edited by Steve from JH; 10-20-2005 at 07:02 PM.

  54. #54
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    yes and no

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    There are several motorcycles with drive shafts and 4-bar suspensions.

    Dave Weagle of DW link predicts that quality motorcycles in the future will have chain drives and 4-bar linkage suspensions (not to be confused with linkage driven shocks, which already exist). Presumably, he has his linkage in mind.

    If there is a significant difference between the pedaling behavior of Horst/ICT bikes and faux bars or single pivots, it's going to have to be because of something other than simply axle path differences.

    Turner guys are not the ones who should be testing to see if any difference can be detected. Better would be riders who never heard of Turner, or at least who don't care one way or the other.
    Only commenting on your last 2 lines, I agree its a good idea to get as many different riders on the bike and give input, but for those who you say have not heard of Turner are likely not into riding as we all are, they may not even have a clue what to look for or what a HL is. If they dont care, well then no matter to them what this all means, the more someone knows what to look for the more it may surface. Just my opinion.
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  55. #55
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    [QUOTE=Steve from JH]
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    I knew you'd think of some obscure 4-bar motorbike out there.]/QUOTE]
    BMW is hardly an obscure company. Nobody said we had to be limited to racing bikes.

    And I think there are or have been 4-bar racing motorcycles on the circuit but I don't know enough about it to name one.
    Not to be a jerk Steve, I really admire your knowledge. I'd like to know at least twice as you do but...

    If you can't think of any is because they haven't won a thing. All higly competition motorbikes are SP's (no matter if they're linkage driven or not).

    BMW's Paralever (that's what they call their 4-Bar) has received some complains of weakness on the bearings holding the arrangement, getting the bearings a rather short life.

    Also, it increases the spreading of mass distribution and you know what that means as you've written many times about it.

    Here goes an extract of a review of a BMW motorcycle and the link to it:

    "The suspension has some advantages over conventional systems, but the downside is additional unsprung weight. BMW has minimised this on the 1200 but its suspension still weighs more than that of a chain-driven bike with conventional forks, and the ride quality suffers accordingly. At speed the ride can be fidgety and big bumps jar more than you'd like, while some of the corrugated surfaces we experienced off-road utterly defeated the suspension, the wheels kicking off the ground so much that steering and braking control were significantly diminished. On metalled roads the front end always has an anaesthetised feel compared with most, but these losses are a fair trade against the gains."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...30/emfbm31.xml

    So... not everything is nice in the 4-bar world. I don't doubt 4-Bars will get better with time... in the end, what haven't?

    Again... it's not the design itself but its implementation and execution.
    Check my Site

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 006_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,907
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    . And why aren't we seeing more HL downhill bikes? In fact I'm struggling to think of any.
    Isnt the Demo 9 essentially a HL?

  57. #57
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,363
    A lot of people who walked up to the Turner booth at the Interbike Dirt Demo had no idea that any changes had been made to the bikes. They walked up, grabbed a scooter, sped off, and came back smiling.

    Were they expecting something and so their brains simply delivered the goods? Was the ride quality indistinguishable from the HL Turners? Does it matter?

    DT told me he is actually more interested in how the TNT bikes stack up to current models being sold by other companies than how they fare against the HL Turner models. He has a point, though for pure curiositie's sake, I'd also like to do a longer side-by-side comparison TNT vs HL.

    In the end, the 6-Pack took most of the other Interbike demo bikes to the woodshed. That's pretty much good enough for me.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  58. #58
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007
    Isnt the Demo 9 essentially a HL?
    The Demo 9 is very close to the Ellsworth Dare in pivot positions.

    Mark Weir won Downieville last year on a Dare.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    29

    Unique Opportunity

    While many of us seem tired of the subject, I'm very interested by what seems to be an unique opportunity to test HL vs. non-HL. I can't think of any other situations where there are identical frames with just the one change (i.e. pivot location) unless this has been done during prototyping by some of the bike companies.

    Anyway...I'm really looking forward to some of the feedback from folks who are going to try to set up 05 and 06 Spots identically for a test.

    On another topic, some have expressed feelings of betrayal stemming from being "conned" by DT over earlier claims that HL was the best suspension configuration. I've wondered if he himself truly thought that this was the case and in fact was surprised at how little difference it made once he had produced a test mule with the TNT design.

    Does anyone know if Dave has experimented with "faux" bar designs before?

  60. #60
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,008
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007
    Isnt the Demo 9 essentially a HL?
    It IS a horst link. It may have a massive falling rate due to where they mounted the shock (which is fixed with a progressive/swinger/DHX style shock), but the linkage is horst link (FSR). Specialized just came up with a way to make it "look different", which is what you have to do when you have a design that works great, but doesn't get changed for a few years. To keep it "fresh" you have to have some new aspect...make it look different, etc...
    "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.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    934
    I'd bet it's safe to say Mark Weir could have won that race on a non ICT bike. The dude got skills.

