Apart from geometry tweaks, how about suspension linkages that use the shortest possible bolts, which don't get bent. They also took the popular RFX frame, lightened it up a big without decreasing strength, and came out with a new (more versatile) bike. They've also been "tweaking" the horst link all along, it's not some cookie-cutter stamped design, the horst link configuration on different turner bikes is different, so it seems that Turner has been trying to design each suspension system for whatever particular bike it was going to be attached to. There's also features that turner has been doing for a long time, and nothing "better" has come along, like bushings with grease ports, one peice CNCed BB-main pivot-shock mount. Turner may not have invented any of these things, but he has incorperated them into his frame, making them "better" over the years.binary visions said:
Turner goes non-horst...
- Thread starter Sherpa
- Start date
It's interesting, because I've just run searches on MTBR, and I've found more than just a few posts by you on the subject of braking forces. So, do those forces all of a sudden not concern you? I can pull up posts to the contrary if you like.binary visions said:
I didn't mean they haven't done improvements to the frames, what I meant was that they've done nothing particularly revolutionary with their suspension designs, and I fail to see how this switch in their suspension is really any different than the previous designs. You just said that you wanted something "better" instead of the same, and Turner's suspension designs have remained the same for a long time.Jm_ said:
Well, like everyone else, my opinions change and grow with further experience. I used to have a much higher opinion of the FSR design's braking abilities, through somewhat limited experience riding FSRs. Specifically (and this may be one of the posts you're talking about) I took a Brake Therapy equipped Bullit out for a ride at Mt. Snow, and an Iron Horse SGS that same day. I felt that they performed very similarly. Since then, I've been able to ride a other FSR frames, and whether the SGS is different, the rides required more braking, or I was simply more sensitive to it on these subsequent rides, I've found that there's more brake interaction than I had originally felt. It's still less than what I feel on a single pivot, especially the Giant AC that I owned, but it's there.Jm_ said:
Regardless, though, a small difference in braking interaction does not make or break a bike - fit, geometry and build quality are far more important characteristics. No, those braking interactions don't concern me nearly as much as the fit and feel of a bike.
Very true. The majority of people out there fail to realize that even bikes with horst-links do not brake 100% neutral. It's amazing what marketing can do. Braking performance is not a black and white thing as some manufacturers might have you believe.binary visions said:
i'm surprised they pedal as bad as my Stinky and ATX970 did....binary visions said:
but the explanation or reasoning is lame anyways...
A move like that seems dangerous from a marketing perspective. They just multiplied their competitors by a large number.
From a marketing perspective, they've definitely lost one of the factors that differentiates Turner from their competitors.Repack said:
They've just jumped from a semi-exclusive market form one with no exclusivity. They've just added Kona and Trek (and others) to the companies that they are working against. I don't care if there is no difference in ride and frame prices go down, it sure seems like a stupid idea.
Repack said:
Of course it's probly too late, but a dw linked Turner anyone?
It woudl be cool for the same reason as once was. Specialized could say that the designer who can choose anything chose their design and the little guy could advertize that they are using proven technology. VPP put a deffinite dent in it.sbabuser said:Of course it's probly too late, but a dw linked Turner anyone?
I just don't understand why Turner would risk an image that they are moving in the opposite direciton as everyone else. Its liek trying to reinvent the wheel.
Whatever. I cant afford a turner anyway. And they're all fugly.
binary visions said:
Maybe Dave and crew should bring some of these to vegas with them so that they can let people ride the old and new and see what one they like better...
Turners ride a certain way because of the mix of design elements that Dave Turner provides.
the ride is NOT simply becaue of "horst link" and those who are scaring themselves into idiocy at this news should be ashamed of the COMPLETE lack of insight in their perspective.
if the only thing that made Turners what they are is "horst link" then there would be no reason to buy anything other than a Specialized.
okay, armchair engineers, back to discussing the "on paper" HORROR of this bit of nearly non-news.
the ride is NOT simply becaue of "horst link" and those who are scaring themselves into idiocy at this news should be ashamed of the COMPLETE lack of insight in their perspective.
if the only thing that made Turners what they are is "horst link" then there would be no reason to buy anything other than a Specialized.
okay, armchair engineers, back to discussing the "on paper" HORROR of this bit of nearly non-news.
really?Repack said:
name another frame that RIDES LIKE a Turner.
if you name anything but a Knolly V-Tach, I'd say your body awareness and perceptiveness need some work.
Did you not read his post? He said "from a marketing perspective" - which is absolutely true. From a marketing perspective, Turner is now lumped into a big category of non-Horst link four bars.gonzostrike said:
Sure, Turner sells a lot of bikes because they ride well, but you can't deny that marketing is part of why any brand sells well, and they just lost a big bullet point on their brochures.
