Results 1 to 35 of 35
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    20

    Flux vs. Truth vs. Element vs. Racer-X vs. ...

    I have been a long time lurker, but this is my first post to the board, so please be gentle while tearing me a new one if I offend anyone by asking a stupid question.

    I have been mountain biking for about 3 years. I am currently still riding my first mountain bike and am now considering an upgrade. My current ride is an '01 GT Avalanche 1.0 Disc. It has been a good bike and I have enjoyed riding it. I got a deal on it through Supergo when I initially purchased it, so I definitely feel like I have gotten my moneys worth out of the bike, but I am succumbing to the lure of full-suspension and am considering building up a new bike. So of course the first question is, what frame should I start with?

    I am 5’ 8”, 163 lbs. I typically ride XC to technical singletrack, with some steep sections both up and down. I plan on doing some racing, but nothing extraordinary. I plan to participate in the Sea-Otter Classic and 24hrs of Adrenaline at Laguna Seca, I have also done an adventure race and would not put that out of the realm of future possibilities. I am looking for something in the 4” travel +/- range, which will be light and responsive, but not so fragile that I couldn’t handle log crossings, 1-2 ft drops, and other minor obstacles.

    At first I was considering the Epic. A friend works at Specialized and, of course, endorses it, and all of their bikes, but I don’t think it has the range of applications that I am looking for. The guys I ride with typically ride Enduro’s (again the Specialized influence) most have multiple bikes (Enduro and Epic, etc.). My second thought was a VPP bike, like a Blur or Spyder, but the brake jack issue has he a bit leery, which finally get me to my subject line.

    In terms of suspension design, how do the Flux, Truth, Element and Racer-X compare? All of the post I have seen about the Truth and Burner (older Turner) say the Ellsworths and Turners climb very well. How do the Rocky Mountain and Titus compare?

    I have seen a lot of older negative posts about the Ellsworths design and durability, but many newer positive posts about improved support and better design. Since I am interested in buying a new frame I am very interested in how the current design is being received. Have the problems been addressed.

    Ellsworth vs. Turner. These are the two bikes that I have been looking at the closest. Other than the reliability issue addressed above, the next issue I have seen is that Turners use bushings at the pivots and Ellsworths use sealed bearings. Is that a valid statement? If so, how does that effect the ride, and service requirements for the bikes?

    Finish. I have seen some complaints about the finish (welds, decals) on the Turners. I have seen a few Rocky Mountains and have been very impressed by the finish. I have not seen the other bikes in person. How do they compare?

    Sorry for the huge post. This is potentially a large investment and am just trying to avoid a bad decision.

    TIA.

    Justin

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,977
    I don't know the Element but <b>all</b> the bikes you picked are <i>VERY</i> nice bikes. If you have a thick flame suit pick the Truth, if you wish to be a cult follower pick the Flux, and if you want a classic pick the Racer-X.

    Best thing to do is to throw a leg over each one. Just sitting on them will tell you a lot. The Truth is tall and long, the Racer X is low and medium and i have never seen a Flux but knowing Turner geometries it probably will be a good one.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    20

    Oh yeah...

    First, Ratt, thanks for the feedback.

    I forgot to add one other question...

    If I get the Racer-X, I would get and AL not Ti. Is this like buying an AL Litespeed roadbike, e.g. don't do it?

    To me a Ti FS MTB seems a bit like overkill.

    Once again, TIA...

    Justin

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    106
    you're thinking way too hard, dude... just go and test ride every one before making your decision. although it might be hard to get a test-ride for anything but the element on your list...

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    20

    Thinking too hard...

    That is not the first time I've been accused of that..

    Good advise, I'll see what I can find as far as demos

    Justin

  6. #6
    No longer 26
    Reputation: G-Live's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,090

    Specialized suggestion..

    Quote Originally Posted by jxhower
    I have been a long time lurker, but this is my first post to the board, so please be gentle while tearing me a new one if I offend anyone by asking a stupid question.