    -Sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    The Demo 9 is very close to the Ellsworth Dare in pivot positions.

    Mark Weir won Downieville last year on a Dare.

  62. #62
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    T
    Mark Weir won Downieville last year on a Dare.
    Sorry Steve, but this kind of support is meaningless...but exactly why companies hire the best pro riders they can afford!

  63. #63
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: dpdsurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by SinglePivot
    I'd bet it's safe to say Mark Weir could have won that race on a non ICT bike. The dude got skills.

    -Sp
    very safe to say since he won it on a Nomad this year and broke his own record

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    It IS a horst link. It may have a massive falling rate due to where they mounted the shock (which is fixed with a progressive/swinger/DHX style shock), but the linkage is horst link (FSR). Specialized just came up with a way to make it "look different", which is what you have to do when you have a design that works great, but doesn't get changed for a few years. To keep it "fresh" you have to have some new aspect...make it look different, etc...
    Yeah, but the point here is so what. Does this make it better than its rival single pivot DH bikes? I don't think so, just another way of skinning the proverbial cat.

  65. #65
    Trail Rider
    Reputation: Quattro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by DGC
    Hey Zilla,
    I will be doing such a test just like that soon enough. DT is sending me a TNT rear end to bolt onto my 2005 Spot. It will get ridden for weeks on the same trails i have been riding for the past 12 years.
    My guess is that the comparison will yield the typical response from owners of well built seatstay pivot, low(main) pivot bikes." I couldn't tell the difference". When I bought my Tracer(old fashioned HL) I built it up with everything but the brakes(non disc), and the wheels and tires. I took my old single(low pivot) C'dale out on my local trail that I've ridden for over 15 years, on a Saturday. I swapped brakes,and wheels(tires) off of the single pivot onto the Tracer. I rode the same trail on Sunday. Here is what I noticed.

    The Tracer wasn't as plush. The out of saddle sprinting on the Tracer produced less bob(in the same chainring). Climbing on both bikes worked well. Depending on the terrain, one worked a little better (different)than the other. Both performed well, seated. Some terrain favored the HL over the single pivot, while some smoother climbs favored the single pivot. Pedal feedback occured only occasionally(over the years) on the single pivot in rocky slow climbs. The HL had none. The C'dale had a stiffer rear end.

    Braking was different. In steep, rocky, loose terrain, the Tracer performed better. Much better control on the HL. The difference was not like night and day, but there was a difference.

    My guess is that most riders won't be able to tell the difference. It also depends on riding style of the individual. A good rider will easily be able to compensate for the differences. The new shocks help with the bob. Fit and weight preference are more important, overall.
    I prefer the HL.

    I'm looking for a 7 lb. trailbike frame(air shock) with 5.5 - 6 inches of travel. I won't buy an Ellsworth and am apprehensive about the pivots on the VPP bikes.
    Last edited by Quattro; 10-21-2005 at 05:00 AM.
    Don

  66. #66
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Didn't tcheezy do a review of Ventana or Yeti (or both) some time back and the conclusion was there wasn't a difference he could tell?

  67. #67
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Didn't tcheezy do a review of Ventana or Yeti (or both) some time back and the conclusion was there wasn't a difference he could tell?
    Yep he did.

    '04 575 review here
    more thoughs here
    and here
    and here
    There were many others.

    Funny thing how a few folks here insist there will not be reliable honest reviews on the TnT from the Homers. Especially since so many non-Homer ppl come here specifically for technical info and product reviews.
    Last edited by Bikezilla; 10-21-2005 at 07:34 AM.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fat Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    943

    Waitaminute!

    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    I know ... but it is till annoying: it is skewing the whole USA bicycle market for really no reason other than profit ...
    Are you saying that private business owners are trying to make profits in this country? Where's Fidel Castro when we need him?

  69. #69
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,013
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman
    Sorry Steve, but this kind of support is meaningless...but exactly why companies hire the best pro riders they can afford!
    Steve fell for it. I'm sure there are countless others that do as well. Of course he doesn't mention the "other" downhill champ who wins on a single pivot. Without a floating brake even...

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shepherd Wong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    321
    It would be nice if the people claiming that the HL brake better due to scientific reasons and physics could say how much average compression force was present locking up the rear wheel on asphalt going 20 to 15 miles per hour, 150 lb. rider(note I picked these conditions because they actually seem doable). And say how many newtons less it was on the HL bike than a TNT bike. And then say how this compares to the extension force on the suspension due to the center of mass shifting. And then to carefully explain why less compression force would be better realizing that there is a big extesion force due to com shifting. I don't doubt that HL bikes will behave differently, but how much is one question, and the other is why is this behavior actually better?

  71. #71
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy
    Steve fell for it. I'm sure there are countless others that do as well. Of course he doesn't mention the "other" downhill champ who wins on a single pivot. Without a floating brake even...
    When was the last time a 4-bar won a World Championship or World Cup (any kind of MTB racing)??