There was no bashing of Turner, just an accurate comment.
"more profit"? what does that mean?WheelieMan said:
are you implying that the only reason for this move is to widen the gulf between value received and price charged & paid?
have you considered that maybe, just maybe, Dave Turner is tired of paying a license fee to Tony Ellsworth when Tony didn't do anything novel other than to fool the US PTO into thinking he had a "distinguishable" difference from Horst Link, and to Specialized when perhaps it is possible to have NON-Horst Link ride just as well?
funny thinking, that.
The Knolly V-Tach rides with all the benefits of Horst Link or "Instant Center Tracking" but doesn't follow those designs under license. Noel created a new design that is NOT Horst Link but actually performs better.
Seems to me Dave Turner could have reached the same point in design and engineering, and the smart money would bet on this being the case. DAVE TURNER is what makes a Turner frame ride like it does.
whatever you say. okay? whatever you say.binary visions said:
(pathetic, really)
(you miss the more obvious point that Turner isn't marketed as Horst Link Hero. the DHR is not Horst Link. nor is the Rail. nor is the Highline.)
(but armchair engineers will continue to whine over irrelevancies)
You should ride some more bikes.gonzostrike said:
There's no turner I've ever ridden out of an rfx, burner, 5-spot, DHR I've ever DISliked, but there are some made by other companies that I like better.
My body awareness and perceptiveness is teh roxor.........I touch myself and eat loads of LSD to assure this.
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=132498kidwoo said:
"I didn't like the 5-spots I've messed around on because they sit higher at the BB than my enduro"
gonzostrike said:
Gonzo - I think you need to chill out a bit. It is like you are the one man Dave Turner internet forum defense team or something. WTF???
Nobody said that Turner marketed all of their bikes as Horst links. Okay? You're talking about irrelevancies yet your point is completely irrelevant.gonzostrike said:
The masses think that a Horst link gives the bike some kind of magical property that causes it to pedal like gangbusters and brake like it's got a floater. Now that the Turner doesn't have it, there will be people who look at the marketing literature and say, "But this bike is similar and they claim to have this Horst link which is supposed to be better."
This isn't about Turner's bikes, it's purely about consumers who like to see pretty marketing literature and stupid demos like this one which have little basis in reality but make people feel good about their purchasing decisions.
The people who know quality will still pick a Turner. But have no doubt that there will be people who compare a 5 spot and an Enduro and pick the Enduro because Specialized says that their suspension is better.
That was in the context of replacing the enduro I already own(ed). I liked my bike better than the 5spot for that reason only but it's not like I would not be happy riding one. You know that. I even remember suggesting you get one last year. At least quote the rest of the sentence if you're going to nitpick. Jeesh.Acadian said:
Holy crap what a load of BS. My enduro has the most foward axle path of any bike I own......and it rides like it. I looked at the map of the axle path on that linkage program and of all the FSR bikes, specialized has like twice the foward dispacement of the other Horst bikes they demoed.binary visions said:
I'm excited to hear what Scott and Kris say when they get back from IB. For those saying things like "now they're up against Trek in the market place!" . . . remember how they were licensing from Specialized last week? The market is always full of bigger fish. Unless you're Giant.
horst link = the iPod of mtb suspension?
Yeah good point, by licensing FSR technology they were essentially buying competition with a huge company that offers high quality at prices that are tough to match by the smaller guys. At least now they won't have to pay to go head-to-head, and if you ask me there is a bigger gap between the quality of Turner and Trek/Kona than there ever was between Turner and Specialized.James | Go-Ride said:
However, on the boutique side of things, they went from competing with Ellsworth (insert bad customer service story here) and Titus (insert made in Tawain comment here) to Ventanna who has a pretty spotless reputation.
I think that the big problem everyone has with this move is that if it wasn't for patent issues, Turner would not have made it.
I think that the big problem everyone has with this move is that if it wasn't for patent issues, Turner would not have made it.
Not that much more affordable for the upper Specialized bikes...
The irony is that they overhauled the page a while ago. They used to have a demo that showed a perfectly verticle axle path and touted it as such. Now they at least put "near" in there, which is still wrong, but it's betterkidwoo said:
^^^Well personally I don't have a problem with it at all. Turner is entitled to change his mind whether it's based on his evolving design and performance knowledge or something related to patents, licensing, a personal matter, etc. We will probably never know the real reason for the switch but I like to believe that it is just Dave Turning giving one big finger to a behemoth that either wouldn't renew an expiring license agreement or wanted to jack his licensing fee.