    I have been mountain biking for about 3 years. I am currently still riding my first mountain bike and am now considering an upgrade. My current ride is an '01 GT Avalanche 1.0 Disc. It has been a good bike and I have enjoyed riding it. I got a deal on it through Supergo when I initially purchased it, so I definitely feel like I have gotten my moneys worth out of the bike, but I am succumbing to the lure of full-suspension and am considering building up a new bike. So of course the first question is, what frame should I start with?

    I am 5’ 8”, 163 lbs. I typically ride XC to technical singletrack, with some steep sections both up and down. I plan on doing some racing, but nothing extraordinary. I plan to participate in the Sea-Otter Classic and 24hrs of Adrenaline at Laguna Seca, I have also done an adventure race and would not put that out of the realm of future possibilities. I am looking for something in the 4” travel +/- range, which will be light and responsive, but not so fragile that I couldn’t handle log crossings, 1-2 ft drops, and other minor obstacles.

    At first I was considering the Epic. A friend works at Specialized and, of course, endorses it, and all of their bikes, but I don’t think it has the range of applications that I am looking for. The guys I ride with typically ride Enduro’s (again the Specialized influence) most have multiple bikes (Enduro and Epic, etc.). My second thought was a VPP bike, like a Blur or Spyder, but the brake jack issue has he a bit leery, which finally get me to my subject line.

    In terms of suspension design, how do the Flux, Truth, Element and Racer-X compare? All of the post I have seen about the Truth and Burner (older Turner) say the Ellsworths and Turners climb very well. How do the Rocky Mountain and Titus compare?

    I have seen a lot of older negative posts about the Ellsworths design and durability, but many newer positive posts about improved support and better design. Since I am interested in buying a new frame I am very interested in how the current design is being received. Have the problems been addressed.

    Ellsworth vs. Turner. These are the two bikes that I have been looking at the closest. Other than the reliability issue addressed above, the next issue I have seen is that Turners use bushings at the pivots and Ellsworths use sealed bearings. Is that a valid statement? If so, how does that effect the ride, and service requirements for the bikes?

    Finish. I have seen some complaints about the finish (welds, decals) on the Turners. I have seen a few Rocky Mountains and have been very impressed by the finish. I have not seen the other bikes in person. How do they compare?

    Sorry for the huge post. This is potentially a large investment and am just trying to avoid a bad decision.

    TIA.

    Justin
    If yoiu do not want to go as high end on the frame as the botique boys, the standard 4" FSR frame would fit right in between the epic and enduro and might be the cats pj's..
    Greg

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    240

    If you can afford any of the bikes you mentioned........

    I would buy the turner, if you want to save a little money i would look into the specialized fsr. If you have lurked long enough on these boards you know that ellsworth should not be an option. BTW, I have a nice 4x 4 sugar for sale that i believe would treat you well! I am your size. Email me if interested
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nwmtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,168
    Hey Justin...if you'd like a biased opinion then i personally would choose the Turner Flux over all other contenders.

    reasons why ...

    1-top notch service, and great support
    2-proven designs that haven't changed over the course of 10 yrs
    3-beautiful craftmanship
    4-handling and geometry is perfect for long rides and endurance type races
    5-geometry is refined
    6-bushing design is oh-so-smooth

    and i'm sure there are other attributes.

    i also think the TitusRX should be another top choice based on proven reviews. Ultimately if you have the opportunity to ride any of them do so. Our words can only explain so much...you REALLY have to feel, and experience these frame first hand to differentiate them all.

    good luck to ya, chad
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://redbarnbicycles.com/

  9. #9
    shins meet handlebar.
    Reputation: Accidental Endo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    288
    I'm in a very similar position as you. I am not considering Ellsworth, however. Nor have I looked at the Element. My big 3 are the Ventana El Saltamontes, the Flux, and the Racer-X.

    I'm really torn between the Flux and the Racer-X, and I don't know that I'll have an opportunity to test-ride either. If I had to choose right now, my choice would probably be the Racer-X, but yesterday my pick was the Flux.


    From what I've gathered, the Flux is a bit more trail oriented than the Racer-X.
    Fear is the mind-killer.