    Champions racing SP's:
    - Steve Peat
    - Gregg Minaar (both Orange and Honda)
    - Nico Vouilloz
    - Anne Caro Chausson

    Oh... Phillip Meirhaege won a XC WC on a 4-bar... unfortunately he was on EPO so we'll never know if the bike was good enough.

    Vicotries for HL:

    Kyle Strait at the Red Bull Rampage (which was dominated the year before by Cedric Gracia aboard a single pivot).

    What do all this proves?? That it's all about the rider, not the bike. Like the Red Baron said: "It's not the box, it's the man in the box". I would say that with 80 victories Mr. Richthoffen's arguments hold some water.

    Maybe the new TNT's will ride just different but I don't think that neither worst nor better than the HL's. Just different.
    Check my Site

  72. #72
    Roy
    Roy is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    Maybe the new TNT's will ride just different but I don't think that neither worst nor better than the HL's. Just different.
    I would agree with this *if* it's even detectable. So far riders on both haven't been able to tell the difference so this means the 2 are very close in performance. Some may detect a difference and it will be just that - different: but not by much.

    Note we are comparing apples to apples: a Turner with 2 different rear ends. Not 2 completely different bikes using different rear ends (i.e. there's not doubt in my mind a Truth will ride noticeably different than a Kona 4" FB; but there's also no doubt in my mind a Devinci FB will ride different than a Kona FB).

    I also have no doubt that using the present modeling technology/mathematics, there is a theoretical difference. The question becomes, are the models weak in that they don't factor in enough real world "other" elements (friction, humidity, whatever)? The models appear to be based on an ideal world with only the elements that they have currently included, nor can they ever include everything.
    Last edited by Roy; 10-21-2005 at 09:38 AM.

  73. #73
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Shepherd Wong
    It would be nice if the people claiming that the HL brake better due to scientific reasons and physics could say how much average compression force was present locking up the rear wheel on asphalt going 20 to 15 miles per hour, 150 lb. rider(note I picked these conditions because they actually seem doable). And say how many newtons less it was on the HL bike than a TNT bike. And then say how this compares to the extension force on the suspension due to the center of mass shifting. And then to carefully explain why less compression force would be better realizing that there is a big extesion force due to com shifting. I don't doubt that HL bikes will behave differently, but how much is one question, and the other is why is this behavior actually better?
    Here's your answer. I'll let you work out the actual force levels. I'll just give the formula.

    If you know the force acting at the rear contact patch, the load shift to the front will be equal to that force times h/p, where h = height of COM and p = wheelbase. (Rear braking only).

    The compressive force will be equal to the force at the contact patch times the tangent of the angle made with the ground by the line from the contact patch to the pivot for the TNT and to the IC for the HL.

    On the Turner 5-Spot, the TNT would have almost exactly twice as much compressive force as the HL.

    If we assume a COM at one meter, then the TNT has about 92% anti-lift (again rear braking only), and the HL half that.

    It is not necessarily better to have less compressive force. Some downhill riders prefer a lot of it, probably because it means the pitch angle of the frame stays more stable.

    There is a traction advantage from less compressive force. It's tricky to explain. When the rear tire momentarily loses grip, the compressing force is immediately and totally lost. The load shift to the front, however, does not disappear immediately. It is linked to the pitch angle of the frame and won't entirely disappear until the frame resumes its natural coasting pitch. As a result the sudden loss of grip causes a sudden extension of the suspension that has a greater acceleration the more compressive force there was originally.

    The rear end will extend, regain grip, compress and lose grip, then extend, etc. It's called damped transient oscillation. It's what causes braking bumps. The more compressive force initially the worse the problem.

  74. #74
    Buckle Up
    Reputation: WheelieMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    896
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    When was the last time a 4-bar won a World Championship or World Cup (any kind of MTB racing)??

    Champions racing SP's:
    - Steve Peat
    - Gregg Minaar (both Orange and Honda)
    - Nico Vouilloz
    - Anne Caro Chausson

    Oh... Phillip Meirhaege won a XC WC on a 4-bar... unfortunately he was on EPO so we'll never know if the bike was good enough.

    Vicotries for HL:

    Kyle Strait at the Red Bull Rampage (which was dominated the year before by Cedric Gracia aboard a single pivot).

    What do all this proves?? That it's all about the rider, not the bike. Like the Red Baron said: "It's not the box, it's the man in the box". I would say that with 80 victories Mr. Richthoffen's arguments hold some water.

    Maybe the new TNT's will ride just different but I don't think that neither worst nor better than the HL's. Just different.
    Haha. I have to laugh everytime someone brings something like this up.

    Not everyone feels that a large amount of brake squat is a bad thing. For example, Fabien Barel's floating brake setup causes more brake squat than any bike made. While this can cause a loss of traction in some instances, he obviously feels that the increased brake squat will change the geometry of his bike enough that it will have a stabilizing effect. (lowering the bottom bracket/making the headangle more slack) That's my best guess. I honestly have no idea why he does what he does.