I intentionally avoided saying that I thought one design is better than another. I was refering to public opinion. I know that every bike has ride qualities that costomers love. I prefer certain bikes over others. I was mearly trying to point out that a new customer potentially looking to buy a Turner may view the Horst-less design as a step backwards and look to other desogns like VPP or Brain shocks as an alternative.
EDIT: I am ignoring all factors like licensing fees, etc. I am only looking at the change from a marketing perspective.
EDIT: I am ignoring all factors like licensing fees, etc. I am only looking at the change from a marketing perspective.
All this drama cracks me up. The devil in always in the details. A well designed suspension always beats a crappy one, no matter the format. Turner always seems to pay a lot of attention to the details and that is why people love their bikes, not because it was a Horst link.
I hate to say it because I personally don't think the xc bikes they make will suffer performance-wise but when I saw they made the change, I literally said "uh-oh" out loud. Based on all the whining on the mtbr turner forum, it looks like I was right. The propaganda has created it's disciples for sure. Sucks for turner but I'd be lying if I said they didn't help create the problem.
OG......if you have the patience, wade through some of that junk in the tnt? thread. Dave Turner and Casey made it sound like it was more ellsworth than specialized they were trying to get out from under. Norco usa, titus, intense, KHS, azonic etc have all made FSR designs as well but none of them fell into the ICT bs that turner did.
OG......if you have the patience, wade through some of that junk in the tnt? thread. Dave Turner and Casey made it sound like it was more ellsworth than specialized they were trying to get out from under. Norco usa, titus, intense, KHS, azonic etc have all made FSR designs as well but none of them fell into the ICT bs that turner did.
i was curious about this...why is that? and how long has turner been bending over for ellsworth? are there any other bikes which infringe (and therefore have to licence) on both the spec and ellsworth patents?kidwoo said:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=114970narlus said:
thanks luc.Acadian said:
i think we've exceeded the daily limit on mtbr links.
yeah, like the mtbr servers arent already shaky enough as it is....narlus said:thanks luc.
i think we've exceeded the daily limit on mtbr links.
and that link made me nauseous. Thanks alot
I really don't know. I just meant that there are probably reasons beyond what Turner (the company, not the person) is telling the public, reasons that they don't want to (or can't) disclose. Those licensing arrangements can be a trap - once you tout how superior the technology is, you risk losing face when you no longer can or want to use that technology. Unless you make a break you're screwed if the licensor decides they want to jack fees or not renew. If Turner was being pressured one way or another, props to them for not bowing down and instead taking a chance that the faithful will follow.kidwoo said:
That said, it's easy to see why the faithful might be feeling a little bummed or confused. In their minds it was either marketing bunk then, or it's marketing bunk now. Of course, the illusion of "100% truth in all marketing" needs to be shattered for everyone at some point, but still.
It's funny that a year ago they could have used the exact same video demonstration, spun a different way, to illustrate how significant the differences are as a way of justifying the importance of ECT and the FSR/Horst link.
Many great angles have been dellved into during this discussion. Truthfully Turner helped with the design of the horst link. i personally believe he should be able to use it free of charge. Ellsworths patent is a load of c%%p. (all personal opinion)
Now if turner sells the non horst versions for the same price as the old horst link bikes he gets to keep some extra cash in his pocket. (not paying liscensing fees to anyone)
Any company can build a single pivot bike. Only a few companies can do it right. I hope turner is one of those companies.
Now if turner sells the non horst versions for the same price as the old horst link bikes he gets to keep some extra cash in his pocket. (not paying liscensing fees to anyone)
Any company can build a single pivot bike. Only a few companies can do it right. I hope turner is one of those companies.
I am assuming that Turner is the only company infringing upon the ICT patents because the top links on Turners are flat and long like Ellsworths, causing the Instant Center to be further forward than most other Horst-Link designs.narlus said:
"We're pleased to feature the Instant Center Tracking on frames like the Turner Flux, and Nitrous. At Turner Bikes, if something makes a bike work better or last longer, we'll use it."
So a couple months ago Turner believed in the advantages of an Instant Center following the chainline? And now they claim there is no advantage whatsoever?
I understand the decision they had to make though. Even though Ellsworth's ICT technology is flawed (as far as pedaling is concerned), my interpretation is that Turner pretended as if they agreed with it in order to keep the "neutral" braking performance that they desired. (which they now claim is no longer noticeable) Whew...
This talk of marketing having a big influence upon peoples decisions really has me thinking. When people hear the word "horst-link" or "chainstay pivot" they automatically believe the design is the best thing since sliced bread. What they fail to realize is that a chainstay pivot DOES NOT eliminate brake "jack" at all, the location of the upper link is equally important.