  10. #10
    Not a Barry supporter.
    Reputation: Crash_FLMB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,876
    I was in a similar boat as you recently. I'm also 5'8" and I weigh 155 lbs. I have an Id that I'm actually selling because it's too much bike for my riding style. It's been a great ride and I've loved almost every minute I've owned it. I recently found a crack in the chainstay but EW replaced it with no questions asked. I think EW has read been reading the forums and is finally taking care of his customers. I really think his sales have gone down some b/c of the CS issues and he's trying to rectify it. I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.

    The Truth is very similar to the Id. The Id is taller and has more travel but I think that's about the only difference. The bike rides awesome. The only negative I could say was that the rear wasn't as stiff as I would have liked. It seemed to float around a bit when descending. I think EW's have the best finish of any bike out there...hands down. I may look at EW's again sometime in the future.

    Anyway, a buddy of mine has a Racer X and I test road it. It felt great. I seriously considered it. There's still a chance I could go with it but it's a very small chance. This same fella had a RM Instinc a while back. I road that and it was nice for just 3" of travel. The geometry was a little small for me. I prefer a longer TT and that's why I never really looked at RM.

    Right now I'm about 98% sure I'm going to get a Flux. I test rode a Burner and it just 'felt right.' A nice long TT, light and stiff. And with Turner's CS rep, it's hard to beat the Flux. Although I do agree that the Turner finish is REALLY lacking. They look very cheap but are great bikes. I test rode a 5-Spot and a buddy has a RFX. Both really nice bikes but more than I need. I'm going with the Fox RP3 shock as well. All the reviews have been awesome on it as well.

    I picked up an '05 Marz Marathon 120mm dirt cheap on eBay and I think it's going to be a perfect fit. Right now the Marathon is on my old Sugar and it's made that feel like a completely different bike. It's so much nicer to ride now.

    And a Ti FS is just crazy. A buddy who used to work at a bike shop where they built Ti frame said all the TI FS felt like noodles. I mean, Ti give as it is so when you add more FS to it through suspension, it just floats all over. That's why Ti HT are great but not FS.

    Hope that helps.
    Why would I need more than one gear?
    @A_SingleSpeeder
    EPA = crooks!

  11. #11
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764

    Agree Flux

    Quote Originally Posted by nwmtb
    Hey Justin...if you'd like a biased opinion then i personally would choose the Turner Flux over all other contenders.

    reasons why ...

    1-top notch service, and great support
    2-proven designs that haven't changed over the course of 10 yrs
    3-beautiful craftmanship
    4-handling and geometry is perfect for long rides and endurance type races
    5-geometry is refined
    6-bushing design is oh-so-smooth

    and i'm sure there are other attributes.

    i also think the TitusRX should be another top choice based on proven reviews. Ultimately if you have the opportunity to ride any of them do so. Our words can only explain so much...you REALLY have to feel, and experience these frame first hand to differentiate them all.

    good luck to ya, chad
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://redbarnbicycles.com/
    Turner designs from a perspective of an expert rider, and from feedback from many pro-riders.

    The Ellsworth designs continue to get worse handling every year. Parallel suspension is fine for coasting, but as soon as you hit the brakes or pedal it is most unstable and inefficient. The '05 Truth is nearly a clone design of the old GT LTS in suspension geometry, well known for terrible braking, except the Truth pedal squats and bobs more and needs platform damping for efficient pedaling just like a low monopivot. Although shock design improves every year to cover up the ICT design failings.

    Why not get a bike such as a Turner or Titus that is designed to ride at a higher quality without extra damping for pedaling and braking, plus much better durability and professional quality customer service. The Ventana bikes are nicely finished too.

    - ray

  12. #12
    shins meet handlebar.
    Reputation: Accidental Endo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    Turner designs from a perspective of an expert rider, and from feedback from many pro-riders.

    The Ellsworth designs continue to get worse handling every year. Parallel suspension is fine for coasting, but as soon as you hit the brakes or pedal it is most unstable and inefficient. The '05 Truth is nearly a clone design of the old GT LTS in suspension geometry, well known for terrible braking, except the Truth pedal squats and bobs more and needs platform damping for efficient pedaling just like a low monopivot. Although shock design improves every year to cover up the ICT design failings.