    The fact that it's the rider not the bike is a given. It's also very obvious that there are other factors in bike design that are more important than a slight change in braking. I'm sorry, but for those of you who have felt deceived by this notion that the Horst-Link has always been "superior", it's your own fault.
    <><

  75. #75
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy
    I would agree with this *if* it's even detectable. So far riders on both haven't been able to tell the difference so this means the 2 are very close in performance....
    I just realized how little has been mentioned about the reviews.
    while they are only preliminary, they should have at least as much value as all this speculation and theory.

    I for one am looking forward to seeing more real world feedback.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  76. #76
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    also..........

    Quote Originally Posted by WheelieMan
    Haha. I have to laugh everytime someone brings something like this up.

    Not everyone feels that a large amount of brake squat is a bad thing. For example, Fabien Barel's floating brake setup causes more brake squat than any bike made. While this can cause a loss of traction in some instances, he obviously feels that the increased brake squat will change the geometry of his bike enough that it will have a stabilizing effect. (lowering the bottom bracket/making the headangle more slack) That's my best guess. I honestly have no idea why he does what he does.

    The fact that it's the rider not the bike is a given. It's also very obvious that there are other factors in bike design that are more important than a slight change in braking. I'm sorry, but for those of you who have felt deceived by this notion that the Horst-Link has always been "superior", it's your own fault.
    Consider this with the brake effect to suspension. At the pro level, the top of the pro level or at least the upper riders are not on the brakes hard that often, not hard as we know it anyways. They all brake different from rider to rider, but they are all still trying to go as friggin' fast as possible, they only control their speed a bit when they "touch" or feather the brakes. Only on a few very steep, slower technical courses do they grab a lot of brake. Fabien may be the style of rider who likes the effect of squat.....dunno, rider preference. FB is one fast monster on a DH bike though. And yes as you point out WM, at the pro level it IS the rider being the difference, not the bike.
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  77. #77
    Bike Breaker.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,764

    Suspension

    Quote Originally Posted by ajr
    I am lucky enough to have two customers who are suspension experts. One is a suspension consultant to Ford WRC and the other Williams F1. They both ride faux bar frames for there own reasons even though they could have bought Turner. They have been amused by the amount of misinformed comments on the TNT design. The rear link plays no part in the action of the suspension as a lot of people on this forum imagine it does. The design is no better than any other non HL design that has been said to be inferior to the HL design that for so long has been a major selling point for Turner frames. I have ridden Turner frames since 95 and was blinded by the HL into thinking I was one the top design. When I swopped to a non HL frame it did not make any noticeable difference and I have never missed it. This may be due to the fact I ride another top quality frame. On paper the HL is marginally better in reality not so. I think the main reason so many Turner owners are upset by this change around is that they feel they can no longer look at other frame designs and imagine that they have something superior. We can all get blinded by BS TNT is nothing new.
    If they had been Ferrari/Mercedes/Renault suspension designers or Citroen or SubaruWRC
    designers then I'd listen (only joking) The guy who designed nicholas voilous suspension now works for citroen. Don't forget Jon Whyte (marin fame) was in F1. back to the Turner thing:

    I couldnt justify again to buy a Turner for this year (getting an 06 S-works enduro with the HL) 1 was cost for me the 5 spot was $550 more.(UK). What the turner impressed me more esp. in muddy conditions was them lovely grease ports but again I've had to cut costs in my life.
    I have had had various bikes, including 04 s-works enduro 05 gemini 04 575, all of them rode great.tried loads of others and shock liked them all. Bearing issues have marred most rides so think of the benefits of those grease ports and listen to Turner on that, now if he said his new bikes were being fitted with bearings then I'd be worried...

  78. #78
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by catnash
    If they had been Ferrari/Mercedes/Renault suspension designers or Citroen or SubaruWRC
    designers then I'd listen (only joking) The guy who designed nicholas voilous suspension now works for citroen. Don't forget Jon Whyte (marin fame) was in F1.
    Back in the day when Giant was French, they had Renault F1 to design their NRS bike. It lasted around 7 years until now when Giant is discontinuing it.

    The NRS (as you know) is a HL bike... but far from the desired performance of a real suspension, even when Giant found an area of application for it.

    So again... it's not about the design itself. It's about it's implementation and execution.

    OTOH... I don't really think that in a technologically based sport like MTB the bike don't make any difference at pro level.

    I can't see riders racing GT Lobos, STS's or LTS's.

    Big problem is that there's not a branch of the Pro-level of our sport that reproduces the genreal trail riding we do. There's Super D, but it's not taken much seriously up to date. I hope it to grow up as it's the kind of racing more similar to "real riding". I know that F1 doesn't look any close to driving on the street but in cycling being specific is much more critical.
    Check my Site

  79. #79
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    apples to apples

    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    Back in the day when Giant was French, they had Renault F1 to design their NRS bike. It lasted around 7 years until now when Giant is discontinuing it.