    Why not get a bike such as a Turner or Titus that is designed to ride at a higher quality without extra damping for pedaling and braking, plus much better durability and professional quality customer service. The Ventana bikes are nicely finished too.

    - ray
    Did you see the thread in the Turner forums recently about the new Flux having an ICT sticker on it? Evidently, some Turner bikes use that suspension design.
    Fear is the mind-killer.

  13. #13
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,729

    Easy....

    If still available, go with a the closeout Turner Burner deal. A super bike with enough cash left over to get some sweet parts to go with it. The money saved could easy get you a great custom wheelset and cranks, or a nice fork and extra derailures....

    Think about it.

    Mike

  14. #14
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764

    Turner uses FSR stickers

    Quote Originally Posted by Accidental Endo
    Did you see the thread in the Turner forums recently about the new Flux having an ICT sticker on it? Evidently, some Turner bikes use that suspension design.
    I know Dave. He laughs at ICT.

    - ray

  15. #15
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    I know Dave. He laughs at ICT.
    I laugh too, but I'm not handing a check to TE (well, indirectly, I guess I am: BOYCOTT TURNER!).

    The current Turners are all basically ICT compliant designs. The chainline tracks the IC in different gears than the Es do, I believe (I guess there is only one "100% efficient" gear on each bike...?) and the Horst is a bit farther forward, but how much could that affect braking? Anyway, I'll let you and Steve duke it out...

    Personally I'd give Ells about 2 or 3 years of demonstrating stellar reliabilty and customer service before I'd go near them. Perhaps they have turned over a new leaf, that would be great. I'd check back in 2007 and see if I'm tempted then.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  16. #16
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,275

    Truly impossible to lose in your case.....

    Quote Originally Posted by jxhower
    I have been a long time lurker, but this is my first post to the board, so please be gentle while tearing me a new one if I offend anyone by asking a stupid question.

    I have been mountain biking for about 3 years. I am currently still riding my first mountain bike and am now considering an upgrade. My current ride is an '01 GT Avalanche 1.0 Disc. It has been a good bike and I have enjoyed riding it. I got a deal on it through Supergo when I initially purchased it, so I definitely feel like I have gotten my moneys worth out of the bike, but I am succumbing to the lure of full-suspension and am considering building up a new bike. So of course the first question is, what frame should I start with?

    I am 5’ 8”, 163 lbs. I typically ride XC to technical singletrack, with some steep sections both up and down. I plan on doing some racing, but nothing extraordinary. I plan to participate in the Sea-Otter Classic and 24hrs of Adrenaline at Laguna Seca, I have also done an adventure race and would not put that out of the realm of future possibilities. I am looking for something in the 4” travel +/- range, which will be light and responsive, but not so fragile that I couldn’t handle log crossings, 1-2 ft drops, and other minor obstacles.

    At first I was considering the Epic. A friend works at Specialized and, of course, endorses it, and all of their bikes, but I don’t think it has the range of applications that I am looking for. The guys I ride with typically ride Enduro’s (again the Specialized influence) most have multiple bikes (Enduro and Epic, etc.). My second thought was a VPP bike, like a Blur or Spyder, but the brake jack issue has he a bit leery, which finally get me to my subject line.

    In terms of suspension design, how do the Flux, Truth, Element and Racer-X compare? All of the post I have seen about the Truth and Burner (older Turner) say the Ellsworths and Turners climb very well. How do the Rocky Mountain and Titus compare?

    I have seen a lot of older negative posts about the Ellsworths design and durability, but many newer positive posts about improved support and better design. Since I am interested in buying a new frame I am very interested in how the current design is being received. Have the problems been addressed.

    Ellsworth vs. Turner. These are the two bikes that I have been looking at the closest. Other than the reliability issue addressed above, the next issue I have seen is that Turners use bushings at the pivots and Ellsworths use sealed bearings. Is that a valid statement? If so, how does that effect the ride, and service requirements for the bikes?

    Finish. I have seen some complaints about the finish (welds, decals) on the Turners. I have seen a few Rocky Mountains and have been very impressed by the finish. I have not seen the other bikes in person. How do they compare?

    Sorry for the huge post. This is potentially a large investment and am just trying to avoid a bad decision.

    TIA.

    Justin
    As you know, bottom line is what "you think" is the best, especially given all your bikes are winners, period, regardless of what anybody says. Personally, for my type of riding, I prefer as stiff a ride as possible and I have found (others I am sure have not found) that I prefer the advantage (theoretical or otherwise) of seatstay pivots. Having said that, I love the Turner 5 Spot, among many other bikes but again, hard to lose when all bikes on your list are implemented well by their respective mfctrs, which is the most important parameter without a doubt.

    I have a Ventana and a Rocky Mountain. I rode my Element for the first time today and am absolutely blown away already....I LOVE IT!!!!!! (see attached)

    Cheers
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by FoShizzle; 12-17-2004 at 02:42 PM.

  17. #17
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    The Racer-X 100/Hammehead 100-X and Turner Flux are essentially the same bike.

    Geometry, travel, weight, etc. are almost identical. The differences between the two are insignificant. Maybe the Flux is a tad more stable and maybe the Titus is a bit quicker and maybe the Titus is a bit stiffer. The Turner has the ICT stiffer which makes it 110% efficient so that's a plus.

    If these two are your choices then you can't go wrong and base your decision more on fit, availability, color, etc.....

    BTW...Mountain High Cyclery just received a batch of brand spankin' new Fluxes yesterday and not all are yet accounted for....

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    20

    Thanks everybody...

    I really appreciate everyone taking the time to share their experiences and knowledge with me. I found a LBS that has a Racer-X 100 in my size that I can get for a 24 hr demo. I think that will be my next stop on my fact finding mission.

    I am still looking for a demo Flux, and Truth to compare.

    Thanks again.

    Justin

  19. #19
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    I laugh too, but I'm not handing a check to TE (well, indirectly, I guess I am: BOYCOTT TURNER!).

    The current Turners are all basically ICT compliant designs. The chainline tracks the IC in different gears than the Es do, I believe (I guess there is only one "100% efficient" gear on each bike...?) and the Horst is a bit farther forward, but how much could that affect braking? Anyway, I'll let you and Steve duke it out...

    Personally I'd give Ells about 2 or 3 years of demonstrating stellar reliabilty and customer service before I'd go near them. Perhaps they have turned over a new leaf, that would be great. I'd check back in 2007 and see if I'm tempted then.
    Why boycott Turner?

    Steve says some of the Turners are partially compliant with ICT, IC intersects chainline through part of range. But many monopivots have geometry that is 100% equivalent to ICT geometry is for pedaling too. It doesn't matter, it's just coincidence.

    - ray
    Last edited by derby; 12-17-2004 at 05:00 PM.

  20. #20
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    I know Dave. He laughs at ICT.

    - ray
    Apparently you're not aware that all of Turner's bikes except the Highline and the DHR are going to start having ICT stickers on them. He's beiing legally forced to license it from Ellsworth.

  21. #21
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    Turner designs from a perspective of an expert rider, and from feedback from many pro-riders.

    The Ellsworth designs continue to get worse handling every year. Parallel suspension is fine for coasting, but as soon as you hit the brakes or pedal it is most unstable and inefficient. The '05 Truth is nearly a clone design of the old GT LTS in suspension geometry, well known for terrible braking, except the Truth pedal squats and bobs more and needs platform damping for efficient pedaling just like a low monopivot. Although shock design improves every year to cover up the ICT design failings.

    Why not get a bike such as a Turner or Titus that is designed to ride at a higher quality without extra damping for pedaling and braking, plus much better durability and professional quality customer service. The Ventana bikes are nicely finished too.

    - ray
    I don't know how you can denigrate the Truth and recommend the Flux when the Flux is basically a Truth built by Turner. Now I won't argue against the notion that a Truth built by Turner might likely be better than one built by Ellsworth, but they have essentially the same linkage design.