    The NRS (as you know) is a HL bike... but far from the desired performance of a real suspension, even when Giant found an area of application for it.

    So again... it's not about the design itself. It's about it's implementation and execution.

    OTOH... I don't really think that in a technologically based sport like MTB the bike don't make any difference at pro level.

    I can't see riders racing GT Lobos, STS's or LTS's.

    Big problem is that there's not a branch of the Pro-level of our sport that reproduces the genreal trail riding we do. There's Super D, but it's not taken much seriously up to date. I hope it to grow up as it's the kind of racing more similar to "real riding". I know that F1 doesn't look any close to driving on the street but in cycling being specific is much more critical.
    I think you have to compare apples to apples. If all the pros were riding the same technology, weather todays bikes or those of say the year 1998, the difference is still more clear to be the rider. How come Nicolas Voulliouz beat the crap out of everyone for so many years? The bikes do make a micro difference but not enough to be the clear difference. We all get used to the different bikes we ride, the rider adapts. You might look at the riders who have done extremely well on what we thought were not so good bikes.
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  80. #80
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    one last thought on racers

    Quote Originally Posted by DGC
    I think you have to compare apples to apples. If all the pros were riding the same technology, weather todays bikes or those of say the year 1998, the difference is still more clear to be the rider. How come Nicolas Voulliouz beat the crap out of everyone for so many years? The bikes do make a micro difference but not enough to be the clear difference. We all get used to the different bikes we ride, the rider adapts. You might look at the riders who have done extremely well on what we thought were not so good bikes.
    If HL bikes are the only way.......though he won a few things, back in his racing days, why didnt Palmer win everything in sight on his Intense or Specialized HL bikes?
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,986

    Circular Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by DGC
    I think you have to compare apples to apples. If all the pros were riding the same technology, weather todays bikes or those of say the year 1998, the difference is still more clear to be the rider. How come Nicolas Voulliouz beat the crap out of everyone for so many years? The bikes do make a micro difference but not enough to be the clear difference. We all get used to the different bikes we ride, the rider adapts. You might look at the riders who have done extremely well on what we thought were not so good bikes.
    Taking that circular logic one step further ..... If the rider adapts and most high end bikes are similar, then why purchase Turner?

    Now we have to focus on customer service. Turner is one of the best, but it's still only a 2 year warranty. Sure he typically takes care of it for longer than that, but there's no guarantee that it will. If there was, the warranty would be longer than 2 years.

    I'm just playing devils advocate. There are plenty of reasons to buy Turner.....grease ported bushings, geometry, and customer service are the top 3 in my book. His implementation of the HL is still tops in my book, but that's a moo point*, now.

    * moo point - A cow's opinion. It doesn't matter (Joey from the Friends sitcom)

  82. #82
    DGC
    DGC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DGC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    good points

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Shorts
    Taking that circular logic one step further ..... If the rider adapts and most high end bikes are similar, then why purchase Turner?

    Now we have to focus on customer service. Turner is one of the best, but it's still only a 2 year warranty. Sure he typically takes care of it for longer than that, but there's no guarantee that it will. If there was, the warranty would be longer than 2 years.

    I'm just playing devils advocate. There are plenty of reasons to buy Turner.....grease ported bushings, geometry, and customer service are the top 3 in my book. His implementation of the HL is still tops in my book, but that's a moo point*, now.

    * moo point - A cow's opinion. It doesn't matter (Joey from the Friends sitcom)
    For me the customer service is important, but the fit and ride quality are definately at the very top.
    OUCH...!!!!!!

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: miles e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Shorts
    Now we have to focus on customer service. Turner is one of the best, but it's still only a 2 year warranty.
    It's three years now on the Flux, Spot, & Pack.

    http://turnerbikes.com/WarrantyDescrip.html

    Anyone know when this change was made?
    ''It seems like a bit of a trend, everyone trying to make things longer over the last couple of years" Sam Hill

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Shorts
    Taking that circular logic one step further ..... If the rider adapts and most high end bikes are similar, then why purchase Turner?

    Now we have to focus on customer service. Turner is one of the best, but it's still only a 2 year warranty. Sure he typically takes care of it for longer than that, but there's no guarantee that it will. If there was, the warranty would be longer than 2 years.

    I'm just playing devils advocate. There are plenty of reasons to buy Turner.....grease ported bushings, geometry, and customer service are the top 3 in my book. His implementation of the HL is still tops in my book, but that's a moo point*, now.