    Actually I guess I can see how you can hold such a contradictory position since you believe that a downward force on the pivot during rear braking (which of necessity means a compressive force on the rear spring) causes extension of the rear spring.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,914

    You cannot go wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratt
    I don't know the Element but <b>all</b> the bikes you picked are <i>VERY</i> nice bikes. If you have a thick flame suit pick the Truth, if you wish to be a cult follower pick the Flux, and if you want a classic pick the Racer-X..

    I agree, all the bike you mention are just great. For Titus I would add the Racer-X 100 and the new Moto-Lite. And I just tried a Ventana Salta and I was just so impressed.

    Price might be a consideration: with Titus you get the most honest price, with Ventana, and a few more $, the possibility to get a real costum bike. Turner and Ellsworth are unreasonably overpriced for a brand bike, with ellsworth having a better finish than the Turner (still not justifying the lots of extra $ in respect to Titus which are finished very well).
    Last edited by Davide; 12-18-2004 at 09:11 AM.

  23. #23
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,423
    Quote Originally Posted by jxhower
    I have been a long time lurker, but this is my first post to the board, so please be gentle while tearing me a new one if I offend anyone by asking a stupid question.
    Among those I would pick Yeti AS-R SL

  24. #24
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    I can't disagree with Axe. At Interbike, I thought the ASR rode stunningly.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,914

    GT LTS, Turner Ellsworth and ITC

    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    The '05 Truth is nearly a clone design of the old GT LTS in suspension geometry, well known for terrible braking, except the Truth pedal squats and bobs more and needs platform damping for efficient pedaling just like a low monopivot. Although shock design improves every year to cover up the ICT design failings.


    The Nitrous, and to a lesser extent the Flux, looked like ITC designs to me just based on rear axle positions (just that, I am not drawing anything). It is apparently turning out that all 4-bars designed by Turner are close enough to an ITC to necessitate an ITC sticker on.

    So the question is: How can an Ellsworth ITC ride horribly while the Nitrous/Flux/5-spot don't?

    As a side comment: I am not sure about what the "theory" says, but my observation after years of riding and direct comparison with the 5-spot is that the GT LTS does not have "terrible braking" at all. The LTS is completely active under braking and once you move your butt back the pro-dive of its suspension is (sort of) taken care. The 5-spot is not very dissimilar, I have to move back a bit less aggressively but the rear is still distinctly pro-dive and requires body english to be (sort of) kept in check. Compared to the wonderful ROMIC on the 5-spot the GT is using a rather primitive RS shock and I can only imagine how better it would ride with a modern shock. The 5-spot without a stable-platform shock (FOX FLOAT in my case) is as dead as the GT with the ROcjShock Deluxe uphill.
    Last edited by Davide; 12-18-2004 at 11:04 PM.

  26. #26
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Davide
    The Nitrous, and to a lesser extent the Flux, looked like ITC designs to me just based on rear axle positions (just that, I am not drawing anything). It is apparently turning out that all 4-bars designed by Turner are close enough to an ITC to necessitate an ITC sticker on.

    So the question is: How can an Ellsworth ITC ride horribly while the Nitrous/Flux/5-spot don't?

    As a side comment: I am not sure about what the "theory" says, but my observation after years of riding and direct comparison with the 5-spot is that the GT LTS does not have "terrible braking" at all. The LTS is completely active under braking and once you move your butt back the pro-dive of its suspension is (sort of) taken care. The 5-spot is not very dissimilar, I have to move back a bit less aggressively but the rear is still distinctly pro-dive and requires body english to be (sort of) kept in check. Compared to the wonderful ROMIC on the 5-spot the GT is using a rather primitive RS shock and I can only imagine how better it would ride with a modern shock. The 5-spot without a stable-platform shock (FOX FLOAT in my case) is as dead as the GT with the ROcjShock Deluxe uphill.
    Once again, the design of the rear cannot be pro-dive. Only the design of the front can be pro-dive. And all telescopic forks are pro-dive.

    If you don't shift your weight to the rear and you brake hard (using the front brake as well as the rear) you will go over the bars no matter what the rear suspension design. If you brake even harder you will go over the front even with your weight shifted to the rear.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I don't know how you can denigrate the Truth and recommend the Flux when the Flux is basically a Truth built by Turner.
    I would beg to differ. Different head angles, bb heights, seatube angles, toptube lengths, headtube lengths and tubing. In fact about all they have in common is the rear linkage design and chainstay length.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  28. #28
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I don't know how you can denigrate the Truth and recommend the Flux when the Flux is basically a Truth built by Turner. Now I won't argue against the notion that a Truth built by Turner might likely be better than one built by Ellsworth, but they have essentially the same linkage design.

    Actually I guess I can see how you can hold such a contradictory position since you believe that a downward force on the pivot during rear braking (which of necessity means a compressive force on the rear spring) causes extension of the rear spring.
    I am totally consistent in my perspective of braking. Again you insist on neglecting the frame's other pivot of rotation, the axle in the middle of the front wheel. It's the same blindness as neglecting the rear axle in the mistaken "bench test" about ICT. A downward force at any point (or virtual IC) on the frame ahead of the front axle mechanically leverages the frame to rotate forward and unweights the rear suspension when rear braking. (Think about the reaction of adding more weight on one side of a balanced seesaw.) IC's or suspension pivots between the wheels are the only geometry that mechanically compresses the rear suspension when rear braking, any other reaction input is from inertia. ICT neglects the axle effect in suspension. It's too obvious to argue about any more.

    I haven't talked with Dave in almost 2 years. So Ellsworth is suing Turner? What a low-life egomaniac! He should sue Specialized too, since FSR is now more ICT like than Horst like design. But it's easier to attack the fragile business of a small company like Turner.

    Turner should have stayed with a classic Horst design. He may have backed himself into a corner by raising the main and dropout pivots due to the derailer banging problem. Specialized followed Turner design a year or two later. Although Truner did it in 1998 or 1999 before ICT was patented. So the RFX and Downhill four bar was probably ICT fashion before ICT was patented. ICT uses a virtually concentric rear dropout compared to the two-inch shorter chainstays of a Turner (except Nitrous). Turner's upper swing links are where they are for the longer i2i shocks used, or reducing tube length of the Nitrous to save weight, and for desired platform shock leverage rate. It is only coincidence he backed into a range within the patented fashion of ICT. I really like Dave and the quality of the bikes he designs and his customer service. One of the reasons I didn't buy a Turner was the design de-evolution away from Horst link design. He's now tuning his bikes to work better with reactive platform damping demanded OEM by the market.

    Platform damping is a bandaid trend that will evolve into a smoother and tunable low and high speed damped trail bike shocks such as the DHX as suspension design advances in the direction Dave Weagle and Jon Whyte are leading.

    - ray

  29. #29
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by CDMC
    I would beg to differ. Different head angles, bb heights, seatube angles, toptube lengths, headtube lengths and tubing. In fact about all they have in common is the rear linkage design and chainstay length.
    I meant the rear linkage design and said so, which would be clear if you had quoted my next sentence.

  30. #30
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    Once again, the design of the rear cannot be pro-dive. Only the design of the front can be pro-dive. And all telescopic forks are pro-dive.

    If you don't shift your weight to the rear and you brake hard (using the front brake as well as the rear) you will go over the bars no matter what the rear suspension design. If you brake even harder you will go over the front even with your weight shifted to the rear.
    Again, rear brake floaters designs that project more compression to the front suspension than to the rear suspension increase dive in addition to rider weight shift. The notion of pro-dive from floater brakes is true.

    For downhill specific bikes where the rider hangs their weight low and very far behind the pedals and the fork is really slack helping to slow dive, then pro-dive linkage might be an asset for traction (to help extend the rear suspension faster than the spring can upon bump rebound). However, the best riders don't tune there braking to extend the rear suspension, the top American DH riders Carter and Gracia use monopivots without floaters for their best performance.