    * moo point - A cow's opinion. It doesn't matter (Joey from the Friends sitcom)
    It's a sad state of affairs when grease ported bushings is in your top 3 reasons to buy a bike

  85. #85
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,132
    Blue, the list of reasons is pretty long.
    -Fit and feel. (Many people have commented how natural the bike feels and how easy it is to get a fit. I concur)
    -Attention to detail: Tire clearance, full travel, cable routing, faced and chased, proper alignment, accessable and servicable pivots. Sensible strength to weight ratio.
    -Meeting claimed specs (standover, BB, weight and tube angles match published data)
    -Standard shock specs (no odd sizes or layouts)
    -Latterally stiff implementation (regardless of the pivot theology)

    I'm sure I missed plenty. The point is it's often hard to find all this, and great geometry, and great service, and great performance, all in the same package at the same time. Going to another brand one could give up a lot more than just a seat stay pivot. Especially if the TnT ends up riding essentially the same.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,986
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    It's a sad state of affairs when grease ported bushings is in your top 3 reasons to buy a bike
    Literal ninny

    When I talked about top 3 reasons, I suppose I should have qualified that by stating that it's the top 3 reasons that help distinguish Turner bikes from others brands. Obviously, fit is the most important.. Geometry is important. I was talking about distinguishing factors.

    The grease ported bushings equate to great operation and very low maintenance. More ride time....less hassle...no play. Yeah. That's important to me.

    Ask someone that rides in really wet weather all of the time.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    I knew you'd think of some obscure 4-bar motorbike out there. Come back to me when one of these wins a World Championship or two. .
    Here we go again, just what has a motorcycle(MC) got to do with a bicycle(BC)? Ok both have 2 wheels and a rider but after that there are more differences than similarities. We're comparing apples to bananas here

    When did you last ride a BC which weighed more than the rider? With most MC's the rider is only 1/3 to 1/2 the weight of the full package a BC on the other hand usually weighs 1/3 to a 1/4 of the riders weight.

    The MC has a much higher sprung to unsprung weight than a BC and the weight in the MC has a very much lower C of G compared to the BC and it's effects on suspension and braking performance. How about swingarm lengths? The MC has a much longer wheelbase and a much longer swingarm compared to the BC plus about a foot of suspension to play with too. All of these produce effects on brake torque (or jack) which is why MX bikes have no need for a floating brake design.

    Which MC has won a World Championship with a motor that revs to, ohh lets see, 90rpm with a cadence as lumpy as most BC riders manage?

    MC's suspension is optimised for traction not a lumpy '2 stroke' 60-90rpm rider. The MC's motor doesn't complain about how inefficient it's suspension feels when climbing hills either.

    When was the last time you watched an MC pull away bobbing up the road?

    The MC swingarm has to deal with 2 fixed sprockets and associated chain torque rather than most BC's with their constantly changing front chainring to pivot relationship. The difference between a granny ring and outer ring on a single pivot design is quite pronounced as to how it effects the suppleness and traction of a BC.

    I don't see too many MC's running platform shocks to control suspension movement or rider input it's all shims and oil right up to WC and MotoGP level.

    So please can we leave the motorcycle and bicyle analogies out of the discussion? They ain't the same
    "We're here for a good time not a long time"
    Colin McRae 1968-2007

  88. #88
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul5s
    I don't see too many MC's running platform shocks to control suspension movement or rider input it's all shims and oil right up to WC and MotoGP level.

    So please can we leave the motorcycle and bicyle analogies out of the discussion? They ain't the same
    Bzzztttttt!!! Wrong on this one. I have to concede you the reason on many others, but MotoGP, Superbikes and high-end MX and SX level MC's DO use "platform" shocks.... it's just that they call it low-speed damping. Ask anyone in the bussiness. There's no element on a BC shock that you can't find in a MC shock. Maybe inertia valves and I could even be wrong on that one.

    And I would almost bet that they use floating rear calipers (and discs) too. At least I've seen floating rear brakes on some street bikes including some old drum brake bikes.

    BTW... Gold-Valve emulators are cheaper than an Stratos ID cartridge....
    Check my Site

  89. #89
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,279
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    It's a sad state of affairs when grease ported bushings is in your top 3 reasons to buy a bike
    Oddly enough the grease ported bushings are in my top 3. While a psychological problem not extensively studied, I allowed concerns about pivots not being adequately lubed to affect the pleasure in my rides. It was a lot of trouble for the mechanically disinclined (such as myself) to take them apart.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    Bzzztttttt!!! Wrong on this one. I have to concede you the reason on many others, but MotoGP, Superbikes and high-end MX and SX level MC's DO use "platform" shocks.... it's just that they call it low-speed damping. Ask anyone in the bussiness. There's no element on a BC shock that you can't find in a MC shock. Maybe inertia valves and I could even be wrong on that one.

    And I would almost bet that they use floating rear calipers (and discs) too. At least I've seen floating rear brakes on some street bikes including some old drum brake bikes.

    BTW... Gold-Valve emulators are cheaper than an Stratos ID cartridge....

    I didn't know that WP, Showa, et al were using platform damping to be honest so I stand corrected

    I do know that all the current MX bikes I've seen, of late, don't use floating caliper systems and neither do any of the MotoGP bikes I've seen. A floating brake/disc and a floating caliper are two different systems BTW

    I'm not saying there isn't crossover from the two but direct comparison between the two is very limited in scope.
    "We're here for a good time not a long time"
    Colin McRae 1968-2007

  91. #91
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,008
    Quote Originally Posted by DGC
    If HL bikes are the only way.......though he won a few things, back in his racing days, why didnt Palmer win everything in sight on his Intense or Specialized HL bikes?
    Palmer is a great rider. Palmer's best attribute was that he was so damn versatile, he could do many things, many sports, many disciplines, and do them well. He wasn't the best DH racer ever, but he was a good DH racer.
    "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.

  92. #92
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul5s
    I didn't know that WP, Showa, et al were using platform damping to be honest so I stand corrected
    THey are not. They are using low speed compression damping, which is different. A platform IGNORES bumps and inputs below the threshold. Compression damping does not ignore them, it simply damps them and restricts the oil flow somewhat, and the extent to which it does is usually tunable. What you can tune with a platform is the "threshold", but it's always going to perform like a platform, and ignore inputs below the threshold.

    It's pretty misleading to call low speed compression damping a "platform", not really the same thing.
    "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.

  93. #93
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    THey are not. They are using low speed compression damping, which is different. A platform IGNORES bumps and inputs below the threshold. Compression damping does not ignore them, it simply damps them and restricts the oil flow somewhat, and the extent to which it does is usually tunable. What you can tune with a platform is the "threshold", but it's always going to perform like a platform, and ignore inputs below the threshold.

    It's pretty misleading to call low speed compression damping a "platform", not really the same thing.
    Please explain me in detail what's the main difference on how both systems work inside the shock and I'll believe your statements below.

    If platform is not low speed damping, please let me know what it is.

    The only platform system that I truly recognize as a platform and not a low speed damping adjustment is the Fox/Stratos Inertia Valve.
    Check my Site

  94. #94
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    Please explain me in detail what's the main difference on how both systems work inside the shock and I'll believe your statements below.

    If platform is not low speed damping, please let me know what it is.

    The only platform system that I truly recognize as a platform and not a low speed damping adjustment is the Fox/Stratos Inertia Valve.
    A platform is a system by which when a certain force is met, it "blows off" and allows unrestricted oil flow. "On" or "off. If the input force is below the threshold, it won't move.

    Low speed compression damping is usually going to be controlled via some sort of a spring that allows the oil flow, based on either the setting or force of the bump. It depends on how complex the compression damping is, you can have simple systems that close off a free-bleed, where the high speed damping would naturally take over (this is how original TPC works), with enough input force, the low speed damping is overcome and the oil flows through the high speed circut. You could have the bleed full open, closed, or anywhere in between, and that means that when it was open, the low speed impacts were damped by the orofice, and not necessarily doing the "on and off" thing like a platform. Furthermore, a more complex compression system, like you'd find on motorcycles, is going to have a very adjustable "low speed" system that will have some sort of a spring mechanism on the low speed circut to regulate the oil flow. There's a lot of ways it could be done, but to sum it up, compression damping is not a platform. It can give you similer effects (better pedaling) but one will completely ignore inputs below the threshold, and one will dampen them. This means that the wheel will move, but to a lesser extent than if it was "fully open".
    "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.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Shorts
    Literal ninny

    When I talked about top 3 reasons, I suppose I should have qualified that by stating that it's the top 3 reasons that help distinguish Turner bikes from others brands. Obviously, fit is the most important.. Geometry is important. I was talking about distinguishing factors.

    The grease ported bushings equate to great operation and very low maintenance. More ride time....less hassle...no play. Yeah. That's important to me.

    Ask someone that rides in really wet weather all of the time.
    Ok, I was only teasing, bushes are ok but nothing special. Certainly better than many cheap bearings. However, they involve more maintenance than the Quad bearings on my Ventana i.e you have to grease them. I don't have to do anything at all with my bearings and they seem to survive the British winter just fine too. Of course pivot maintenance is an important factor with a full suspension bike, but bushes are certainly not the only way to make them work.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    A platform is a system by which when a certain force is met, it "blows off" and allows unrestricted oil flow. "On" or "off. If the input force is below the threshold, it won't move.