    - ray

  31. #31
    ...
    Reputation: CDtofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,316

    Now you are on the right track

    JX,
    Test rides and demos are the way to go. No matter what anyone here says one of the bikes you mentioned will fit/feel better to you if you ride them all. It will just feel right to you when you ride it. The other thing I mentioned was fit, bike sizing is probably one of the most important considerations and one of those three bikes might fit you better than the others if you can throw a leg over them.

    Just something that might help brake a tie between two bikes....

    C-

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jaden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Crash_FLMB
    Although I do agree that the Turner finish is REALLY lacking. They look very cheap but are great bikes.
    Am I missing something? They don't look cheap to me. Or do they look really different in person?

    They look great in this thread

    Anyway, I'm in the same boat too. Pretty much looking for the same thing and am 5'9" @ 165lbs. I'm leaning torward the flux but also have considered the Titus and Intense bikes.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve from JH
    I meant the rear linkage design and said so, which would be clear if you had quoted my next sentence.
    No, that is not what you said, quoting you in full you said "I don't know how you can denigrate the Truth and recommend the Flux when the Flux is basically a Truth built by Turner. Now I won't argue against the notion that a Truth built by Turner might likely be better than one built by Ellsworth, but they have essentially the same linkage design."


    There is far more to a bike than the suspension design. All the factors I quoted have more effect on how a bike feels and handles. The only comminalties between the Truth and Flux is the rear suspension design and both are high end bikes. They handle and ride completely differently. Same goes for the Titus Racer X 100, which also uses a FSR rear but feels much different than either the Truth or Flux.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  34. #34
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by CDMC
    No, that is not what you said, quoting you in full you said "I don't know how you can denigrate the Truth and recommend the Flux when the Flux is basically a Truth built by Turner. Now I won't argue against the notion that a Truth built by Turner might likely be better than one built by Ellsworth, but they have essentially the same linkage design."


    There is far more to a bike than the suspension design. All the factors I quoted have more effect on how a bike feels and handles. The only comminalties between the Truth and Flux is the rear suspension design and both are high end bikes. They handle and ride completely differently. Same goes for the Titus Racer X 100, which also uses a FSR rear but feels much different than either the Truth or Flux.
    I was responding to Derby's comments about the Truth and he was focusing on linkage design, as when he said, "Parallel suspension is fine for coasting, but as soon as you hit the brakes or pedal it is most unstable and inefficient." Derby's statement is untrue. But if it were true it would be equally a criticism of all of the current Turner linkage designs except for the Highline.

    I should point out though that the Truth that the Flux really resembles is the pre-04 design not the current one. The Nitrous actually comes closest to the current Truth.

  35. #35
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764

    Answer for Davide

    Davide asked: "So the question is: How can an Ellsworth ITC ride horribly while the Nitrous/Flux/5-spot don't?"

    The Ellsworth bikes ride pretty good. The Turners I've ridden ride with more stability and corner and brake better than Ellsworth's of the same travel and pedal and climb about the same. The frames of Turners tend to have steeper seat tubes and slacker fork angles, which tend to climb better and handle under harder riding with more stability.

    Telescoping forks are NOT pro-dive! They extend the frame, *lifting* the seat and any rear suspension when front braking, and forks are nearly fully compliant to weight shift with only friction and damping resistance to dive. Obviously forks do not compress themselves.

    Only suspension bikes with IC's behind the bike do not compress the fork mechanically, only weight shift does. Even hardtail rear braking mechanically compresses the fork. Suspensions with IC's or monopivots between the axles compress the rear suspension too and reduce fork dive compared to a hardtail. Rear suspension IC's in front of the bike increase mechanical dive more than a hardtail from rear braking force, due to the extending torque balance effect to the rear suspension.

    - ray

Similar Threads

  1. Truth v. Flux
    By Pinch in forum Turner
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-01-2004, 10:59 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-17-2004, 08:49 PM
  3. My Moment of Truth
    By Zuffen in forum Ellsworth
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 12:12 PM
  4. Racer X vs. Truth
    By myitch in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-07-2004, 07:04 AM
  5. anyone with 04 ellsworth truth and 5th element
    By osokolo in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2004, 05:02 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.