    Low speed compression damping is usually going to be controlled via some sort of a spring that allows the oil flow, based on either the setting or force of the bump. It depends on how complex the compression damping is, you can have simple systems that close off a free-bleed, where the high speed damping would naturally take over (this is how original TPC works), with enough input force, the low speed damping is overcome and the oil flows through the high speed circut. You could have the bleed full open, closed, or anywhere in between, and that means that when it was open, the low speed impacts were damped by the orofice, and not necessarily doing the "on and off" thing like a platform. Furthermore, a more complex compression system, like you'd find on motorcycles, is going to have a very adjustable "low speed" system that will have some sort of a spring mechanism on the low speed circut to regulate the oil flow. There's a lot of ways it could be done, but to sum it up, compression damping is not a platform. It can give you similer effects (better pedaling) but one will completely ignore inputs below the threshold, and one will dampen them. This means that the wheel will move, but to a lesser extent than if it was "fully open".
    The two "platform" damping systems I've tried, Manitou SPV and Romic, behave in practice like low speed damping. There is no significant threshold below which they do not move. They just seem to have a high amount of low speed compression damping below the platform threshold i.e digressive compression damping. The Romic "platform" in particular feels like a low speed compression adjuster. The only damping I've personally experienced which is close to your above definition of a platform is the RS Pike fork with the floodgate set high in lockout mode. There's nothing new about digressive compression damping, it just doesn't get labelled as "platform" damping in other sports.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by uktrailmonster
    The two "platform" damping systems I've tried, Manitou SPV and Romic, behave in practice like low speed damping. There is no significant threshold below which they do not move. They just seem to have a high amount of low speed compression damping below the platform threshold i.e digressive compression damping. The Romic "platform" in particular feels like a low speed compression adjuster. The only damping I've personally experienced which is close to your above definition of a platform is the RS Pike fork with the floodgate set high in lockout mode. There's nothing new about digressive compression damping, it just doesn't get labelled as "platform" damping in other sports.
    Actually, the other one I've tried which feels like a true platform is the Fox Terralogic fork, with its inertia valve.

  98. #98
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    A platform is a system by which when a certain force is met, it "blows off" and allows unrestricted oil flow. "On" or "off. If the input force is below the threshold, it won't move.

    Low speed compression damping is usually going to be controlled via some sort of a spring that allows the oil flow, based on either the setting or force of the bump. It depends on how complex the compression damping is, you can have simple systems that close off a free-bleed, where the high speed damping would naturally take over (this is how original TPC works), with enough input force, the low speed damping is overcome and the oil flows through the high speed circut. You could have the bleed full open, closed, or anywhere in between, and that means that when it was open, the low speed impacts were damped by the orofice, and not necessarily doing the "on and off" thing like a platform. Furthermore, a more complex compression system, like you'd find on motorcycles, is going to have a very adjustable "low speed" system that will have some sort of a spring mechanism on the low speed circut to regulate the oil flow. There's a lot of ways it could be done, but to sum it up, compression damping is not a platform. It can give you similer effects (better pedaling) but one will completely ignore inputs below the threshold, and one will dampen them. This means that the wheel will move, but to a lesser extent than if it was "fully open".
    I agree with UKTM and what you're describing as Platform is only an adjustable digressive damping. Wether it's obtained by mechanical or pneumatic means is irrelevant.

    Most relevant difference with motorcycle shocks is that in case you want a digressive damping on your moto, you need to tear the shock open and install a digressive damping piston. Seriously, I don't know how useable is an IV on a moto shock, but it's the only gizmo found on a BC shock that you can't find on a MC shock.

    Only the Inertia Valved shocks are truly discriminating chassis provoked forces. The rest obtain their platform effects thru an adjustable digressive low speed damping.
    Check my Site

  99. #99
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp2003
    I agree with UKTM and what you're describing as Platform is only an adjustable digressive damping. Wether it's obtained by mechanical or pneumatic means is irrelevant.

    Most relevant difference with motorcycle shocks is that in case you want a digressive damping on your moto, you need to tear the shock open and install a digressive damping piston. Seriously, I don't know how useable is an IV on a moto shock, but it's the only gizmo found on a BC shock that you can't find on a MC shock.

    Only the Inertia Valved shocks are truly discriminating chassis provoked forces. The rest obtain their platform effects thru an adjustable digressive low speed damping.
    But Jayem is making a valid point. There is a difference between an on and off threshold that requires a certain level of force before any oil movement is allowed and a continuously adjustable level of low speed damping, which allows some movement of oil, even if slight, at any level of force.

  100. #100
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    But Jayem is making a valid point. There is a difference between an on and off threshold that requires a certain level of force before any oil movement is allowed and a continuously adjustable level of low speed damping, which allows some movement of oil, even if slight, at any level of force.
    ...and the only way to achieve that is thru an Inertia Valve.

    Edit... actually I should stand corrected.

    SPV actually has an "inertia valve" inside the nut cap where the bleed port is at. You need certain force to open it thanks to the preloaded spring.

    After that point, you still have to open the pneumatic loaded "threshold" valve which in turn opens the piston holes giving the digressive characteristics.

    If SPV is licensed from the curnutt valve, curnutt valve should be similar and hence a true platform shock.

    I still think that the concept behind all that is having an aggressive digressive damping with an adjustable threshold. With aggresive I mean that the flow can be from very low to none in the early beggining and from normal to low later on. If you would see a damping plot you'd see a curve representing some digressive damping.
    Last edited by Warp; 10-24-2005 at 09:41 AM.
    Check my Site

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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